But you'd think if we really value free speech in this country, and not just the First Amendment, we wouldn't be so quick to want to suppress the speech of others.

Freedom of speech is the freedom to announce to the world that you are an idiot.

It is NOT the freedom to force others not to listen to or act on what you say. I cannot for the life of me figure out why so many people misunderstand this.

Actions have consequences, and this includes speech. It is not the job of any American to support thouse who espouse beliefs they find repugnant, just because they have the freedom to speak up about those same beliefs.

It's not about suppressing - she spoke freely, and inadvisedly.

The consequences of this were a man losing his job and a big backlash.

This made it difficult for her to do her job effectively, lowering her value to her company to zero (and probably a large negative).

I don't see that SendGrid was acting to suppress her free speech. Instead, they were writing down an asset that had declined radically in value.

A business has a right to communicate freely as well, for example to make a strong statement by firing an employee.

Getting involved between private parties is generally not productive in the long run, as it necessarily provides the government more control over speech. Private business may abuse civil rights from time to time, but the government has far more potential (and historic precedence) for abuse.

Yes, I understand that. It was a blanket statement about freedom of speech, not necessarily a direct correlation between the situation and freedom of speech.