Employees should not be fired from their jobs for making generic blanket statements on social media

In my constructive speech today I'm going to be presenting the psychology behind generic statements. But before doing this I'm going to clash with the ideas brought up by my opponent. First of all, my opponent stated that the understanding of a generic statement depends in ones experience or perspective. This is a big point in my favor. Generic statements can be taken in many different ways by may different people, especially because it is stating a "generalization", like my opponent said, or a fact rather than an opinion. My opponent then moved onto stating that "If anything, many generic statements illustrate the speaker's ignorance rather than proving a fact. However, in many ways ignorance is protected by the 1st amendment. " First of all I'd like to point out that my opponent did not set a clear house at the beginning of the debate, therefore we must consider nations outside of the United-States alone. Second of all, my opponent seemed to be pushing the idea of protection and the innocent intentions of ignorance. Well let me ask you ladies and gentlemen, how does it make a company look when their employees post possibly insulting and poorly reasoned, or "generalized" statements, out of pure ignorance? It looks bad. Now this would be very different if we were debating opinion, but considering we are debating generic statements, ignorance is not an acceptable excuse. If someone is going to present a fact or generalization, they must first make sure it"s true. And finally, talking about the first amendment, I would like to point out that ignorance and freedom of speech are not sufficient grounds on which we can insult peoples. Now I will move into my constructive case. So back to my introductory statement "cardinals are red". Now, when first read this statement may seem true, but we are actually overlooking half of the cardinal population. The female population of cardinals, as my opponent stated, are a pale brown. And despite bits of red on the tail and wings, female cardinals are in general not red. Therefore, the statement "cardinals are red" is overlooking about half of the actual cardinal population. This is some of the basic psychology associated with generic statements. We make generalizations or assumptions based on the information brought to us. Side opposition stated that "However, all controversial generic statements made by individuals on social media do not warrant termination of employment". We are not saying that, we are simply saying that if an employee makes a discriminatory generic statement, the employer can fire them. Having ignorant employees does not make a company look good, and shows the employees lack of commitment and consideration to their employer. Now let's look at this idea on a larger scale. Say the generic statement this time was, "Muslims are terrorists". This statement does not target or threaten a particular person, therefore is acceptable according to my opponent's model. Let me ask you ladies and gentlemen, do you think this is an acceptable thing to say? That statement overlooks the vast majority of the Muslim population, as well as putting them under an extremely negative and racist light. Ladies and gentlemen side proposition might find this acceptable, but here on side opposition we think this is insulting, rude, and proper grounds for firing an employee. Here on side proposition, we don't believe ignorance justifies discrimination, and neither should you. Thank you.