I have no problem with the idea that certain forms of speech should end your career.  If someone starts yelling slurs at people, they shouldn&#x27;t have a job that involves interacting with people anymore.  That doesn&#x27;t infringe upon their free speech rights; they can say anything they like, <i>and others can respond accordingly</i>, which includes firing them or choosing not to hire them.<p>The question then becomes where to draw the line: <i>what</i> speech deserves that level of response?  And that seems like a topic people can vigorously disagree about.<p>In particular, any conflict of fundamental values generates heated debate.  It&#x27;s &quot;easy&quot; to evaluate a conflict between a fundamental value and something that isn&#x27;t: the fundamental value tends to win.  That&#x27;s part of why people rarely change their minds about fundamental values; not necessarily a feature.  But when a conflict arises between two fundamental values (say, &quot;free speech&quot; and &quot;non-discrimination&quot;) that many people hold simultaneously, people have to actually think to resolve the issue.  You&#x27;ll get some people taking sides (such as declaring &quot;free speech&quot; absolute and telling people to grow a thicker skin), but you&#x27;ll also get people learning to define their values more precisely (e.g. your right to speak doesn&#x27;t require others to listen without reaction, or to give you a platform from which to speak).