The concept of marriage is a political concept. It is not in the consititution nor is it in the 14th Amendment. Nobody of any persuasion has "a right to marriage". The entire concept could be outlawed overnight without any problem. This counterexample is pretty strong and proves your "lack of ambiguity" is misguided. The current legal debate is simply a function of the inter-relation of a bunch of other laws (eg tax laws and healthcare) that arguably do result in odd/discriminatory outcomes for some people in some circumstances. But again, those outcomes could be solved--from a constitutional perspective--by eliminating those laws altogether (rather than trying to fix them). Remember that income tax is not a right of the government. It is simply a law, and one that was originally uncontsititional. Same thing with Social Security and Healthcare. These laws have grown "after the fact" and it is their reference that creates the problem of discrimination. It is not a problem with the concept of marriage (and even if it was, we could simply eliminate it altogether).

Now, on the other hand, The First Amendment. Is actually a fundamental cornerstone of the Constitution. And it takes primacy here. The sort of vindictive bullying going on (especially in public like this) is inexcusable and dis-proportionate.

> The concept of marriage is a political concept.

No. The concept of marriage in this context is a civil and legal one. It's used for politicking, but its core is a tripartite contract granting specific legal statuses before the state apparatus, and a number of civil statuses following from the legal one.

Now you may want to argue that this should not exist, but that point of view's not exactly relevant when the starting point is not somebody fighting to end civil marriage but fighting to remove access to civil marriage for a specific minority.

> Now, on the other hand, The First Amendment. Is actually a fundamental cornerstone of the Constitution. And it takes primacy here.

Except it does not actually apply:

* people don't object to him being bigoted and hateful they object to him being CEO of Mozilla as a bigoted and hateful person

* free speech is not freedom from judgement of your peers following said speech

* the first amendment does not apply to individuals, nobody's trying to involve the state here

Honestly, if you don't understand that the civil and legal concepts are "political concepts" delegated to the legislature, its not worth debating this any further.

And yeah there are plenty of ways to be a bully without breaking the law. But using HN as a megaphone to be a bully on some murky bit of special interest politics is in poor form.

Lastly, the first amendment (like the second) applies to legal persons. And someone casting a ballot or taking a good-faith position on the other side of a legitimate political question or debate, is not an excuse for dis-proportionate behaviour.

> Honestly, if you don't understand that the civil and legal concepts are "political concepts" delegated to the legislature, its not worth debating this any further.

Let's not then.

> And yeah there are plenty of ways to be a bully without breaking the law.

Your point?

> to be a bully on some murky bit of special interest politics is in poor form.

It's poor form to defend one's opinion that being intent on curtailing people's civil rights and equality before the law makes one a bad fit for CEO of an organisation priding itself on openness, inclusiveness and opportunity? But it's OK to give money towards the curtailing of a minority's civil rights, that's not bullying or in poor form?

> is not an excuse for dis-proportionate behaviour.

Ah so criticising people for attempting to curtail other people's civil rights is "disproportionate behaviour" now. I live and learn.