The threat of losing a job is one of the most powerful coercion mechanism in modern western society. For vast majority of people, it's not far from threatening a person and their family with bodily harm. If you allow for that, then people won't really be free to choose their political beliefs.
(Firings for politicking at work instead of actually working are another thing, though.)
> political beliefs are chosen and based on ideology.
By both sides. Why should it be allowed to fire people based on ideology?
If someone is stuck in a single job and unable to get employed anywhere else, that's an entirely separate societal problem.
> "By both sides."
I said as much in my original post.
> "Why should it be allowed to fire people based on ideology?"
Because the relationship between employer-employee should always be voluntary and never compelled. If it's known that I want to expel all white (or black, fill in the blank) people from the country, and this is an incompatible view with the company, they should not be forced to continue the relationship. If I want to abolish the Constitution and force everyone to worship me by law, the employer should not be forced to continue this relationship. These are merely examples.
In reality if you're firing people for all but the most extreme political beliefs, you'll likely damage your business either directly or indirectly through public perception.
> political beliefs are chosen and based on ideology
Aren't religious beliefs pretty darn similar to political ones, based on that?
Your comment makes sense if it is McDonalds or Nike or Wallmart. Their CEO's aren't being asked everyday by every govt on the planet what they are doing about disagreeable info.