FWIW, you bring up a good point about abortion. I'm thinking about whether my position is consistent with my belief that you shouldn't lose your job over your position on abortion.
Two partial thoughts that I'd welcome criticism on:
1. Indiana's Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which Pence signed and championed, gives a loud "yes" to your question. I do worry about the fact that when the left says "Racism is so wrong that it puts you beyond the bounds of civilized society," the association of the left with liberalism and permissiveness means that there's a hesitancy to follow through with that claim, whereas the right has no hesitancy in following through with the claim "Gay marriage is so wrong that it puts you beyond the bounds of civilized society." In aggregate, the left's moral voice is quieter and muddier.
2. There's a well-documented phenomenon where anti-abortion people think of themselves as exceptions, get an abortion, and continue to be anti-abortion. I don't understand it, but it separates getting an abortion from supporting abortion rights. I strongly believe that getting an abortion should not cause you to lose your job. I don't think I believe as strongly that about being vocally pro-choice. I think Matt Maloney was clear enough that this is about a particular belief, not about how you voted.
It's definitely not an easy thing. Freedom of speech doesn't mean a freedom from consequence.
Your two points, the first seems like a fair comparison to me. There is a line in most people's minds between policy they disagree with and things that are morally wrong. Those lines are not in the same places, so it is hard to say what is 'reasonable' to stand up for in such a way.
As to your second point, I think it's a little dangerous to suggest that allowing the act is primary to allowing the speech. The latter may be necessary to ensuring the former - if you can't make a living while being pro-choice, a chilling effect will be applied, and the law eventually changed. In general, if your view is kept to yourself at work, doesn't affect your work, and you don't act on it or encourage people to, it's probably best to protect expressing it.
For me here, it comes down to what is effective. My understanding of the mindset of Trump voters is that they are scared, they have been sold this lie that rights for others come at their expense. Firing Trump supporters isn't going to change that.
That's a fair point about speech being necessary to ensure acts.
I think that in this case the behavior being condemned was quite clearly intended to be behavior that affected your work (since the work of GrubHub involves being welcoming and supportive of all sorts of people who may be employees or customers). Whether that was the received message is definitely a different thing.
Two partial thoughts that I'd welcome criticism on:
1. Indiana's Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which Pence signed and championed, gives a loud "yes" to your question. I do worry about the fact that when the left says "Racism is so wrong that it puts you beyond the bounds of civilized society," the association of the left with liberalism and permissiveness means that there's a hesitancy to follow through with that claim, whereas the right has no hesitancy in following through with the claim "Gay marriage is so wrong that it puts you beyond the bounds of civilized society." In aggregate, the left's moral voice is quieter and muddier.
2. There's a well-documented phenomenon where anti-abortion people think of themselves as exceptions, get an abortion, and continue to be anti-abortion. I don't understand it, but it separates getting an abortion from supporting abortion rights. I strongly believe that getting an abortion should not cause you to lose your job. I don't think I believe as strongly that about being vocally pro-choice. I think Matt Maloney was clear enough that this is about a particular belief, not about how you voted.