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?
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?
The mob is literal, the town is metaphorical. His wealth has nothing to do with whether he was deprived of his job.
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?
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.
Again, where is your example of someone getting run out of town by a literal mob? This guy is still incredibly wealthy.