You do realize, of course, that exact same argument goes for a lot of QUILTBAG folks, right?

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.

I disagree.

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.

Is there any evidence of Brendan Eich engaging in any actual discrimination against anyone based upon their sexual identity?

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.

No, I'm bigoted against people who send money to organizations who support kicking puppies. Just to stretch this metaphor to the breaking point.

EDIT: His donation is actual discrimination based on someone's sexual identity.

I have heard of torturing definitions but you just went full inquisition here.

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.

I'm not super interested in developing a hierarchy of sins since I don't think it's useful or realistic.

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.

Well original article was about social media effectively making people censor themselves. Let's forget about Prop 8 and etc. Do you agree social media is effectively making people self censor themselves?

Yes. I think turning this into a discussion about "Person A supported political position X and People Y protested against it" misses a lot of the subtlety in the piece.

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.