Earlier quoted context omitted.
> There is nothing to suggest the man acted improperly at work. We've had this discussion already, but claiming sexist views is going to be a problem for you whether you do it at work or elsewhere because of how laws around hostile work environments and notice work. Particularly, if you go on to actually create a hostile work environment (as one might reasonably suppose you will, having publicly espoused the relevant…
> You'd need to convince workers to not believe that someone who says sexist stuff in a book is going to cause a problem for them. No. A million times no. If and when an employee creates a hostile work environment, then the employer may address it by disciplining or firing that employee. Nobody, absolutely nobody, is under any obligation to preemptively address things someone imagines might happen based on their misi…
I don't believe this at all, and more importantly, the way you've phrased your second paragraph, I don't think you really believe it all, either.
That is, your first paragraph appears to be arguing that it's only OK to fire an employee for "hostile work environment" if that employee does something hostile at work, and never OK to fire based on stuff an employee has written before being hired.
But your second paragraph actually shows you think the offense really wasn't that bad, that you think it was a "misinterpretation" taken "out of context".
But what if the employee had been in the KKK, and had argued for white supremacy, and that other races were lazy and poor workers? Would you still think an employer would be out of bounds for firing that employee?
My point is that I think it's perfectly fine to fire someone for egregious behavior or writings before they were hired. It's certainly worth debating whether Chaos Monkey rises to the level of egregious - I haven't read the book so I don't have an opinion. But I think some kind of blanket statement that "what you've written before being hired shouldn't matter" is pretty ludicrous.