But what someone does outside of work and not involving coworkers is, by definition, not a part of the workplace environment.
Treating everything about a person as within scope for personal concern is one of the things that really strongly turns people against each other. It shouldn't matter what someone believes or does on their own time, whether it's a right-leaning company with a gay employee, or a left-leaning company with a right-leaning employee.
That's not reasonable, and I don't think anyone truly believes that. For instance, if a black guy's boss talks about attending a Ku Klux Klan meeting, you can't honestly argue that said boss leaves that all at home when they meet at work in the morning.
Wherever you are on the political spectrum, I'm sure you can imagine someone engaging in some form out outside-work activities that would make you feel personally unsafe at work. If that person got fired, not for their beliefs but for their actions, then, well, that's the consequence of making a hostile workplace.
you can't honestly argue that said boss leaves that all at home when they meet at work in the morning
If they never mention their non-work life at work, and work is going fine, then isn't that pretty clear evidence that they are leaving it (whatever "it" is) all at home?
consequence of making a hostile workplace.
It's pretty easy to argue, and yes argue honestly, that any hostility here is introduced by the person who brings up something from someone else's non-work life while at work, when previously the two were separate. That's actual harassment.
Someone having an opinion we don't like but that they never bring up at work, is clearly not workplace hostility or harassment on their part.
> If they never mention their non-work life at work, and work is going fine, then isn't that pretty clear evidence that they are leaving it (whatever "it" is) all at home?
No, because it calls all of their decision making into question. Why did they give a promotion to the white guy instead of the black guy? Was the white guy truly the better candidate, and the fact that they were at a Klan meeting had nothing to do with it? Could be, but I know what the black guy's labor attorney would be presenting as evidence to the jury.
> It's pretty easy to argue, and yes argue honestly, that any hostility here is introduced by the person who brings up something from someone else's non-work life while at work, when previously the two were separate. That's actual harassment.
That's actually messed up. "I'm offended that you're angry that I attend Klan rallies. You're harassing me!"
That simply isn't how the world works, nor should it be.
> Someone having an opinion we don't like but that they never bring up at work, is clearly not workplace hostility or harassment on their part.
That doesn't fly in a courtroom; again, nor should it. Some opinions are a matter of two people seeing the world through different eyes, and that richness of experience is wonderful and fertile soil for learning. And some opinions are a toxic mess that bring real harm to the people around the ones holding them.
That's actually messed up. "I'm offended that you're angry that I attend Klan rallies. You're harassing me!"
Here are some equivalent ways this can go just to emphasize how important it is to keep work and not-work separate:
"Oh, you let your daughter/wife/girlfriend have an abortion? I simply can't trust your judgment, you are creating an unsafe space at work."
"Oh, you have an unwed live-in partner? You are a danger to society and cannot be allowed to work here."
"Oh, you uploaded pics of yourself at a gay club. Sorry, that kind of depravity has no place at a Christian company."
"I see you Liked BLM, and not the outdoorsy wilderness BLM. You must be a criminal rioter, we can't let you work here."
"Your 100% legal and ecologically necessary for herd management deer hunting activities make me feel unsafe because I don't like guns or bows. Anyone who bow hunts or owns a gun cannot be trusted. You need to be reported to HR and fired."
----
some opinions are a toxic mess that bring real harm to the people around the ones holding them.
Problem is you'll never get universal agreement on what constitutes an irredemably toxic opinion. You really have to prove this with actions. If someone is behaving badly at work, then they should be reprimanded or removed as appropriate. If they have been convicted of a crime relevant to their work, then they should be watched very carefully if not removed. But harassing or firing or unpersoning someone for thoughtcrime/precrime is antithetical to the principles of a free society.
> "Oh, you have an unwed live-in partner? You are a danger to society and cannot be allowed to work here."
The employee's action doesn't create a hostile work environment.
> "Oh, you uploaded pics of yourself at a gay club. Sorry, that kind of depravity has no place at a Christian company."
The employee's action doesn't create a hostile work environment. The employer's reaction did, though.
> "I see you Liked BLM, and not the outdoorsy wilderness BLM. You must be a criminal rioter, we can't let you work here."
The employee's action doesn't create a hostile work environment. If a video of the employee showing them throwing molotov cocktails at police or storming the US Capitol goes viral, you could reasonably argue that their actions reflect poorly on you, their employer, but you can't discriminate against them for having a positive opinion of BLM.
As soon as I know a coworker is running about carrying a swastika flag, I can never feel safe around that coworker again.