I mainly meant that as a CEO, I suspect you must disregard emotional decisions that might negatively effect the company, in order to logically further the interests of it.
I consider his political donations emotional decisions, as indeed, the vast majority of political positions are. In this instance, he was unlucky enough to make a decision that negatively impacted the company, and I can find nothing unreasonable about his leaving.
I think that the customers who reacted negatively to the information are where the blame for his leaving should be placed - if his donations were with personal funds (as I understand is the case) and not company funds, it shouldn't really be an issue.
But when Mozilla consumers MADE it an issue, the company needed to act.
Sometimes I think we're alone. Sometimes I think we're not. In either case, the thought is staggering. ~ R. Buckminster Fuller
“Twelve voices were shouting in anger, and they were all alike. No question, now, what had happened to the faces of the pigs. The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.”
― George Orwell, Animal Farm
"It's always reassuring to find you've made the right enemies." -- William J. Donovan
The unfairness was to make public his private information, and it was also unfair of the customers for making it such an issue which they shouldn't have, especially on a settled matter such as this.
It wasn't his decision that made the company look bad, it was the customers making it such an issue that forced the company to act.
Next thing you'll know, you may get the same treatment for being in a traditional marriage. Not outside of the realm of possibility.