It IS a guarantee that you can say pretty much what ever you want, when ever your want, and largely where ever you want free from fear of being dragged off to some North Korean-style goverment re-education camp. 

It IS NOT a guarantee of current or future employment.  And yes, I am growing weay of having to explain this over and over and over again.

It appears that in light of that redneck, backwater, hillbilly, "Duck Dynasty" guy's comments about homosexuality to GQ Magazine, I'm not the only one tired of having to restate what the Constitution does and doesn't say.  Slate is tired of it.  Time Magazine of tired of it.  I'd link you to the article that "The Superficial" wrote, but it's full of swears.  Here's a bit of what they said:

"I can’t count how many times I’ve explained this, but I’m going to keep doing it. Was Phil Robertson put in jail or fined by the government? Then his freedom of speech is fully intact. That said, should A&E actually be suspending him for his comments that in no way shape, or form should've surprised them? It's in his contract that they can."

What's being lost in the din and manifestation of Christian persecution complex, is who gets this wrong over and over agian.  People who should know better.  People who've been elected to high office, who swear to "preserve, protect, and defend the Conststituon of the United States."  Except half-term Alaska governor and punch line emeritus Sarah Pailn.  I don't expect much from her--yesterday, today, or tomorrow.