> The piece preempts the objection of employers protecting employees from hateful conduct (without taking a stab at how exactly one should balance those interes

> The piece preempts the objection of employers protecting employees from hateful conduct (without taking a stab at how exactly one should balance those interests,) which makes me think that these terminated employees are at least a portion of what the author is discussing. I assumed their thinking was that if the electrician was really doing the gesture they were fired for, the law would allow the firing. But the law would provide a recourse where the electrician could sue for their job back if it turned out the mob (and firing manager) were mistaken or didn't have sufficient proof. I doubt such a law really would provide much cover for right wing people to bring them to the table, given the left has been redefining "hate" continually to cover more and more of the right half of the spectrum.