We know some security officers accept the disrespect directed at them, and may disagree with our legal challenges against this company, but ironically it is people like them who get the most disrespect from egotistical executives who look at them as animals worthy only of generating profits. The minority of officers who have opposed us from the beginning only reinforce the negative stereotypes of being uneducated and/or unintelligent, whereas we affirm that security officers deserve the rights everyone else in society takes for granted. Sure, you can argue that it's best to just move on, but if everyone had that attitude, there would never be any laws whatsoever to protect workers. You could even use the same arguments against the Founding Fathers who fought against incredible odds for independence from the British Empire, and in that case there were actually many self-serving supporters of the British crown. At some point people have to act on principle even if more pragmatic-minded people disagree -- and at the end of the day, it is not the pragmatists who make history or challenge social norms anyway, making life better for future generations.
As far as arguments that this entire First Amendment exercise is self-serving: just try that against us again. We anticipate another embarrassing loss with such feeble excuses for corporate misconduct. Try the self-serving argument again. We could use more laughs. This is like a slow running back continually getting hammered by a 300 lb. defensive tackle for losses and refusing to practice to improve his sprinting speed or agility, or maneuvers.