I did ask you to clarify 'When you say the company was "right", do you mean that as a moral statement independent of what the law says? Or do you actually think that the this was a legal workplace action?' Since the start of your response included "from my understanding of the law", I assumed we were solidly in the legal discussion.

I now understand that your view is that concepts of "right" and "wrong" are independent of the law, and that a company can and should do what is "right" even though it is illegal.

There's some justification for that view, but there are also penalties for those actions, should it come to court. There is also grave danger in that view, because not everyone has the same morality, and the different moralities may be in conflict. When there is a conflict, what happens? How is it resolved? Who decides?

Now that we're talking about morality, your view is that "What this woman did, even if it wasn't legal justification for termination of employment, was not morally correct." You have the right to this opinion. However, what Richards did was legal, and you'll easily see people who support those actions is being morally correct.

Does your moral view supersede her legal rights? No. Absolutely not, under the American system.

Question: What happens with two sets of people have different moralities? What happens when they come into conflict? What happens if the conflict cannot be settled by the two sets of people?

Answer: the law and the courts get involved.

Yes, the law is imperfect. But the system is not so fragile that a few imperfections send the entire system tumbling down, which is what you suppose. The law is not a set of axiomatic principles that must be self-consistent. Judges help resolve those internal conflicts. So do legislatures. And voters.

"People here get fired for looking at there boss incorrectly. I'm not sure my boss's view of reality is even influenced by the EEOC compliance manual."

A boss may fire someone for looking at them incorrectly. Most workplaces place have at-will employment, where an employee may be fired at the whim of the boss. However, as I've stressed, acting on some of those whims are illegal, and a legally defensible reason cannot be used as a pretext for an illegal reason.

I get the point now. You're a student. You're likely not a law student or a philosophy student, nor a student of some other field which requires you to examine your own moral views or help resolve conflicts between different people. That's why you think that your own views of morality take precedence.

But as you make your way in the world, please remember that just because you think something is right doesn't mean that it is right. If you can't explain your position other than "that's the way I believe" then you probably don't understand your own views.

"If the laws told me I had to support bullying and public humiliation, I would not be a law abiding citizen."

Nice strawman argument. The laws nor this situation require that you support bullying or public humiliation. Just like they don't require you to support a company which breaks employment law, though that is likely what you are doing. This is all part of your First Amendment right to free speech.

Since you want to open up can of anti-humiliation worms, then have you considered how you might define public humiliation? For examples culled from the web:

"Hi, I live in a condo and my dog pooped in the lobby. I cleaned it up and threw it in the trash can, and the next morning the HOA manager placed a poster in every floor(21),elevator, hall way and entrances of my fiance and my dog saying these people do not take care of the property and will be fined, telling us to be careful. My fiance feels so embarrassed she can't even walk into the condo and wants to move. What can I do?"

Do you think the HOA manager can be sued for public humiliation? (or that some other social response should take place?)

" went into a store the clerk told me that I was now banned from the store she accused me of stealing the last time I was in the store I then asked her to rewind the camras to prove the truth she said no she saw me she then called the police anyway it was a store full of people and I was completely humiliated I called the head office and soon the truth will come out"

Do you think the clerk or the store should be sued for public humiliation?

"My bf was pulled over after picking me up from work,for no front plate.( the police station is right next door.)The officer ran both our names said he had two warrants and i had one .Arrested him, said bc i had worked next door for 5 yrs he was giving me time to get taken care of.I thanked him and met them at the station to pay.When i come up w enough for the 2 he had they tell there is a 3rd for a lrg amt.so i ask for a list of bondsman.then come back and say its a lower amt.i start crying bc they keep coming and changing everything everytime im ready to pay.then the chief pops around a corner and is yelling that he is going to arrest me. he scared me so bad i lost my control and am now standing in my own urine.i walk out my bf calls and says they told him what i did.feels like allknow"

Can this person sue the police for public humiliation?

I really hope the answer to all of these questions is "yes", otherwise I will feel personally and publicly humiliated. (Or not. ;)

You see how difficult it is to say when something is "public humiliation"? You leave it up to the person being humiliated to define the severity, and the person with the most humiliation wins! Someone who is publicly humiliated by knock-knock jokes (due to an old door injury) can force everyone to stop telling them.

Do you really want that level of mandated civility? Where is the balance between 'public humility' and free speech? In the US, the balance is weighted very much toward free speech. Because that's the law, and because to do much otherwise leads into oppressive madness.