There is a selectively low bar on persecution these days. He wasn't being denied the right to marry, they right to make medical decisions for or visit a loved one in the hospital, the right to adopt. He wasn't even being denied the right to a decent living.
He was denied access to a particular leadership position. While there is a slippery slope to be found in denying leadership positions based on belief, there are also two sets of rights to consider. The rights of the (potential) leader, and the rights of the workers he leads. Given that the belief he expressed through his donation concerned the civil rights of other people and not himself, why should I expect that he will respect the rights of any LTBG workers in his employee?
> He was being denied access to a particular leadership position.
He wasn't denied access to the position, he had it. Others made it clear they were not interested in being lead by him. A decision had to be made to either let those people leave or he had to choose to leave.
It's hard to tell from the outside, of course, since everyone involved just claimed to be working from "Mozilla", so it's easy to make the mistake you made.
There is a selectively low bar on persecution these days. He wasn't being denied the right to marry, they right to make medical decisions for or visit a loved one in the hospital, the right to adopt. He wasn't even being denied the right to a decent living.
He was denied access to a particular leadership position. While there is a slippery slope to be found in denying leadership positions based on belief, there are also two sets of rights to consider. The rights of the (potential) leader, and the rights of the workers he leads. Given that the belief he expressed through his donation concerned the civil rights of other people and not himself, why should I expect that he will respect the rights of any LTBG workers in his employee?