Except you didn't try to stand up for their inalienable rights to fire people according to their prerogative. You tried to use legal precedent to rationalize the network letting him go on the grounds of discrimination. When you saw how easily that flipped on you, you backpedaled.
According to both you and the law, Holyfield was discriminated against for his views (especially seeing as how Lizzman wasn't reprimanded for her own), and that puts the legal precedent--which you love so dearly--squarely in Holyfield's court.
My own principles wouldn't be violated by Holyfield being fired, but yours would.
Your question didn't make sense to me.
Sure JQ. Suuuuuuurre.
