By virtue of you labeling it a "nonsensical argument"... it's safe to say that you are intolerant of it.
I am tolerant of the point being made, evidenced by the fact that I don't demand that you be silenced. I reject your argument on the grounds that it is unsound and an attempt to falsely equate people criticizing someone for taking an oppressive stance with that same oppressive stance. No one is attempting to silence him, but they are saying, very loudly, that he is unfit to both hold those views and be CEO of Mozilla.
they acted in a mob fashion
So large numbers of people independently standing up and criticizing the decision is acting like a mob? Or are you just stunned by the fact that so many people were willing to voice their opinion?
I'd wager... we could find plenty of others who would meet such a definition... hell, the current President was elected with similar views, seeing marriage as between one man and one women... is he then unfit for office because of his views?
The people who were opposed to Obama for his lack of support for gay marriage in 2008 were obviously outnumbered by everyone else. Not necessarily by those who supported those views, but those who were indifferent or thought other things mattered more. There are enough differences between appointment of a CEO and election of a President that I think this is an unhelpful comparison.
his appointment was an act of tolerance
No, this is feeding into the "tolerant of intolerance" nonsense.
Some of us are able to separate our personal and professional lives you know, maybe he, unlike you is able to do that.
Given his relative lack of power over Mozilla's non-technical policies and short term as CEO, we'll never know if this is true. And you can't claim shit about me, frankly, so stop trying.
Correct, it wasn't false equivalence. It was broad-brush stereotyping and pigeonholing. You're engaging in false equivalence by suggesting that criticism of and opposition to Eich is bigotry.
The people opposed to Eich here (whom you casually pigeonhole as the "left") have done nothing to the degree that the supporters of Prop 8 and similar laws across the country.
Citation?
Cite what? What have the people opposed to Eich done in voicing their opposition to his being appointed CEO, that is in any way equivalent to pushing laws that specifically bias against a segment of society for specious reasons?
Gun owners in this country have to deal daily with existing and proposed new laws that seek to criminalize their usually safe and lawful behavior...?
Gun owners choose to be gun owners - and while I will happily agree with you that a great many gun control laws are shit as written and ineffectual, to try and push the "plight" of gun owners as equivalent is farcical. Unless you're going to also argue that people who are gay choose to be gay, in which case you're wandering down a very dark rat hole.
You mean... like the anti-Prop 8 folks and other bigots such as yourself who were so outraged with a person like Eich at the top and will accept nothing less than his removal, but forgive others who have done far worse and in higher positions?
First off, criticizing Eich's position is not bigotry (otherwise criticizing any such position would be bigotry, and down that path lies madness) and criticizing Mozilla for appointing him is not bigotry.
This presumes two things:
1. That Eich should be left alone because no one is arguing against others doing worse. This does not follow because Eich's actions are independent of others.
2. That no one is arguing against those others who do worse. A great many people spend every day campaigning and opposing those who they think do terrible things.
Don't talk to be about trying to shut down debate when you try to engage in the exact same kind of rhetoric you accuse me of.
No, I do not engage in the type of rhetoric you do. I do not attempt to deliberately construe criticism of someone's position as bigotry. I also don't deliberately construe your argument against me as bigotry or intolerance, I simply point out that it is hollow and banks on a number of irrational points, including pigeonholing, attacking stereotypes, and false equivalence.