[solo_]

I understand where the authors are coming from. They're made that Eich supported a bill that denies their rights. However, what Eich does is his own, personal business. The writers, at least in my mind, are mixing business with their personal lives.

I support gay marriage, but I think that this isn't too much more than needless outrage. When someone boycotts Google because Google supports gay marriage, a lot of us look at them and go "Wow! What an idiot, boycotting Google because they think that Google is immoral! They're the immoral ones!" This is the exact same thing, it just happens that the authors' views align with our own. I think it's ultimately just petty. I'm glad gay couples can marry in California, where I currently live. I think it's a step in the right direction. I just think that needless outrage like this, which only isolates you from potential customers, gets us nowhere. We get it, you disagree with the CEO's personal values. I understand your outrage, and that might mean nothing to you. I just think there has to be a better way than this to actually get your point across.

[wpietri]

By trying to keep these guys from getting married, Eich made it personal.

As the court decisions have shown, keeping them from getting married was an unconstitutional imposition upon their civil rights. Whereas them deciding whom to do business with is totally legit. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences.

[transitionality]

I don't know what sort of consequences you're implying, but threatening someone over anything they say or think is certainly illegal.

[alxjrvs]

I believe that "Consequences" here meant, "People finding out you are a homophobe".

[Ensorceled]

Exactly, we look at them and say "They're the immoral ones." ... now everybody's looking at the authors and saying "why are they mixing business with their personal lives".

Notice the difference: we are still defending the corporations from the protestors but now the reasons are a bit weird.