If you were here to learn and have a curious conversation, I don't think you'd ask me to respond to a rebuttal of an argument I did not make. That's fine, there's no reason we need to engage further on this! Our premises might just be too far apart.
I am confident that a majority of people would think that a $3 million no-bid contract shouldn't be given to a non-profit whose executive director committed the crimes described at length above, even if it is expressly noted that it was 30 years ago when he was 16, and with no other arguments at all. (In particular, I am disagreeing with your "50/50" claim as well as the general claim that this is "culture war bait".) There's a reason this happened in Seattle -- it wouldn't fly in most of the country, or the world.
I really was curious to learn a little bit of how we could see the world so differently. I literally watched multiple videos of this executive director, but I came away holding my beliefs even stronger (that his prior criminal history was enough evidence, and I thought it was unlikely his activities since would change my mind). In particular, I believe the reason he hasn't "in the intervening (checks) thirty years been accused of some other relevant offense" in because he was physically incapacitated from doing so.
