If he were doing that at his job site then he could certainly be fired because there will be certain actions which your work does not tolerate. However, he should not be fired for doing those things outside of work as long as they do not affect the quality of his work and he continues to follow the requirements of his workplace.
People are still free to react to speech in whichever way they want, provided that does not violate the law or infringe on the speaker's liberty. Economic boycotts by a single person would not be banned as you are free to shop wherever you want and can make that choice for whatever reason you want. A large scale boycott campaign could be seen to be harmful to a business although whether a business needs to be protected from harm in the same way as a person does would be a different debate.
However, your idea that free speech has no protection from societal consequences is not fully thought through. If society is free to create consequences as long as its not government doing it then it should be free to ostracise people who think differently. That would make it acceptable to discriminate against those who promote equal rights for gays or atheists or blacks because it's not the government doing it. But we surely all agree that that sort of discrimination is bad even if it's not the government doing it.
"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~
If he were doing that at his job site then he could certainly be fired because there will be certain actions which your work does not tolerate. However, he should not be fired for doing those things outside of work as long as they do not affect the quality of his work and he continues to follow the requirements of his workplace.
People are still free to react to speech in whichever way they want, provided that does not violate the law or infringe on the speaker's liberty. Economic boycotts by a single person would not be banned as you are free to shop wherever you want and can make that choice for whatever reason you want. A large scale boycott campaign could be seen to be harmful to a business although whether a business needs to be protected from harm in the same way as a person does would be a different debate.
However, your idea that free speech has no protection from societal consequences is not fully thought through. If society is free to create consequences as long as its not government doing it then it should be free to ostracise people who think differently. That would make it acceptable to discriminate against those who promote equal rights for gays or atheists or blacks because it's not the government doing it. But we surely all agree that that sort of discrimination is bad even if it's not the government doing it.
"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~