"my employee hand book states that an employee harassment protections includes political views."

I'm sure it does, philosopher . However, like all employee handbooks the application of those protections will be interpreted by (wait for it) someone in Human Resources. Someone who very probably is a.) left-wing b.) biased and (here's the really icky part) c.) knows very well they are answerable only to a like-minded superior who are also a.) and b.).

...meaning, of course, everything is measured with the proverbial rubber-ruler.

This may come as a surprise, no. I've never worked for or had any first-hand bad experiences with HR. For that, I thank George Orwell. Nineteen Eighty Four was (and is) the single best analysis of socialist mindset. Orwell understood how they reason, and that is what makes his book priceless.

Understand how your enemy thinks is the first step in surviving in a hostile environment they control. And they DO control it.

"So, a hypothetical unjust firing for exercising my freedom of expressing a political commentary and exercising freedom of speech? A violation of HR policy? Or is it age discrimination? Or is it religious discrimination?"

To answer your semi-rhetorical question, first they'll reprimand you, providing it's a comparatively minor offense. This serves two purposes. A.), it's a warning. B.), it lays the groundwork for the firing should the warning fail to have the desired effect.

Your hired-gun attorney works within the law and the first thing they're going to do is go over every line in the employment agreement/ contract you signed when you were welcomed aboard during that hectic first day of orientation.

Very likely, there is a sub-sub-sub clause in there somewhere that you agreed to that allows your employer to either fire you without reason (very common legal boiler-plate these days) or that you agree to arbitration of any disputes with an arbitrator of their choice blah-blah-blah... -who is naturally going to side with the employer.

All the documentation in the world isn't going to change what you legally agreed to. You can show, irrefutably, that they're being unfair and biased, and it still won't make any difference to the terms of your contractual agreement with your employer.

"Look either you are willing to stand up to and fight these cultural revolutionary bullies for your civil rights or you give away the farm."

That's a fallacy of a false dilemma. ;-)

As we read in Proverbs 15:1, a soft answer turneth away wrath. There are alternatives to fighting or capitulation.

I've turned gaslighting the Left into an art-form, especially in the workplace.

I don't have to fight the Left since the Left will gladly fight itself when their often bitterly acrimonious sub-groups are brought into direct conflict. Then they're too busy back-stabbing each other to notice whatever I'm doing.

You may want to re-read Nineteen Eighty Four again. The proles were the working class in Oceania. They were entirely under Big Brother's control. They weren't "political" in that they weren't part of the government apparatus nor did they want to be. They were the direct parallel of today's politically disinterested middle/ blue-collar working class.

There -is- some solid truth to the old saying, "if you're not part of the solution, then you're part of the problem."

Btw... baker guy is gettin' sued again and every "win" is more money out of his pocket -exactly as planned..

www.nbcnews.com/…/masterpiece-cak…

"Gaslighting is one way of resisting and taking a stand but at what price? "

For me, the price of gaslighting is comparatively minor. A few sins of malice, several against charity. In nearly every case, much to my endless amusement, lies aren't even needed. The truth is infinitely more effective.

"Wouldn't a dialectic toward getting people to grasp the truth of the nature of a thing is superior to psychological manipulation."

That presupposes leftists are open to reason. As a rule, they aren't. Their ideology is akin to a secular form of religion: it's built on faith and belief.

This is why such people will continue advancing the same policy no matter how many times it's already been shown to fail. They believe it works. They "know" it works, no matter how much evidence shows otherwise. They have faith-based explanations to explain the failures: Every other time it didn't work was because someone "didn't do it right" or it wasn't fully implemented the way they wanted. This time will be different. :P

..and it never is, but that doesn't stop them advancing the same ideology.

The "many young idealistic Marxists" you mention became disillusioned the way all people become disillusioned with a belief. Personal experience and a willingness/ ability to compare what they see happening and what they believe.

Only then are such people receptive to the vast number of thinkers who fill the world with the light of truth. Most, sadly, never reach that point. Or, worse, by the time they do they simply don't care.

If anything, gaslighting the heck out of them is one way to foster that disillusionment in a way so it does come from within.

Anyway, yes, the SCOTUS ruled and now it's going to be another round of court cases and attorney fees to show that the SCOTUS decision applies to this set-up case and the next one and the next one after that.

It's easy to suggest, "Christians should develop financial networks of support." ---and you're right. They should. In the meantime, "should" doesn't pay Baker guy's attorney fees or prevent while a malicious prosecutor actively tries destroying his business.

Like people say, it is what it is. :(