The Excuses for Purging Brendan Eich Are the Old Excuses for Firing Gays

Second, you deny that there is anything incomplete about your framework, and then you pull in hate speech - which 1) it was by no means clear that you had intended to include (adding "unless hate speech" seems to me a materially different position than without it, and real people probably hold both versions), and 2) it is not entirely clear that Prop 8 shouldn't be considered an example of hate speech (though context being what it was, it is entirely clear that we shouldn't be prosecuting people retroactively for it).

"There is no societal problem with propositions which are constitutionally untenable."

There is no inherent societal problem by virtue of a proposition being constitutionally untenable. Many constitutionally untenable actions entail a tremendous societal problem, though - consider the internment of Japanese-Americans during WWII. Many would consider temporarily depriving a class of people of rights they'd previously been afforded "a societal problem". In many cases, I think they're clearly correct. Here, I think they're correct but somewhat less clearly (partly due to proximity).

'No, there was a problem with your straw man. Remove that, and you'll find that your position reduces to, "Society should not tolerate speech from people who are wrong." The problem is how such a thing would be adjudicated.

There's a problem with your framework. You don't see the solution because your position is effectively against free speech. You are only for speech you personally label as "tolerant." In a truly free society, one must be free to be wrong. That's the only way it can work.'

First, it should be clearly noted that no one is calling for criminal penalties. These things are adjudicated by individuals deciding who they are and are not comfortable dealing with.

Second, I didn't propose a framework. You'd made an assertion, and I was trying to get at the lines you were drawing around that assertion.

Third, in a free society, you deal with the consequences of your actions - including speech. It's worth noting that this is why capabilities for anonymous speech are so important. There are some consequences we should clearly be going out of our way to preclude; governmental retribution is antithetical to free speech, violence needs to be prevented, &c. But "I said something people don't like, therefore they don't like me as much, therefore they prefer to do business with someone else" is an entirely unavoidable consequence of a free society - the alternative is to force people to do business they don't want to do.

Finally, again, there was no straw-man, and granting that introducing the notion of hate speech solves the issue (of which I'm skeptical) there was a flaw in the framework you'd laid out: the lack of mention of hate speech as an exception.

Everything is contextual, and you are right, that in a broader context, all of the people discussed, Brendan Eich included, have it pretty good in the global scheme of things.

However, non-free societies look like this:

You are expected to hew to certain viewpoints. It is not enough for you to just be quiet, you have to actively and enthusiastically say and write words supporting the "right" opinion. If you have ever expressed the "wrong" opinion in the past, then this is enough to bring punitive action against you, regardless of the current circumstances, though you might win redemption if you make a loud and public declaration of contrition. Only the expression of a "wrong" opinion is enough for punishment -- no concrete act is required, only the apparent possibility of it. The historical fact of your actual behavior is irrelevant to the above.

As an exercise, the reader can come up with their own examples for groups and governments that enacted behaviors and policies like the above. By doing so, even in a smaller context, one actively promotes social dynamics that inhibit open and free dissent and exchange of ideas. (Also note, that the previous paragraph applies just as well to how men were expected to express their status as heterosexual.)

Political power is always contextual, as is the human social behavior on which it is based. If you are in a context where you have power, and someone is telling you something you don't like to hear, well guess what: Someone is speaking truth to power, and it isn't you. (At least, in their own POV. It's this whole problem of POV and the unreasonable position of adjudicator of correct speech that underlies the notion of free speech.)

Are there any injustices you see in the world that aren't also the popular opinion in your peer group?

'You are expected to hew to certain viewpoints. It is not enough for you to just be quiet, you have to actively and enthusiastically say and write words supporting the "right" opinion.'

Show me an example of someone being ousted for remaining quiet.

'Only the expression of a "wrong" opinion is enough for punishment -- no concrete act is required, only the apparent possibility of it.'

A group of people prevented couples that wanted to be married from being married. That is clearly an act. Donation of $1000 toward those ends is not simply holding an opinion.

"The historical fact of your actual behavior is irrelevant to the above."

Again, there was "actual behavior", as a matter of "historical fact".

On the following point the world does look something like you describe (probably too much so):

'If you have ever expressed the "wrong" opinion in the past, then this is enough to bring punitive action against you, regardless of the current circumstances.'

But similarity on one point out of 4 is hardly a strong case.

In this situation, Brendan Eich would probably have been better served by saying less, though that would probably not have changed the outcome. Is your position that weak that you are really reduced to this degree of nitpicking?

A group of people prevented couples that wanted to be married from being married. That is clearly an act.

In the same manner that speaking is an 'act.' Imagine a world where the worst villains would donate $1000 to a PAC supporting their view, then quietly accept the outcome and get on with their work. That world would be a utopia compared to this one.

Again, there was "actual behavior", as a matter of "historical fact".

This entire line of argument only makes sense if you believe that there is a clear "right" and "wrong" and that you are in a perfect position to judge which is which. In a free society, there is no one in such a position, and those who value a free society would be unwise to advocate the punishment of such expression, even if it's technically legal and resembles "civil actions" of the past.

Seriously, watch some documentaries about repressive regimes. Talk to people who understand these principles and have lived in such places. There is a compelling reason why free societies should tolerate unpopular opinions, and why such tolerance should go above the minimum required by the law.

But similarity on one point out of 4 is hardly a strong case.

I think your nitpicking speaks for itself for those who are mindful of principles and will appear as some kind of stirring justification to those who are of the mind "but we're right and they're wrong."