There is obviously no unanimous opinion on how bad he is, even if most people agree it is some shade of "bad". And therefore if we start banning on non-unanimou

There is obviously no unanimous opinion on how bad he is, even if most people agree it is some shade of "bad". And therefore if we start banning on non-unanimous cases like this, we run a terrible risk. For example, people that support abortions and people that eat meat are both considered (by different people) to be supporting murder by significant parts of the population. Not figurative murder, literal murder. They feel strongly about that. But we shouldn't let them ban people, or we'll have "A functional programming conference for liberals", "for conservatives", "for vegans", etc. Is that what we want? And that's just the practical risk of fracturing our communities. The moral risk is that even if we did have unanimous consensus to ban him over personal political views, we are in dangerous territory. The majority has been wrong many times in the past. Tolerating a minority, even if its views (not actions) seem offensive to us, is generally the right thing to do.