Good. What a student says outside of school ought to be none of the school's business. Likewise, what an adult says outside the workplace ought to be none of their employer's business unless they have explicitly identified themselves as their employer's representative.
Do you want to carve out employers and schools as special exceptions because otherwise this seems like breaks the freedom of (non)-association in general. This specific case only works because it’s a public high school.
Because how could it be legal for me as a customer or employee to choose not to visit or work for a business or terminate a contract or my own employment because I don’t like that they’re anti-suffragists but then the other party be prohibited from doing the same thing?
In the case of work the employer is the buyer and for schools they’re the seller so it isn’t that. How do you not accidentally outlaw boycotts?
An employer is not a buyer. They are an employer. The direction of money transfer is similar but the law doesn't categorize entities strictly by direction of money transfer.
Okay and an employee is not a seller but I still have the right to quit because the owner is a racist outside of work. So sure, you’re right but it doesn’t really affect the argument.
I called out schools and employers because of the inherent power imbalance. Students are compelled by law to go to school. Workers are generally compelled by necessity to work for somebody; you aren't free when the invisible hand of the market has a knife to your throat.
What you as a customer or an employee do is your own business, but I do not regard employers as customers for rented labor.
