I don't see your point. I don't see anybody in here (yet) saying that the article we are discussing (or any other article defending Eich) shouldn't have been written or published - merely some people disagreeing with it. I have seen plenty of people over the last week or however long it has been saying criticism of Eich should not have been written or published because to criticise somebody for their views is being 'intolerant'.
What if people decided they're not cool with people who engage in witch hunts having jobs anymore? Doesn't matter because it won't happen? That's not morality though.
Nobody that I have seen said Eich shouldn't have any job anymore. Just that he wasn't a good choice for this particular leadership role.
I'm not privy to what happened within Mozilla, but it does sound like it was internal disagreements (i.e. Mozilla employees begin unhappy with the appointment) that lead to him leaving the post, more than bloggers or HN commenters. That is just the nature of taking a leadership role. If you can't take the staff with you then your position isn't tenable.
A CEO post have everything to do with the public perception you create of the company, though. And deservedly or not, his position coupled with his opinions on prop 8 have come to have an impact on the perception of Mozilla. In that respect, the personal views of a CEO often does have something to do with their personal views in a way that is rarely the case for less public-facing positions.
