This puts the employer in a really bad and unfair spot. First of all, it's really not reasonable or justified for an angry mob to demand that a company police and punish their employees' off-duty conduct that we decide we don't like, that isn't PC, etc. That's such an arbitrary thing and a slippery slope to go down, and if she wasn't representing her employer at the time, then they really don't have any ownership or responsibility for her comments anyway.

Furthermore, the employer potentially broke the law by firing her over this. Colorado may be an at-will employment state, but CRS 24-34-402.5 protects employees from being fired over legal off-duty conduct. This is not a clear cut case of that, but it's close enough that a lawyer could easily try a lawsuit and hope for a settlement, so now they've exposed themselves to that just by trying to appease an angry mob.

It's easy for us to despise her for what she said and feel no sympathy, but that law is an important protection for lots of good people too, as is the freedom of speech (which includes the freedom to be wrong or unpopular). Let's not advocate throwing away our rights over one idiot who said some dumb things in a moment of frustration.

24-34-402.5. Unlawful prohibition of legal activities as a condition of employment

(1) It shall be a discriminatory or unfair employment practice for an employer to terminate the employment of any employee due to that employee's engaging in any lawful activity off the premises of the employer during nonworking hours unless such a restriction:

(a) Relates to a bona fide occupational requirement or is reasonably and rationally related to the employment activities and responsibilities of a particular employee or a particular group of employees, rather than to all employees of the employer; or

(b) Is necessary to avoid a conflict of interest with any responsibilities to the employer or the appearance of such a conflict of interest.

(2) (a) Notwithstanding any other provisions of this article, the sole remedy for any person claiming to be aggrieved by a discriminatory or unfair employment practice as defined in this section shall be as follows: He or she may bring a civil action for damages in any district court of competent jurisdiction and may sue for all wages and benefits that would have been due him or her up to and including the date of the judgment had the discriminatory or unfair employment practice not occurred; except that nothing in this section shall be construed to relieve the person from the obligation to mitigate his or her damages.

(b) (I) If the prevailing party in the civil action is the plaintiff, the court shall award the plaintiff court costs and a reasonable attorney fee.

(II) This paragraph (b) shall not apply to an employee of a business that has or had fifteen or fewer employees during each of twenty or more calendar work weeks in the current or preceding calendar year.