I've been watching the whole Mozilla / Brendan Eich thing with great interest. Seems to me we've reached a new low in the political discourse of the United States, that a CEO could be forced to resign because of his alleged political views.
You may know, I'm an ardent libertarian, and to me the salient point is not whether Eich is anti-gay (turns out, he's not) or anti-same-sex-marriage (turn's out, he's not anymore*), but whether the prevailing political winds should determine whether someone is fit to be an executive of a company. We should defend people's right to have whatever view they want, especially on something as controversial as same-sex-marriage, even if we disagree with them. We should not shut down public discussion of such issues by forcing a prevailing view. And we especially should not confuse an individual's personal views with their fitness and performance as an executive of a company.
Lest you think this is an isolated example, there have been serious suggestions that other executives who have contributed to unpopular / un-politically-correct initiatives be "purged". That's pretty scary, don't you think?
I think we should support different points of view and open debate, especially since the political winds can shift so quickly. While support for same-sex-marriage is now pretty strong, it wasn't too long ago that it was "politically correct" to have an opposite view. Consider the matter of abortion, which is not yet settled. Having either a pro-life or pro-choice view is okay for a CEO, today. But what about in five years? What if one of these positions "wins"? Should we then criticize or censure the people who had an opposite view today?
* BTW many notable public figures have changed their mind about same-sex-marriage, including President Obama.