> There’s nothing wrong with a society where people feel uncomfortable saying that they think their peers don’t deserve equal rights.

It's possible that the reason he donated was because he disagreed with the particular wording of the proposition as written, not that he thinks his peers don't deserve equal rights.

And for the tiny donation, he lost his job. He's unfit for employment in tech, it seems, unless he's the owner of the company. That is a chilling effect. Suddenly people who aren't perfectly in alignment with, again, the loudest voices, have to choose their every word (and donation) perfectly or risk losing their livelihood.

Consider that there are fiscal conservatives who think that we don't get nearly enough value from our tax dollars, so we should reduce taxes. Can they donate to conservative causes without losing their jobs?

Can you imagine the insanity if voting records got leaked?

Really, what language in prop 8 might he have disagreed with?

Being a CEO of a large organization is not a human right. Part of the job is being the public face of the organization, and that means that, if you’re a CEO, you can lose your job if you say or do something stupid in your personal life. Everyone knows that when they sign up.

Brendan knew the stakes, messed up, and now has to face the punishment. Which is being the CEO of a slightly smaller organization.

I can't put words in his mouth. I recall at the time wishing that, while they were "redefining marriage", they could go ahead and formalize a separation between civil unions and marriage in the church, because I was concerned about the state of California telling priests that they needed to perform weddings for whoever asked them to be married, or else face fines / jail time.

Nobody said being a CEO was a 'right'. You're correct that part of being a CEO is being the public face of the company, and I agree with you that it's reasonable for the members to not want to be represented by somebody who is repulsive to them. Maybe something like an actual vote of confidence or vote of self-similarity is not out of the question.

But, we don't vote for this kind of thing, rather, people get run out town by a (sometimes literal) mob in the court of public opinion by, again, the loudest voices. And, because blood is in the air, they don't get support (quiet or loud) from all the people at the company who either agree with them or who just don't want mob rule to exist (because even though they're not socialists, or trade unionists, or Jews, they see that the wheel of "social justice" will eventually turn on them, too).

> if you say or do something stupid in your personal life

Easy with the name calling. I'm here taking the opposite position and you jump to the word 'stupid'. No need to get personal.

Okay, maybe you didn't mean "stupid" like "no right-minded person would have that opinion" instead of "it would be stupid, given the current political climate, to say this publicly"... but I think then you would be agreeing with me, so you probably meant the first sense.

How is same sex marriage redefining marriage when it was already legal prior to prop 8?

Again, where is your example of someone getting run out of town by a literal mob? This guy is still incredibly wealthy.

You keep trying to pull prop 8 back into the conversation. This isn't a discussion on gay marriage.

While I agree that a CEO should be aware of their public image I think it's a sad commentary on the state of our society that public attacks and shaming have become the vehicle of protest now. This happens frequently with the constant push to de-fund voices by attacking their sponsors. Big corporations stand down, not because they agree ideologically with the vocal mob, but rather because they want to not become the next target.

How about instead of attacking the careers and livelihoods of those we disagree with, we instead support the ideas we do agree with?

The idea I support is defending equal rights. How is trying to hold accountable powerful people who oppose equality rights anything but supporting the ideas I do agree with?

Also, how can this not be a discussion of gay marriage? Aren’t you just saying that opposing gay marriage is not worthy of criticism?

I didn't say anything like "same sex marriage redefines marriage". Prop 8 was exactly about redefining what the state of California considers a valid marriage to be.

The mob is literal, the town is metaphorical. His wealth has nothing to do with whether he was deprived of his job.

So by literal mob, you don’t mean people lighting things on fire and hurting people, but rather people criticizing a powerful person.

In your view, it seems, powerful people should get to say whatever they want, but if the little guy says “you're abusing your position of power, your platform, and your wealth” then he’s in the wrong.

How is that not totally against the principle of free speech?

I feel like you're not being charitable in the least; you're not addressing any of the points I'm making.

Yes, people should get to say whatever they want. Yes, everybody should face consequences of what they say. I already said that it's reasonable for an organization to want their figureheads to represent them, and talked about one possible mechanism for achieving that.

You characterize the people who reacted in this story as "the little guy", but they clearly are in a position of power, and you can tell because they got him fired.

In what way was the CEO in this scenario abusing his position of power or his "platform" (I'm not even sure exactly what you mean by that word here)? He made those contributions as a private individual, not from the company's coffers.

As for "abusing" one's wealth, some people clearly do that (by bribing their way into political positions or into contracts or whatever), but that's not what's happening here.

So basically what you're saying is that only progressive views are valid.

That isn't what elil17 said. I happen to agree with both sentences in elil17's comment and I'm fairly conservative.

I'm pretty sure elil17's idea of which views are "antithetical to a free and equal society" doesn't match my own, though.

I think what constitutes "antithetical to a free and equal society" varies dramatically. I believe that no speech is "antithetical to a free and equal society" because to do so is to assume one speech is greater than another. I think that’s how we got to this point. So long as the speech does not infringe on the rights of someone else, it should be absolutely allowed. A public discussion on overthrowing the government, yes. A public discussion on school segregation and how to achieve it, yes. But a discussion about how to violate someone’s rights, fire someone because of their race, gender, sexuality, any of that, or in anyway trying to Directly harm another person, that’s where it becomes bad speech.