We’ve done an initial profile on Vivek Ramaswamy after the 37-year-old entrepreneur launched his bid for the GOP presidential nomination. He’s obviously got great thoughts about battling the woke ideology infecting the Left, and he’s zealous about defending free speech. But political analyst David Harsanyi warns about one particular idea Ramaswamy put forward.

His most unique proposal, one that will probably sound enticing to many people, is a terrible one — and one that would expand state interference in speech and end up boomeranging on those it claims to protect:

Viewpoint censorship extends beyond the internet and pervades our economy. If you can’t fire someone for being black, gay or Muslim, you shouldn’t be able to fire someone for his political speech. I will work with Congress to enshrine political expression as an American civil right, and I will enforce existing civil-rights laws to protect workers from invidious viewpoint discrimination. The federal prohibition on religious discrimination forbids employers from forcing employees to bow down to any religion, including secular ones as defined by the Supreme Court in U.S. v. Seeger (1965) and Torcaso v. Watkins (1961).

There’s a significant moral and legal difference between firing a person over an immutable characteristic, such as his skin color, and a political opinion. Ramaswamy’s idea, as far as I can tell, would not only make it illegal for Disney to fire a social conservative but for a Jewish restaurant to sever its relationship with a neo-Nazi, or a Catholic adoption agency to fire an employee who believes ninth-month abortions are “health care” and the nuclear family should be destroyed. Hedge funds would be compelled to keep a Trotskyite who believes profits are evil on the payroll and Wal-Mart would have to wait for the worker who spends his days trying to put big box chains out of business to leave of his volition.

Corporations would be barred from firing executives who embarrass the company when publicly converting to Pastafarianism, even if stockholders lose millions. It is far more likely that such a law would only further politicize the marketplace as employers will be more interested in digging into the ideological dispositions of prospective employees.

Why should any business owner be forced to hire a person who holds views they find ethically abhorrent? Political expression is already protected by the First Amendment. What Ramaswamy proposes is transforming the negative liberty of free speech into a positive “right,” which is to say, a “right” that compels others to accept, endorse, and sometimes fund political viewpoints they disagree with.

Obviously, much of this debate goes back to social media censorship, which Harsanyi agrees is odious. But Ramaswamy is taking this to another level that, again, presents problems. It’s too similar to the rationale, for example, of the persecution of Jack Phillips in Colorado. And there’s “the inevitable mission creep,” Harsanyi says. What begins seemingly small will ultimately become very big.

We should be untethering the relationship between the state and business, not coming up with new ways to fuse them.

Harsanyi concludes:

Undoubtedly, embracing free expression as an ideal, not just as law, is a prerequisite to having a healthy, free society. A great many Americans are no longer interested in living peacefully with those they disagree with. It’s a serious problem, even though the vast majority of Americans still get along far better than our politics might suggest. And it is also true, as Ramaswamy notes, that federal prohibitions on religious discrimination forbid employers from forcing employees to bow down to any religion. But forcing people not to bow down to their religion is no better.

Read the whole thing here.