If economic and social equality angles are of fairly equal relevance, then Eich shouldn't be CEO, because him being CEO puts the economic angle as significantly more important than the social equality one.
If you mean that people should be able to think whatever thoughts they want without me conducting paparazzi-style investigations to find out what they think, sure: I'm not advocating a campaign to find everyone who owns a copy of F.A. Hayek's Road to Serfdom and ostracize them (in fact, I own one!). But how about donating $1000 to Rand Paul's campaign? I would consider that equally odious, and yet it is (unfortunately) not that uncommon in the tech community, even among fairly high-profile people with board positions. In my opinion, the right of people with congenital heart diseases to receive medical treatment is of a similar level of importance as the right of gay people to have their marriages recognized by the state—if anything, actually somewhat more urgent in its importance—but a certain sort of "yuppie liberalism", which I think exists more or less only in Silicon Valley, takes the opposite view.
Actions matter. Thoughts that you keep to yourself? I don't care. Go nuts with that.
(also I'm not a fan of the libertarianism in tech/SV, but that's a whole different discussion)
If only life were so simple.
Bigots who keep their thoughts to themselves (and there are plenty of them in C-level positions) often get away with discriminatory actions with weasely excuses like "they're not a fit for that position" and "they're not quite ready for that position".
Why?
Are we talking about degrees here? About the skin in the game? -- If so, I agree.
If it is about free speech, I disagree.
For example, what if he had given $10? Same amount of vitriol, or a little less?