You appear to have missed the last sentence.

If you don't see the difference between donating to a politician who has an entire constellation of beliefs, and donating to a single purpose lobbying campaign, we've nothing further to discuss.

So, again, I tend to be charitable towards others. There are several other explanations for the donation: maybe he was drunk and did it on a dare, maybe he was bored, maybe he needed to spend the money to piss somebody off, maybe he actually does respect LGBT folks but believes that marriage should be clearly defined, maybe he wanted to force the issue because he found it so odious he wanted to see it properly overturned, who knows.

The responsible thing is to say "Well, that looks odd, but he hasn't said anything else, so let's give him the benefit of a doubt, as he's done well by the people over whom he has direct authority."

That's obviously not what anybody has done.

Any one of those explanations could have been offered when he was asked about the matter and it would have almost completely defused it.

That's what I'm trying to get through to you.

It's not just the donation.

It's not just the fact that he'd rather quit a CEO position rather than answer a direct question about it. (Which is pretty damning all by itself - but.)

It's not just the fact that he still hasn't addressed it.

It's all of those things taken together, that paint him in a very poor light. Every defense you can possibly come up with makes no sense in light of one of those three facts.

And on a more personal note, my charity for Mr. Eich ran out when he took a shot at me and a few million others and didn't even have the fortitude to own it or apologize for it. There it hangs in the air like the scent of rotting meat, unaddressed, maybe people hope it'll go away if it's ignored long enough. People have been killed, driven to suicide, and otherwise treated as second class citizens thanks to the lies of the organization he chose to directly support. (You should look at the ads sponsored by the Prop 8 people - they're really something else!)

My charity stops well short of that point.

Perhaps it's not rational to place someone in the same mental bucket as Cathy and Robertson and Phelps, especially since Eich actually had a positive impact on the world via JS and Mozilla, unlike a fast food magnate, a megachurch preacher, and a hate speech spewer.

Perhaps actions speak louder than words.

...Perhaps an apology would be a good start.

Why should he apologize for beliefs he had and still has?

Why should he be expected to justify his political and/or religious beliefs to anyone?

Why should he be expected to do that AFTER he resigned?

Ridiculous.

Because his beliefs are backward and actively harmful.

Because it's not his beliefs that people are upset at him for, it's his actions.

Because this goes well beyond Mozilla.

You know what else goes beyond Mozilla? The work they do, the open internet they've spent over 15 years fighting for. The problem in this case is the LGBT community apparently feels like the most special of the snowflakes with the most important problems. Be honest, forcing Eich out didn't do anything for the LGBT community outside of a hollow victory and a blatant showing of power to intimidate its enemies.

Solidarity used to mean that you look at the bigger picture and don't torpedo groups who are on the same side as you over personal feelings. For 16 years Eich fulfilled his own and his employees' contracts. For 16 years he was completely in line with Mozilla's inclusivity policy. For 16 years he fought for one of the most important social causes and he had that taken away from him because he felt that in supporting the personal beliefs of others he deserved personal beliefs of his own. Not only that, those of us who care about what he fought for had him taken away from us and I am yet to hear one good reason why.