Well, first, we have to decide for each whether the sentence is meant to mean all in that category have that characteristic. I think that's nonsensical, so let's say it's clear she wants white men who are bigoted fired and black people who are lazy fired. So then the difference in the sentences is whether you expect to find many bigoted whites or lazy blacks. Lazy black people probably isn't a real problem at Google, but white bigots are probably easy to find.

Doesn't the inclusion of race in both sentences cause problems?

One of the typical examples of a micro aggression is the unnecessary inclusion of a description "I went to the women doctor today," "That was a very fine dressed black man," "That old cashier was really slow."

In the same way I see the inclusion of race in both sentences promoting discrimination based on race. I would go so far as to say that the inclusion of race in both statements makes the statement racist (in the sense that racism is the discrimination of a person or persons based on their race).

I'll agree it was unwise. But the person literally clarified the point. Look, it makes me uncomfortable too, but I understand it as a style of speaking and that people get carried away and that non-offensive language sometimes feels ineffectual. Eyes on the ball: fire bigots not people who are a little loose with their language.

Okay, so what if the "bigots[0]" are not intolerant just a little loose with their language? How do we differentiate the two?

[0] a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions. source: https://www.google.com/search?q=bigot

Just look for tangible damage vs. mere words being exchanged. If I'm intolerant and have a pattern of keeping black people off my team, then I'm in for consequences.

But that isn't how tech currently operates. If I have a gay coworker on my team, we get along fine, I have never said an ill word or done an ill deed to them I can still get labeled homophobic for speaking in favor of traditional marriage. I can still be disciplined just for words.

Bigot is now used to mean a generalized term for "someone who stereotypes or discriminates against others"

Right. Make an ill advised flame comment, get a warning. How is that disproportionate response?

Conservatives want political correctness to die but not if you are referring to white supremacists.

How about saying "fire all the bigots" and trust the audience to fill in the blanks (that this would have a disparate impact that counteracts underrepresentation)?