I really don't understand the argument that it's necessarily 'bad' to attempt action against someone based on their opinions (or direct actions), especially if

I really don't understand the argument that it's necessarily 'bad' to attempt action against someone based on their opinions (or direct actions), especially if they're being put in to a position where those opinions run counter to their responsibilities. Should say, a CEO be free to donate to a white power group and not have it affect their career? What if they donated to a group trying to have black people declared as property? Would it be 'destroying open public discourse' or 'crazy' if some of the future property then protested or boycotted said company? If I'm understanding all the arguments of this type correctly, the answer appears to be "yes".