LOL, he was hounded into resigning because he supported (contributed money in support of) a constitutional amendment to deny the benefits of marriage to homosexuals and effectively impose his view of "marriage" onto the entire state, permanently, while heading an organization full of those whose rights he was gleefully attempting to permanently limit.
You mean he was persecuted for his beliefs. Thank you for confirming my point; mere criticism or discrimination is not sufficient to claim persecution. "Persecution only occurs when someone repeatedly harasses or punishes another in a manner designed to injure, grieve, or afflict; to make someone suffer because of their belief. You know, like a founder of Mozilla "getting whacked (hounded into resigning) by the gay mafia" (Bill Mahr) .".
And there is a world of difference between a personal view of marriage - don't like gay marriage, don't get gay married! - and contributing money to an effort that would impose his personal view on everyone else. It's the difference between being personally against keeping guns at home, and supporting a law that would ban guns.
A "world of difference" for whom, compared to what? We all have personal and privately held views (that is as true of the people of Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union as it is here) but no one would suggest that their dissidents should have been persecuted merely because they wanted to "impose" their view of a free society on others.
So perhaps what you actually mean is that 'it is different' because anyone who is not willing to extend the "right" of marriage to same sex couples is supporting the continued denial of a liberty right to a group; and anyone who says or does anything to politically support and deny a liberty should be persecuted and driven from their jobs? Really?
If so, then in your "moral" and "tolerant" world more than half the voters who supported and actually voted for Proposition 8 should also be targets of persecution, and hounded from employment...correct? Just as anyone who supports anything less than pro-choice should be persecuted and hounded from their employment, yes? And for some let us not forget the Communists and the Jews, they too need to be persecuted and driven from employment, (Oh wait, we have been here before, have we not?).
Would a gun maker in Texas support a CEO who contributed money to a constitutional amendment to ban guns? Of course not. Would that gun maker support a CEO who made a personal decision to not own guns or keep them in his home? Why not, especially if that person didn't publicly advertise his personal choice.
You offer us a too obvious nonsensical analogy because...? The actual question is "would a software maker in California employ a founder and CEO who privately donated money to a Constitutional amendment that has NOTHING to do with their software products (banned or otherwise)? Unless you think that Mozilla's real business purpose is to politically advance gay marriage rights, your analogy is more than daft - its bizarre. (And, by the way, 'that hounded person' in Mozilla did not 'publicly advertise' his personal view. It was private until the self-appointed 'gay brownshirts' researched, targeted, publicized, and then persecuted a private person.
A reminder - we have been here before. Salem, the Hollywood 10, Red Channels, and black lists (employment persecution) are very familiar theme to those of us who have learned from history. And to those who remain historically benighted, and would enjoy a rebirth of such persecution, I can think of nothing more appropriate than to suggest they (you) read about another who held similar views: Senator Joseph McCarthy.
And when they are hunting for todays "communists" (traditional marriage supporters) before these folk find a private citizen who has "sinned", expose and publicly denounce their prior affiliation, and then destroy them I hope someone whispers in their the words of Joseph Welch:
"You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?"
Will they? I think not.