Actually, it doesn't. Have you read the First amendment? "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech,..." There is nothing about protecting you from intemperate opinions those with authority over you find objectionable. Should a salesman at ABC Car Dealership be able to go on his social media accounts and say, "ABC Car Dealership is a crappy place to work and, in my opinion, they sell substandard cars which are a ripoff to customers," without fear of consequences from the owner (his employer) of ABC Car Dealership? Anything that employee says that could bring harm to the employer is cause for consequences, up to and including termination. Particularly if the person making the objectionable speech can be linked to the employer being harmed. Stating an opinion which could alienate a good portion of any business's customer/client base, such as those about Charlie Kirk and his death, could cause harm to an employer and he has every right to distance himself for that opinion by firing the offender and making a public plea or apology to his customer base.
It's absolutely a libertarian idea that both the employee and the employer are free to make decisions they believe are in their own best interests....without government interference. Your suggesting the government should be empowered to force the employer to keep an employee he no longer wants employed by his business. This is the fundamental disagreement libertarians have with things like the EEOC, Affirmative Action, DEI, etc... Frankly, It'd be a refreshing change if government would get out of the business of trying to force virtue on private individuals altogether; That way I would know who to not give my business, based on their own personal choices and not those that force their true feeling to be masked by government-enforced edicts.
