Although I am a TSA employee and fully support the use of the AIT and enhanced security measures, I do applaud Mr. Roberts. He stood up for what he believes in at much personal cost to himself. It takes much courage to risk one's employment over a moral issue. You don't have to share his philosophical beliefs in order to admire his willingness to suffer the consequences for following a path he believes is right.
I think that this case may provide a good test case for the use of the AIT. I don't know if the judicial system is the best route to fight the AIT. But many of you believe that the program is an unconstitutional intrusion on individual rights. The courts are the ultimate decider of constitutionality, so this may be the way to test that theory. Mr. Roberts has standing because he was denied entry into his workplace because of his refusal to submit to a pat down. The court would be in the position of either allowing TSA to continue the AIT/enhanced pat down program or to rule it unconstitutional.
I would enjoy following the arguments and the decision rendered by the courts. This case is complicated and I don't think it is as much of a slam dunk as many here probably do. And the courts may rule on a tangent. But that is the risk with the judicial route.
One suggestion is to get a good lawyer immediately. He will probably advise you to stop writing and talking about the case. You may be fired for being AWOL from work which you would be able to tie directly to TSA. However if I were the airline I would fire you for authoring another post in this thread encouraging people not to fly to protest the AIT. Although you certainly have freedom of speech, I think that your employer certainly has a reasonable expectation that you will not advocate a boycott of it's product.
Castro