Disregarding any issues surrounding the author of this piece, Theil himself, and a cornucopia of issues surrounding the RNC keynote, I must ask one question: Why is political speech only an issue when that speech comes from the political right? This isn't a modern thing, either. I've never seen anyone claim Brendan Eich didn't have a right to donate to his cause, it's just that he donated to the wrong cause, at least…
2. Political contributions are public speech. That's why they are protected by the Constitution. People have a right to answer to public speech. If an executive goes to publicly declare horrible things, but legal under freedom of speech protection, their actions will have an effect on the economic prospect of the company.
It's not that Brendan Eich donated to the wrong cause, or that Peter Thiel supports the wrong candidate. It's that when you make a public statement, you must be prepared to accept the consequences of your public statement. If you are not, speak in private.
When Rosa Parks said no to the man who asked her to stand up to leave her seat to a white person, she did bear the consequences of her public actions. People who go and support right-wing causes should be held to the same standards. Bearing the consequences is the price of public speech.