He lost the confidence of the internationally focused diverse organization he was charged with leading due to that financial support.
...So his political views.
My comment doesn't just pertain to you nor did I really dig into the merits of your situation, but it does serve as a valid test case that even someone with your obvious and deep technical skills requires more than just those skills to be in alignment with what the company needs from a leader.
To this day you can find people angry on both "sides" of the fake-news version of what happened. It constitutes an open wound for Mozilla which people salt and pick at over more recent or ongoing PR mistakes. That's a shame, because the truth is far removed from the cover story. I'll get to it as a memoirist, if ever, only years from now.
Mozilla is a private organization where Brendan Eich served at the pleasure of its body. What if he was pushing to rescind suffrage for women or to re-instate Jim Crow? Pushing for the legalization of child cannibalism by funding legislative efforts in that direction?
Or it crystal clear that legalization of hard drugs is one of those ideas that is so obviously right than any opposition to it should be squelched?
Back in the days, skin colour was a political view. That was a dumb idea. And the effects of that is still felt up to today. These days sexual orientation and climate change are political views.
This isn't ok. And we shouldn't treat it as such. Bigotry and un-science don't deserve a seat as a "reasonable voice" at the table of progress no matter who you are.
Everyone likes to use examples like racial differences as an example. How about something more gray? Should someone be able to voice opposition to immigration? Or is that another one of those ideas that "don't deserve a seat at the table"?
Absolutely. Few things to note here:
1. The topic of immigration is a valid political discussion with a large amount of studies done from the perspectives of science, economics, and even ethics and philosophy. Taking a stance in it is a political stance and that conversation is crucial to progress.
2. That said, it's not a valid comparison to what was actually being mentioned in my comment which was religious or non scientific views getting a free pass to masquerade as political stances. Those were the ones I said that don't deserve a seat at the table
3. To expand on the discussion of what's valid to be at the table though, immigration is a valid topic. "No people of a certain ethnicity should be allowed to immigrate because they are bad people" is not a political stance. That's a baseless bigoted view that pretends to be a political stance. That can be shown out of the room.
4. One last thing on above. There are close but grey line topics related to the above statements that should be part of discourse. Eg - people from certain areas of the world have a higher risk of being radicalized than others prior to immigration. Statistically provable. Good science. Worthy of discussion. Making the outcome of that "ban everyone of the given ethnicity from that area" though is the kind of discussion we really need to stop these days.