I have heard people say he should get fired, but I haven't heard anyone saying he should be "expelled from society" or "forever vilified as an outcast."
Before, the major actor that could issue genuine consequences for speech was the state. The word "Consequences" in the statement "freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences", means a punch to the face or a stern shaming from townsfolk. You got on with it, kept doing your job, continued to live your life.
When the state objected to your speech, it would end your life, it would destroy you.
But fast forward to today. Suddenly loud demographics of people have the ability to destroy you in the long term, destroy your working prospects, smear your reputation, mark you as unhireable, harass you everywhere. State level consequences. It's no longer a punch to the face in a bar for obnoxious speech. It's no longer the "consequences" in "freedom of speech does not mean freedom of consequences". Those consequences are now state level. How meaningless would this statement be if it was "Freedom of speech does not mean freedom of consequences from the state."
"You're free to talk, no one will stop you, but we the state still get to destroy your life." How meaningless is that?!
You say people shouldn't be vilified as an outcast. But that's what will happen!
He published his opinion, that Google's efforts that enabled thousands of his female peers to pursue careers there, are misguided and harmful, that some of his female coworkers are biologically unsuited to their jobs. He did it to himself.
Do I think this guy should have been fired? I dunno. Not sure. I need more context.
Am I upset he was fired? No. That's Google's choice, regardless of how good a choice it is or isn't.
It betrayed a spectacular lack of common sense and judgement for someone in a senior[1] role - which is exactly where you'd want those in spades. Also made his working position untenable since a senior role is going to need to get along and interact with many people. Also, also, his utter disregard for evidence and inability to make logical arguments would give me great pause as to his usefulness as a senior engineer.
I'd have fired him first for being an idiot, second for his bullshit "scientism", and third having reprehensible views.
[1] Disclaimer: I don't know if "senior" within Google is the same as "VP" in banks, ie just a defacto title you get after a while rather than a mark of actual competency.
And, as a consequence, the US now has an immature tantrum-throwing child as President with a GOP doing nothing but enabling his worst actions.
He opted out of his contract - making himself a free agent.
http://www.49ers.com/news/article-2/Colin-Kaepernick-Opts-Ou...
This is like quitting your job and complaining you don't have a job.
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2017/05/31/john-lynch-4...
"We gave him the option, ‘You can opt out, we can release you, whatever.’ And he chose to opt out, but that was just a formality."
https://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2017/3/1/14599712/colin-kaepern...
There's a lot of other issues here - it's unfair to say he got "fired" because of what he did last year. He's been very bad lately - huge dropoff since he went to the SuperBowl.
http://review.chicagobooth.edu/magazine/winter-2014/how-gary...
Edit - backups should be technically solid and be able to execute the same plays as the starter. Not flashy and unorthodox. When your starter is injured you don't want the whole team to have to change systems.