Not all views are equally valid. Some are antithetical to a free and equal society and are deserving of harsh criticism.
There’s nothing wrong with a society where people feel uncomfortable saying that they think their peers don’t deserve equal rights.
I'm pretty sure elil17's idea of which views are "antithetical to a free and equal society" doesn't match my own, though.
It's possible that the reason he donated was because he disagreed with the particular wording of the proposition as written, not that he thinks his peers don't deserve equal rights.
And for the tiny donation, he lost his job. He's unfit for employment in tech, it seems, unless he's the owner of the company. That is a chilling effect. Suddenly people who aren't perfectly in alignment with, again, the loudest voices, have to choose their every word (and donation) perfectly or risk losing their livelihood.
Consider that there are fiscal conservatives who think that we don't get nearly enough value from our tax dollars, so we should reduce taxes. Can they donate to conservative causes without losing their jobs?
Can you imagine the insanity if voting records got leaked?
Being a CEO of a large organization is not a human right. Part of the job is being the public face of the organization, and that means that, if you’re a CEO, you can lose your job if you say or do something stupid in your personal life. Everyone knows that when they sign up.
Brendan knew the stakes, messed up, and now has to face the punishment. Which is being the CEO of a slightly smaller organization.
Nobody said being a CEO was a 'right'. You're correct that part of being a CEO is being the public face of the company, and I agree with you that it's reasonable for the members to not want to be represented by somebody who is repulsive to them. Maybe something like an actual vote of confidence or vote of self-similarity is not out of the question.
But, we don't vote for this kind of thing, rather, people get run out town by a (sometimes literal) mob in the court of public opinion by, again, the loudest voices. And, because blood is in the air, they don't get support (quiet or loud) from all the people at the company who either agree with them or who just don't want mob rule to exist (because even though they're not socialists, or trade unionists, or Jews, they see that the wheel of "social justice" will eventually turn on them, too).
> if you say or do something stupid in your personal life
Easy with the name calling. I'm here taking the opposite position and you jump to the word 'stupid'. No need to get personal.
Okay, maybe you didn't mean "stupid" like "no right-minded person would have that opinion" instead of "it would be stupid, given the current political climate, to say this publicly"... but I think then you would be agreeing with me, so you probably meant the first sense.
Again, where is your example of someone getting run out of town by a literal mob? This guy is still incredibly wealthy.
While I agree that a CEO should be aware of their public image I think it's a sad commentary on the state of our society that public attacks and shaming have become the vehicle of protest now. This happens frequently with the constant push to de-fund voices by attacking their sponsors. Big corporations stand down, not because they agree ideologically with the vocal mob, but rather because they want to not become the next target.
How about instead of attacking the careers and livelihoods of those we disagree with, we instead support the ideas we do agree with?
Also, how can this not be a discussion of gay marriage? Aren’t you just saying that opposing gay marriage is not worthy of criticism?
The mob is literal, the town is metaphorical. His wealth has nothing to do with whether he was deprived of his job.
In your view, it seems, powerful people should get to say whatever they want, but if the little guy says “you're abusing your position of power, your platform, and your wealth” then he’s in the wrong.
How is that not totally against the principle of free speech?
Yes, people should get to say whatever they want. Yes, everybody should face consequences of what they say. I already said that it's reasonable for an organization to want their figureheads to represent them, and talked about one possible mechanism for achieving that.
You characterize the people who reacted in this story as "the little guy", but they clearly are in a position of power, and you can tell because they got him fired.
In what way was the CEO in this scenario abusing his position of power or his "platform" (I'm not even sure exactly what you mean by that word here)? He made those contributions as a private individual, not from the company's coffers.
As for "abusing" one's wealth, some people clearly do that (by bribing their way into political positions or into contracts or whatever), but that's not what's happening here.
Regardless of whether I agree that this is a good example, you're embodying the exact same problem the article is lamenting from the politically opposite side.