[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]

You said "Love the sinner, hate the sin" was not considered an acceptable viewpoint for him to hold.

No, that's not what I said. Or even close to what I said.

I'd continue with you further on this, but it seems there's been a lot of gratuitous word-bending and insinuation in what you've been saying of late. That's not my style of communicating, and I don't see what I can learn from it -- but if you want to continue to feel the way you feel about the issue, that's fine with me.

[ta0o0o0]

Yes, that is what you wrote.

  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.

  [1] "Love the sinner, hate the sin".

Can you please explain how this could possibly mean anything other than "The CEO of Mozilla must not hold the viewpoint 'Love the sinner, hate the sin' because then it is implied that the members of the Mozilla community endorse that view". Because the logical consequence of that position is that Eich must either 1) renounce his view or 2) be removed.

[kafkaesq]

Nobody protested Eich for privately "holding" a particular point of view. Their concern was around his donating money (and implicitly, legitimacy) to groups they felt were engaged in various harmful activities (running TV ads with derogatory rhetoric, for example).

The two phenomena are very different. You understand this - yes?

[ta0o0o0]

Fine, but that's not what you wrote above.

And so then we're back to demanding that a defeated political opponent repent. "Here is our political issue, you advocated against it, you lost, so now you must beg our forgiveness or lose your job which is completely unrelated to the issue."

Like I said, that's not the world I want to live in. If others like it they are welcome to it, but then they shouldn't start complaining if abortion-rights advocates are fired from their jobs in the American South.