That's a hard question. Not so much because of anything related to politics, but because I get stuck thinking about actual murders committed by the KKK.
If instead you asked about something like a US neo-nazi group I would be much more tolerant of people giving money to a terrible group like that in a way completely unrelated to their job.
The reason the situation is tricky, I think, is because jobs with a spokesperson aspect blend work and personal life. Even though I can't think of any reason they should. I can't think of any major downsides from letting people have work and personal life be separate.
I can't tell if you think that's good or bad, but I disagree. The workplace environment still enforces certain kinds of behavior at work, and the public environment still enforces behavior in that environment. Each kind of social pressure is only weakened slightly by being unable to cross over.
Given how readily abused it is, it seems unwise. It's one of those things that works great... so long as it's only used by good people to do good things.
You know, for whatever local definitions of "good person" and "good thing" crop up today.
> because jobs with a spokesperson aspect blend work and personal life.
I wonder how many of the people shouting "freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences" vis-a-vis the separation of work and personal life would have held the same viewpoint in defense of the impeachment of Bill Clinton for his affair with Monica Lewinski.
The thing that didn't bother me about the Clinton/Lewinski thing is that, in my opinion, having an extramarital affair doesn't necessarily affect your job. But then again, if being viewed as an adulterer means that you can't get your job done properly as President, then that is a problem.
In the case of Eich, I was a bit more torn: being the CEO of an organization that prides itself on its openness and general "social good" means that your social views should match that of the organization. Or at least there shouldn't be any glaring mismatches.
If instead you asked about something like a US neo-nazi group I would be much more tolerant of people giving money to a terrible group like that in a way completely unrelated to their job.
The reason the situation is tricky, I think, is because jobs with a spokesperson aspect blend work and personal life. Even though I can't think of any reason they should. I can't think of any major downsides from letting people have work and personal life be separate.