Let's hear your counterarguments, bub. Quoting the article in exasperation looks suspiciously like something a coddled white dude who's rarely encountered even mild criticism would do.

If you genuinely care about "addressing a complicated issue", you should read the excellent publication that Shanley founded, but I suspect you're just concern trolling.

My position is that Brendan Eich is anti-equality and seeks to deprive a group of people of their civil rights. His donation to Prop 8 establishes this unequivocally. I need not provide any further evidence to validate this position.

We should have been more tolerant of those Germans back in World War 2, huh?

This doesn't have anything to do with censorship or freedom of speech. Those terms apply to the abridgement of speech by the government, not to criticism from other public individuals.

And yes, I would ostracize him for donating at all, even in spite of his contributions, because social justice is more important than technology. We can make the same advancements and those LGBT people can make a good living without people like Brendan Eich.

He was moving the goalposts by asking it.

Donating to Prop 8 is coming out against equality. There is no way to interpret the action otherwise, as Prop 8 literally seeks to deny rights to a particular group of people.

"Traditional governing stances on marriage, such as the role of population building and sustainability" sounds to me like a dogwhistle for homophobia. I mean, population building, really? Gay marriage is not a threat to population growth.

Not sure about your Obama non sequitur. I'm not even close to being an Obama supporter.

In your estimation, what are the reasons for financially supporting legislation that denies the civil rights of a particular group, if those reasons are not fundamentally motivated by intolerance?

True, the world, in general, is not black and white, but this matter is—either you favor complete equality or you don't. And yes, it makes me profoundly angry to see so many of you coming out in defense of someone who so obviously and publicly doesn't.

His "personal political history" is public. He made a large donation—not anonymously, as he could have chosen to do—but in his own name. That's why it dictates his suitability as the public face of a company that claims inclusiveness as one of its aims. Whether or not he co-founded the company, his public actions, backed by his considerable wealth, are at odds with this.

Also, please take a moment to consider where the phrase "lynch mob" comes from and whether it appropriately describes the response to a rich white executive who acts public against the interest of civil rights and social justice.

Literally the "tolerate my intolerance" argument

I'd rather defend to the death the dignity of all people than the opinion of some rich bigot.