> Isn't this how every Inquisition is justified?

A private company firing someone over their views is a long, long way from an Inquisition. Your right to say and believe things is not a right for continued employment. The same libertarian argument that you seem to be making has been made the other way many times -- that companies should never be compelled to retain an employee for any reason.

You misread my post. I was criticizing the ridiculous rationalization: "his views aren't just wing, they're toxic". The punch line is that this line of reasoning is indistinguishable from a witch-hunt. "I don't like views that I don't like and those who expose them shouldn't be tolerated!"

You may want to research the early days of McCarthyism and the blacklist.

Is this the first firing that was perhaps an overly sensitive reaction concerned with appeasing a very touchy ideological base? Because I can think of a number of other people railroaded out of a job because of online "outrage."

We aren't all that far from an Inquisition (not prongs and tongs type Inquisition, but a "your job depends on agreement" type Inquisition). The most significant thing missing from the equation is that the most vocal social justice voices lack political influence and power. If you see this movement organize politically and get candidates in office, any student of history should recognize that things will get worse for open expression of ideas before things get better.