I don't think you mean this. If an employee at a minor hockey association is a NAMBLA member and loudly trumpets the benefits of man-boy love, and you have a kid who wants to play hockey, you wouldn't contact the association and say you can't sign your kid up as long as someone who advocates man-boy love is employed there? That would seem cruelly disproportionate? I don't think so. So I expect you're padding the balance sheet in the other direction, when you're thinking of examples, making the original speech not so ugly and not so connected to the employment. There are loads of factors to consider... way too many for absolutes to work. Separate them, sure. But when they come into conflict, who wins?