Interesting. I guess that law would have protected both Brenden Eich and Donald Sterling, if they had been fired during their respective controversies.
To anyone assuming that I'm opposed to such a law: you're wrong. I've written in favor of such laws in the past, and think they should be strengthened even further. Assuming of course that they are used to protect all political opinions, both left wing and right.
No employer shall coerce or influence or attempt
to coerce or influence his employees through or
by means of threat of discharge or loss of
employment to adopt or follow or refrain from
adopting or following any particular course or
line of political action or political activity.
This is good information for people to reflect on this discussion. There is a lot of speculation in this thread and it's what is ultimately leading to the divisive arguing.
However, I don't think Google did what you have pasted here. As far as I can tell, they fired him for violating code of conduct, which maintains that employees do not publicize discriminating memos, which he did.
The sword cuts both ways. How would you feel if a company with ties to churches started discriminating/firing liberals who are pro-abortion because they are "murder advocates"?
Is that really illegal? If someone was not hired on account of his being a White supremacist, would he have any basis for a lawsuit?