You are right about this classification, but in my opinion freedom of association does need to be limited. Freedom of association is a right that people should

You are right about this classification, but in my opinion freedom of association does need to be limited. Freedom of association is a right that people should have in their private life, but it is definitely not a right that government or government-funded public institutions (e.g. education) should have. Similarly the types of 'association' which are essential for basic life - namely, housing, employment and finance - already have various anti-discrimination laws that effectively assert that everyone should have equal access to these things and freedom of association is not an excuse to exclude people from these core needs. In essence, what I'm saying is that a card-carrying member of some radical movement (whichever movement you or I hate the most) perhaps should be shunned by people in all kinds of social activities because of their beliefs, but IMHO as long as they aren't breaking the law, they still should have the right to be a part of the society and receive core services which require interaction with it, namely, public services, education, jobs, housing, etc. We have drawn a line in sand upon crossing which people are excluded from society, and that line is criminal law if determined in due process. And before crossing that line people should have the right to not be discriminated in employment. If most of your coworkers hate you because you come from the "opposing outgroup" where there's mutual hate and perhaps a history of violence between your "tribes" - too bad for them, both you and them should still have the right to work there.