I&#x27;m familiar to the case. My point was that I don&#x27;t find it particularly analogous to the Eich case. Having no relationship to some people who walk down the street occasionally is substantially different than actually having to be professionally associated with someone and practice tolerance on a regular basis. I&#x27;d also argue that free speech should be protected in both cases (socially if not legally).<p>&gt; If your ideology is motivated by bigotry, that&#x27;s the problem.<p>I agree. I&#x27;m not sure corporate leaders need <i>legal</i> protection. Perhaps. But the right to publicly assemble and speak absolutely needs legal protection. That&#x27;s why I was trying to draw another analogy. To explore the difference between the Eich and Skokie incidents.