I believe that the Connecticut ACLU may be a bit misguided in their feelings toward a new Connecticut bill that would prevent mandatory attendance for employees
when religion and political views are discussed.
But Roger Vann, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Connecticut, said that although his organization "understands the spirit" of the proposed legislation, he would prefer a different approach. If an employer requires a worker to attend a meeting where the boss speaks against the union, for example, management should be required to provide equal time, he said.
I do understand where the ACLU is coming from, as they are one of the strongest opponents against the limitation of free speech, but I’m not under the impression that this bill would limit anyone’s speech. From the language in this article, it seems that the bill would only disallow companies from holding mandatory meetings where the topic is political or religious in nature. The company may still hold meetings, they would just not be able to force people to attend them. To me, this doesn’t limit anyone’s speech, only their ability to force people to listen.Connecticut Aclu free speech workplace proselytism