A reader writes:
I agree that the gentleman in question has a right to his opinions and a fundamental right to express them. I am no supporter of Bob Ehrlich, but it does seem to me that as the Metro employee is an appointee, and therefore representative of the Governor in a way other non-political employees are not, the Governor was well within his 'rights' to remove his appointee. While Mr Smith is entitled to his opinions and may well express them publicly, as someone who holds office by appointment he should be aware that when he speaks he reflects upon the person who appointed him. Had I appointed him, I, too, would have removed him. Smith is free to express his opinions and practise his religion, but after remarks like that, not as my representative appointee to a state board, were I the governor.
My view is that as long as a public official enforces his public office fairly, his personal views on contentious matters should be protected from official punishment. I'm tired of this intolerant p.c. nonsense. A nuanced perspective can be read here.