[ta0o0o0]

And others feel that a person who can make this statement:

https://brendaneich.com/2014/03/inclusiveness-at-mozilla/

  ...I know some will be skeptical about this, and that words 
  alone will not change anything.  I can only ask for your support 
  to have the time to "show, not tell"; and in the meantime 
  express my sorrow at having caused pain. ...

and who has never even been accused of discrimination, harassment, or abuse of any kind in his professional capacity (or otherwise AFAIK) should be given the chance to prove himself.

I'm pretty sure they didn't send the ads out for the approval of every campaign contributor before they aired them.

[kafkaesq]

Eich's statement in that posting is indeed a valid, mitigating factor in his favor.

He could have done more, by addressing the issue of the TV ads directly. By not doing so, people had reason to believe he was sidestepping that key issue (and that he may not really understand why people were offended by those ads).

[ta0o0o0]

What can I say, that is just not the world I want to live in. A world in which your defeated [1] political opponents must repent, wear sackcloth, and cast ashes in their hair or else be professionally destroyed.

[1] Proposition 8 had been struck down by the time of Eich's appointment to CEO

[kafkaesq]

It's now about repenting and wearing sackcloth. And it isn't even about Eich.

People had just gotten very, very, VERY tired of the pseudo-tolerant stance he was endorsing [1], and didn't want to feel that they were lending credibility to it, by having him at the head of an organization they were a part of. The message they were trying to send was simply, "we're really tired of this shit, and we want it to stop."

[1] "Love the sinner, hate the sin". Those aren't his words, but that's the gist of the religious-based opposition to gay marriage. You have to understand that at some point, people just get sick of hearing it -- or being a party to it.

[ta0o0o0]

It was the activists who dragged Eich's donation from years ago into the spotlight, made it an issue, and demanded that he apologize. The "pseudo-tolerant stance" people are/were "sick of hearing" or "being a party to" would never have seen the light of day if the activists just left Eich's personal political beliefs alone. This is precisely a demand for repentance.

Eich's stance was "pseudo-tolerant" because the activists were demanding that he renounce his religious beliefs. At least he had the stones not to say something he didn't believe just to keep his job. So instead he was cast out. Should a Catholic CEO be subjected to the same treatment if they personally oppose abortion? A Republican one for opposing Affirmative Action?

[kafkaesq]

...the activists were demanding that [Eich] renounce his religious beliefs.

They did no such thing. Why do you think it is helpful to base your arguments on overtly counterfactual assertions, such as these?

[ta0o0o0]

It's right there in your comment. You said "Love the sinner, hate the sin" was not considered an acceptable viewpoint for him to hold.

But even removing that point from my comment the rest stands. You wrote that people were "sick of hearing" about his views on gay marriage. Well all they had to do to stop hearing about it was to stop asking him about it.

[kafkaesq]

Post-hoc edit: "now" should have been "not" in the first sentence.