It's a really easy litmus test: if to do something you are compelled to associate or disassociate with some people but not others, it's a violation of freedom o

It's a really easy litmus test: if to do something you are compelled to associate or disassociate with some people but not others, it's a violation of freedom of association. If you can or can't do something no matter who you do it with, it's not a violation of freedom of association. I suspect there may be some confusion due to how we use language, but it should be noted that the freedom of association is a right that people have to join or to leave groups. Organizations, including companies, are not people and thus don't have this same right, at least not to the same extent, even though the individuals within the organization do. > A contract that requires the employee to be black Technically races aren't groups that can be freely associated or disassociated with, so not a freedom of association violation, but obviously still discrimination and thus an invalid contract to enter into. If you broadened it to be a contract that required employees to be members of some traditionally black group, then it would be a violation of freedom of association. > A contract requiring the employee to hold some certification So long as anyone is free to get the certification without being compelled to associate or disassociate with anyone, this is fine as it does not restrict who can join and leave groups. If your association is a condition of getting the certificate, it's an obvious violation. > A contract requiring the employee to hold membership in a professional organization Restricts a person's right to voluntarily join or to leave a group, obvious violation. > A contract requiring the employee to hold membership in a union The same situation as the professional group. > A contract requiring a salary of $2.00 an hour So long as you can't pay anyone a salary of $2.00 an hour, has no affect on who people can or can't associate with, there is obviously no violation of freedom of association, regardless of whether people falsely claim it is. If, on the other hand, people from one group can be paid $2.00 an hour but people from another group are restricted from being able to enter that same agreement, then it's an obvious violation. Now here's an example for you: Should an employer be permitted to require an employee to register as a member of the employer's chosen political party and contribute some financial minimum to that political party as a condition of employment? How about political group technically unaffiliated with any political party but nevertheless with a distinct ideology? How about a religious group instead of a political one? If your reaction is "employers should not be allowed to compel me to become a member of and pay money to these organizations as a condition of employment" then we're on the same page.