I would not support members of the WBC losing their jobs even if they protest (legally) with vulgarities outside of their jobs. They are indeed protected under their religious class. If this former Citi employee can successfully argue before a court that his views are the result of a sincere religious belief then I believe he should get his job back.

Seems a bit weird that I would support the WBC not losing their jobs but not the former Citi employee right? Well, as a mature adult I recognize that there are limits to freedom of association. The limits are imperfect, but are still much better than the alternative of not having them. Even if I want the WBC to lose their jobs I know I shouldn't support that because they have the right to their sincerely held religious beliefs.

Just as how the limits OF freedom of association are imperfect (and force us to tolerate awful people) so too are the limits ON freedom of association imperfect (and will ensnare less than guilty people). We go through a trial every time we meet with or interact with a person. They judge us on our facial expression, the way we carry ourselves, the way we speak, and what we say. You could be the perfect candidate for a job but if they don't like your resting face your application can be thrown out.

Too many people have grown too comfortable venting on the internet expecting there will never be consequences for their posts. So comfortable in fact that if anyone dare say they don't want to work with you or interact with you there are accusations of persecution and analogies of persecutions past (or at least a slippery slope fallacy argument that it is coming).