One thing in common among many HN comments on this issue is the sentiment that we shouldn't care about a CEO's political views. Perhaps this argument would be

One thing in common among many HN comments on this issue is the sentiment that we shouldn't care about a CEO's political views. Perhaps this argument would be somewhat convincing if his actions affected exclusively people outside the company, but keep in mind that he contributed $1000 to a cause that directly removes marriage rights of a large portion of society, some of whom are his very own employees that he's about to lead. For those of you who insist that all this is "just politics", would you say the same if he contributed $1000 to a campaign to bring back slavery? What about a campaign to remove women's voting rights? One thing for sure - the degree of uproar would be drastically higher in those cases, and that's precisely the problem.