This is where I, and I'm sure others, strongly disagree with you. If I'm against abortion and tell my co-worker who's consdering abortion, "you know what? As a Christian, I think that's wrong. Also, my mom almost aborted me so I feel strongly about this. I think it's a big mistake". That... would be ok. Not great, but ok. Why? Because that's my opinion and nothing more. It won't affect her life in any way.

If on the other hand, I vote against abortion, pay money so that others can't have abortion (I'm a guy, so abortion affects me less than it affects women or not at all) and don't just express an opinion, but my opinion has an impact on other people's rights, then it's not an opinion. Same if I donate money to help those who want to ban abortion. And if LGBT communities weren't so active, gay men and women would have far less rights than they have now. So, I think you have to put it into perspective and maybe think of a different example that would directly affect you and others like you. Would you go against to set a precedent? Again, I'm not talking about opinions, but someone messing with your rights.

Let's be honest.  They have never had the right to marriage in the past, so it's not exactly like it was there and then taken from them.  They do, however, have all the rights that come with marriage, which is called a civil union.  If they want the actual right to marriage in each state, then it's just something they have to fight for.  Just as slaves fought for freedom, and later, equality.  And women fought for equality and the right to vote. 

It's not going to be easy, just like it wasn't for the previous groups.  It's not just going to be handed to them.  And it's definitely not just going to be harassed out of people.  In fact, harassing and getting people fired for not supporting it will only lead to anger, and stronger opposition, from the other side.  They need to get out their message and either bring people over to their side of the topic, or at least have them maybe concede, without exactly changing their opinion.  I think most importantly, though, if gay marriage is granted in a state, then churches and wedding planners should definitely not be forced to perform the ceremonies.

It would be one thing if he were campaigning to make gay relationships illegal, but he simply campaigned to keep them extralegal or, at least, not called "marriage". Honestly, I'm not at all sure that you have the right to have the government put its stamp of approval on your relationship and call it by a particular name.

Now, the two sides don't really have the same degree of effect on one another. The pro Prop 8 side wanted to impose a particular definition of marriage even though they aren't personally affected by whether the state calls same sex couples marriages or civil unions or whatever, and it's understandable to me that gay couples would feel singled out and even aggressed against, particularly those who had already gotten married. But then it would be a lot more honest for Mozilla to drop the bullshit about, "We have diverse employees with diverse views, yadda yadda." Because no one thinks for a second that Eich would have been pushed out for having supported a pro-gay marriage referendum, so the two sides of the debate are not being treated as equally valid at all. If there is only one acceptable opinion for a public figure to hold on the matter, then we should quit pretending otherwise.

People voiced their opinion, and that was that Eich was a bigoted person, whether it be true or not. They had every right and reason to do this, just as he had all the freedom in the world to donate for Prop 8. He reaped what he sowed, that's simply how the world is. If a newly appointed CEO was pro-slavery or a Nazi, would you say people should be open-minded of them? People will stand up for what they believe in, and if what they believe in is socially disgusting (as Prop 8 was, imo), then they will be chastised for it. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from speech.

That being said, I am not homosexual, but I am a supporter of gay rights, and believe that they should have access to marriage like the rest of us if they wish. I applaud the community for standing up for their beliefs. 

No one's freedoms were jeopardized, so legally I have no issues with what happened.

Eich was free to donate money to prop 8, OKCupid was free to call him on it. Prop 8 banned gay marriages in California (for a time), OKCupid got him to resign his position.

I fail to see what any one side is doing here. If anything, Eich is still more out of line for contributing to an actual law, while OKCupid acted purely within a voluntary realm.

This is where the major intersection is. It's basically only controversial because enough people fail to understand why him donating to Prop 8 could itself be seen as controversial, which is why Mozilla had to make that very CYA statement.

Again, there is a big difference between voicing ones opinion and actively campaigning to have someone fired for his.  And can we please stop bringing up slavery and Nazis in these types of discussions?  They are only strawmen and you know it.  No one wants to put gay people and chains and whip them, so they'll do our work.  And no one wants to put them in gas chambers and concentration camps.  At least not in this country.  Thinking about it, it amazes me how some can say that the US, as a society, is so cruel to gays, yet in some countries they are regularly tortured and killed for being who they are.  I bet the gay communities in those countries wished they mostly had to worry about fighting for the right to marry, instead of the right to live.

And if gay people were Nazis, wouldn't they be evil?  Let's drop the strawmen and just deal with the facts of the story as they are.  He's not a Nazi, or a slave owner, or a KKK member.  He apperently leaves his personal feeling at home, instead of letting them influence his work and workforce, as it should be.  I mean, we haven't heard of him being cruel to gay members of the staff or those who support gay marriage. 

And if we are going to say it's okay to campaign to get a CEO fired, why stop there?  Shouldn't they just campaign for Mozilla to go through their ranks and get rid of EVERYONE who doesn't support gay marriage?  Where does it end?  And if you find the point where it does, why does it end there?  Why is it not okay for a CEO to support his beliefs, but the lesser employees are untouchable if they did?

Appeal to worse problems is a logical fallacy. The issues of gays across sub-saharan Africa and the broader Muslim World should not lessen the very real struggle that gays undertake (just like how the desperate poverty found in the slums of Calcutta does not diminish the problems faced by those in the slums of Los Angeles).

The bigger point of comparison with these fringe, radical ideas like slavery or nazism is just how much views change over time. Before everyone found out about the Final Solution, Nazism had a decent amount of respect about it (the kind of respect you might afford a "worthy opponent" as well as a fair bit of mainstream fascination, like the abdicated King Edward of England). Life in the segregated south is still well within the lifetime of many who still live, and so it is easy to remember when one man built his entire political career on standing in the schoolhouse doors, just like he promised.

It is not trying to equate the ills of modern homophobia with the absolute horrors of National Socialism or the generations-long injustice of Jim Crow, but it does suggest that both of these ideas, once quite mainstream and now almost universally reviled, can go the same way.