Here are the main differences I see: the power dynamic at play, the scale of the effort, and the availability of concrete proof of action.
The Hollywood Blacklist was an attempt by studios and directors and some in the US government (those in power) to ban those underneath them based on, largely, unfounded allegations of Communist sympathies. It also had anti-union motivations, but I might be wrong? It took down dozens of actors, directors, and producers. No concrete "anti-American" actions were proven (that I know of).
Brendan Eich stepped down after his customers (and some of his employees) found proof that he'd donated to a cause supporting Prop 8, a piece of legislation that would have removed previously granted rights to homosexuals trying to marry. The donation was a specific action that Eich took that his customers disagreed with.
I think the power dynamic is the telling one. Oligarchic vs. grassroots, etc.
Afaik, he did not force others under him to agree. Nor force the idea onto Firefox. It was guilty by association.
And, it's more so than bikeshedding over what terminology the government should use to talk about inheritance and visitation rights.
(Also, isn't having an elected government being viewed more and more as basic human rights these days?)
This also comes at the expense of other non-traditional relationships, by making the argument about making a narrow change to what's called "marriage" rather than about handling the associated legal rights more flexibly.
So yes, bikeshedding.
Also, your original argument that a debate about Communism is also about human rights is applicable to any political debate, because of course politics is all about deciding things that affect people.
If you can't understand the difference between a class of people being denied common rights, and standard political debate about rules that ostensibly apply to everyone then I have no additional argument to try to help you see the light.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_partnership_in_Califor...
See under "Scope". By 2008 as amended, California afforded domestic partnerships the same rights and responsibilities as marriages under state law.
Federal law was of course different due to DOMA, which was overturned in 2013.
Prop 8 did not remove any legal privileges available under CA Domestic Partner law. It did not revoke any marriage licenses, either.
As for denying "common rights", you are begging the question. What common public good (not "right") is secured by marriage, defined based on that public good, that the state should regulate it in the first place?
Traditionally (in the US), legally regulated marriage had to do with family law, children, rearing as well as getting of children, forming legally recognized kinship based on procreation and adoption.
Along the way, baggage including visitation rights at hospitals and jails was thrown on board, but such regulations are not essential.
If people can't agree on the common good of marriage, then marriage should not be legally regulated at all.
It's stupefyingly clear from this case that people do not even use the same definitions for words including "marriage" and "rights". That this is true does not make anyone on any particular side of the multi-sided debate an outlaw for dissenting from whatever might be the dominant position, in 2008 or now.
Anyway, ignore the lack of consensus on a common good. You didn't even bother to be accurate about relevant California law. You just made up stuff about "material grievances" and "common rights" to try to dodge debate and cast others as beyond the pale.
Metaphorically, it's the difference between a guy with a big stick who makes stuff up so he can beat your face and a crowd of people voting on what court system to set up to give you a trial.
And not only that, OTHERS were taught a lesson to be silent on that issue and other issues as well.
Nothing is more effective to silence someone or groups of people than threatening someone's livelihood.
Let's not get too hyperbolic here. A rich, white guy was forced out of a CEO position and he was "silenced"? He could have given interviews about his position at any tech magazine he could reach by phone. He could publish a blog post on his site. None of this suggests that he was silenced.
Let's save the powerful terms for bigger travesties is all I'm saying.
What happened to Eich should be considered at best an embarrassment to the otherwise progressive image of folks seeking sexual respect--at worst, it's a fine example of the same sort of bigotry they've fought against themselves, in some ways justifying many of the petty accusations made against their ilk.
It was not a good time to be an ally in tech.
The strict definition of bigotry is viewing other groups with suspicion, hatred, whatever. So, yes, I'm okay with being bigoted against people who kick puppies.
I think the more meaningful definition of bigotry within the context of social equality is an expression of power that flows from those with power to those without it. In this case, the one with power (rich white guy) trying to remove previously granted rights from marginalized folks (gays wanting to get married).
The fact that the rich white guy, in this case, was the newly minted CEO of a corporation that strives to bring "Internet equality" added a spice of irony to the whole thing.
To borrow your metaphor, you are not being bigoted against someone who kicks puppies. You are being bigoted against someone who isn't bigoted against people who kick puppies.
EDIT: His donation is actual discrimination based on someone's sexual identity.
Having an opinion and donating money to a cause is not remotely the same as refusing to hire LGBTQ individuals or refusing to sell/rent a house to them.
You asked if he'd engaged in actual discrimination -- by donating that money, he had. Having the opinion wasn't what people were mad about.
I was thinking more about those times that I've sat in work meetings and been asked if I objected to something and said nothing when I actually do object because I knew few others agreed with me.
With that freedom comes the concomitant responsibility for the consequences of that speech.
In fact, I think it's admirable that he didn't back down from his position or try and weasel-word his way out of a difficult situation. He stuck to his guns in the face of a firestorm of controversy.