Errm. The Constitution applies to the federal gevernment, as do all amendments. A private employer isn’t touched by them.
Your right to free speech doesn’t mean I have to let you jabber on when you are on my property. It does mean that there can be no federal laws that prevent you from jabbering in public.
Same with the employer. All he has to do is to make sure that he obeys all laws (federal, state, and local.) If he’s not breaking a law by tossing a no good KKK member out of a job, then he doesn’t have to worry about the first amendment to the US constitution.
The employer would, of course, have to make certain not to break any anti-discrimination laws in the process.
I don’t know of any state in which it is illegal to be gay or lesbian. In 12 states, it is illegal to commit sodomy, but catching someone in the act is required.
I’d lose my job. It’s not a crime, it’s a departmental regulation.
It’s allowable as long as it’s a clearly stated precondition at the time you’re hired. If I take the job under those circumstances, I’m agreeing to be bound by their regulations.
Except that, as I mentioned, I don’t work for a private employer. I am directly employed by New York state which is bound by the same constitutional constraints as the federal government.
But you are correct that private employers have much more latitude in banning free speech. I heard of one case in which an employer was a big fan of a football team and “encouraged” his employees to wear the team colors when that team was playing in the Superbowl. One of his employees however was a fan of the opposing team and insisted on wearing the other team’s colors. When he insisted on his right to wear the fan shirt of his choice he was fired.
Government-as-employer is one of the trickier areas of First Amendment law. Although the state undoubtedly has the right to fire its employees for speech outside the workplace in some circumstances, there is no bright-line rule about when it’s permissible and when it is not. Instead, the Supreme Court has adopted a squishy balancing test that makes it essentially impossible to predict how this case would be resolved. Fortunately, they’ll probably never have to deal with it in this instance, thanks to the gun charges.
Consider this. Police officers and other “public servants” in many areas can be dismissed for “conduct unbecoming” (known by many other terms, as well). Basically, if you do something that causes the public to lose trust in the public institution, you can be dismissed. I saw, just yesterday, a story of several sheriff’s deputies who were dismissed due to their appearing on a porn site w/ the cruisers and such in the background. I’d suspect that this guy’s contract with the school system would likely have a clause saying that he can be dismissed for bringing negative attention to the school.