So he's got the right to believe what he wants with no strings attached, but no one else does? And since when is "doesn't want to do business with your company" equal to "U SHOULDNT HAVE A JOB!!!" Business is not neutral in any way shape or form, and anyone that thinks so is entitled to as much broken Free Market rhetoric as they can stomach before their skull caves in under the weight of cognitive dissonance.
Absolutely not. Everyone else has the right to believe what they want with no strings attached. I don't think everything they believe is relevant to making business decisions, though, and because businesses
do have moral and ethical dimensions, I think it's perfectly acceptable for me to say that a business decision is wrong. In this case, the decision was to boycott Mozilla for promoting somebody who, 8 years ago, expressed a political opinion in his own time and with his own money. I think
that decision was wrong. Given that it was made, resigning
was the correct choice, because failure to do so would've been making a business decision, costing other employees their own livelihood, because of his own beliefs that aren't relevant to the business. I don't know where you were going with the rest of the paragraph, though, so I can't respond to it. It sounds like a response to some caricature who isn't me.
I wouldn't say a Neo-Nazi neighbor ought to be evicted, either, which is exactly what you're arguing. Having a feud with the guy, up to and including mowing my lawn in the shape of a giant Star of David visible from his front porch, would be perfectly okay. Encouraged, even.
You're straw manning me. No one where did I say he didn't have the right to own a home. Your example is actually relevant though. It's not "Your neighbor doesn't deserve to live", it's "I won't associate with him, go to his barbecues, buy his kid's lemonade or send him a Christmas card." Only in the business sense. It's a refusal to enrich someone whose point of view you disagree with.
You indicated that it would be unreasonable to give the neighbor "the same pass" for being a neo-nazi. The pass in question is remaining employed despite holding beliefs I can't stand. Chances are, the neo-nazi requires a job in order to have an income. Chances are, the neo-nazi requires an income in order to pay the bills. Chances are, the neo-nazi needs to pay the bills in order to keep a home. That's why I picked that particular analogy, since you picked home ownership as the relevant identity, and I wanted to link the situations more firmly. I agree that, as a private individual, you have a right to boycott people for whatever the hell you want.
A business is not, in any way, neutral. The actions they take have implications. If absolutely nothing else, they have financial implications for the employees of a business. When you make a business decision, you're responsible for that. But that doesn't mean that literally every decision you make in your life
should be a business decision, just as every decision a school teacher makes
shouldn't be an educational one. I strongly disagree with your conclusion about conviction - he made the correct choice in the face of an unfair decision. He put his employees' welfare above his own beliefs, which is absolutely the correct way to run a business.
And what about when said business uses its wealth and power to push a social agenda?
But that isn't what happened.