Just an anecdote, which I know is not the singular form of 'data', but still: I respect Mozilla as a company, but have no desire to work there (despite there being a lot of technology fit) because the CTO, Brendan Eich, made a donation of $1,000 to support Prop 8—a 2008 California ballot measure which banned gay marriage. Sure, I understood that his views were not those of his employer. But that doesn't make it easie…
Here is the thing, you can't go to the Supreme Court with some random request to rule on a principle they need to do that in the context of an argument. But the Supreme court's decision can be narrow or broad. And the argument limits how broadly it can be applied.
If you look at another decision, Roe vs Wade, the controversial abortion decision. That was based on a right to privacy between you and your doctor. Because it was based on the right to privacy, and not some definition of when life begins or doesn't begin, or when a person is or isn't a person, it has been very durable at being applied against a number of other laws that would seek to overturn it. even laws that would ban the 'day after' pill.
So to be a good decision, and one that will put this issue to rest for a while, the contested law needs to be written in a way that allows for a broad, structural, decision. One where the Supreme court can say on principle the constitution gives equal protection under the law and any attempt to deny those protections or rights based on sexual orientation is invalid.
Prop 8 was reasonably well written as a foil against which this argument could be made. (and was made and has so far succeeded as far as the Circuit court is concerned).
My point is that because you saw Brendan's name on a list of names that gave money in support of the proposition, you don't know anything about the context of that donation. And by immediately dismissing the company based on this imperfect understanding you close off opportunities that may be much better than you know. And even if Brendan is morally opposed to same sex marriage, by choosing not to work at the company (which doesn't take the same position) your actions put you at risk of committing the same sins that a hiring manager might make of choosing not to hire someone because of a difference of opinion.
Raganwald's piece was a well written plea to see past the individuals of an organization when those people are not speaking for the organization. Understand that in any group of people there will be some with whom you disagree. But if the mission of the group is true, perhaps your contribution can help it to succeed, and in so doing you may also be able to change the opinions a few of your co-workers to something less disagreeable.