Building a moral framework atop a paradox seems like poor logic to build upon.
Here's a related point: All governments rely on the persecution of groups (almost always minorities) for their continued power. Government would cease to exist were it not persecuting people.
You're simply quibbling with Eich over who gets persecuted (and more basically about who's morals are superior).
Keep in mind that his "intolerant action" was only intolerant if the state dictating personal morality is good (I would note that things like murder are uni-directional intra-personal actions and thus quite different).
I think a better answer is to abolish government-dictated marriage and allow people free reign in their private lives as this satisfies both the gay community and the anti-gay community while also solving the issues of less-vocal groups (eg. polygamists). In fact the general principle of government staying out of citizen's private lives solves a whole host of issues.
Maybe I didn't say this in the right way. What I'm really saying is that I will 'tolerate' or accept any view point as being fine, and entirely a persons right to hold, unless they are holding one that is actively intolerant to others. I don't think part of being tolerant is to sit back while others are abused by those who don't share our views.
It's his personal right to hold his belief, but once he put that into action by making the donation, or if he had voiced his views publicly, that now means we have a duty to hold him accountable, rather than sit back and let him do what he wants. In this case, I think demanding Eich not lead Mozilla because of his views is an appropriate way to hold him accountable.
Here's a related point: All governments rely on the persecution of groups (almost always minorities) for their continued power. Government would cease to exist were it not persecuting people.
You're simply quibbling with Eich over who gets persecuted (and more basically about who's morals are superior).
Keep in mind that his "intolerant action" was only intolerant if the state dictating personal morality is good (I would note that things like murder are uni-directional intra-personal actions and thus quite different).
I think a better answer is to abolish government-dictated marriage and allow people free reign in their private lives as this satisfies both the gay community and the anti-gay community while also solving the issues of less-vocal groups (eg. polygamists). In fact the general principle of government staying out of citizen's private lives solves a whole host of issues.