Really appreciate this response. I think you're someone I'd like in person. I agree with most of the above, and have a similar attitude in many ways.
A few points I have key differences on. You'll probably get where I'm coming from, even if you don't agree.
> We have a process, a set of rules and laws for deciding what to do when you and I disagree on what is right for other people. This is what our political system is for; to solve these sorts of disputes in a organized way, without degenerating into war or lynching or what have you. I mean, it doesn't always work... but the political system is the tool for the problem, and while not perfect, it's a pretty good tool. Certainly, it's the best tool we have; people should be encouraged to use it rather than direct action, I think.
Well, back to your point about functioning in the real world, this process has all sorts of backdoors and "corruptions" which probably account for the majority of what actually gets done in the world. Campaign financing, backroom deals, organized community pressure, deals with powerful religious leaders, straight up bribes, and on and on. So losing your job in a public position of a very public company because of public outrage seems not only in keeping with the way the real politics work, but also on the tamer side of those workings. Had he been a rank and file programmer at a consultancy in SF, and somehow lost his job for the same reason, I'd agree that something wrong had happened. I think it's naive, though, even damagingly idealistic, to pretend that those situations don't have important differences.
> I want to acknowledge the question you bring up here, which I read as: "Is this (accepting people who have abhorrent values) actually a good thing? or is it just something I tell myself so that I can function in society? Is this just my rationalization?"
This really gets to the heart of the matter. Don't know about you, in particular, but I do think, in general, that the "I'm so tolerant I tolerate intolerance" position serves those with a bias against conflict and a blindness (often wrought of idealism) about just how steadfastly and unreasonably evil some people are (I'm not talking about Eich here anymore). It's disheartening to me that many who hold this belief are well-intentioned, intelligent, otherwise good people. Because I believe it does have pernicious consequences, in the "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing" sense. Or, to take a game-theoretical perspective on it, as long as people can be racist or sexist or otherwise evil with little loss of social power, such people will continue to flourish. And, in an example of the tragedy of the commons, it takes only a very small percentage of them to wreak havoc.
Of course, there are gray areas here about what consititutes evil, but I don't think suppressing equality of basic freedoms is one of them.