To put this into perspective Maria, I've worked a variety of jobs since 1998 (retail, military, retail again, then in an IT office) so for about 20 years now I never found a good excuse to squeeze or pinch a co-worker I barely knew. Most organizations have mandatory sexual harassment training- and this type of touching is not considered acceptable.

@Sean I am paid full-time hours, so it could interfere with my availability. For example, I may be called-in after hours to deal with an emergency after work. Also, if I work for someone else then my loyalty can shift, or I find the other job more important, or find that the other job pays more. In OP's case this is not well-defined: "programming outside of work". I am wondering if OP is digging deeper into what that actually implies outside of programming practice or hobby-related learning.

@tbrookside I think it's actually more common than OP realizes. People who go the extra mile often program outside of work. They are trying to become better programmers. Often employers encourage this so I don't understand his boss' logic either. It would be different if it were in terms of employment, for example- I can't work for money outside my current programming job. But if I program for fun, on my own website- that is programming "outside the job". My employer makes the distinction that 1 is acceptable 1 is not. Does OP make this distinction during the interview? I bet not.

@tbrookside I think we agree on principle. Are you asking me or OP this question? I think an employer can't control what an applicant does prior to coming in for the interview- but it is during the interview that expectations are drawn out and the applicant- once they know the rules- has the chance to comply with the employers expectations. To disqualify due to an applicant's prior history (I have a blog, or I programmed outside of work in the past), I find unreasonable.

I'll agree on principle, yet several posters have already described the opposite situation that his job is in jeopardy by not attending. So you would have to point this out as well in fairness that they too have assumed.