The distinguished engineer vs the Supreme Court Justice

Yonatan Zunger, a former distinguished engineer at Google, wrote an open letter to James Damore, commenting on James' memo criticizing Google's ham-handed attempts to engineer "diversity." Yonatan wrote:

Do you understand that at this point, I could not in good conscience assign anyone to work with you? I certainly couldn’t assign any women to deal with this, a good number of the people you might have to work with may simply punch you in the face, and even if there were a group of like-minded individuals I could put you with, nobody would be able to collaborate with them. You have just created a textbook hostile workplace environment.

Imagine the following scenario. Suppose I were working at a Silicon Valley company. Suppose it became known that I believed that marriage was an institution between a man and a woman (a view that until very recently in human history was for all intents and purposes universal). Suppose that my belief became known not through any agency of my own, but because someone looked in the LA Times database of Proposition 8 donors, found my name, and outed me to other employees in the company. My only "crime," therefore, would have been that I exercised my constitutional right to make a donation in support of a state ballot initiative; I had not injected my personal views into the workplace, but had made every effort to keep them to myself. Would this constitute a case of me having created a "textbook hostile workplace environment." Or has the hostile workplace instead been created by those who are unable to tolerate my diverse views?

Would my co-workers be justified in wanting to "punch me in the face." Would they be justified in refusing to work with me or in not co-operating with me or in forcing me out of the company? This is, of course, what happened to Brendan Eich, who was forced to resign from his position as CEO of the Mozilla Corporation after he was outed as a Prop 8 donor.

Recall that in his majority opinion in the Obergefell decision, which legalized same sex marriage, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote:

Finally, it must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned. The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered. The same is true of those who oppose same-sex marriage for other reasons. In turn, those who believe allowing same sex marriage is proper or indeed essential, whether as a matter of religious conviction or secular belief, may engage those who disagree with their view in an open and searching debate.

Does forcing the founder out of the company for his views on marriage constitute engaging in an open and searching debate? Is threatening someone with punches in the face for his views about human nature an adequate defense of his First Amendment rights? In brief, were Mozilla and Google acting in the spirit of Justice Kennedy's admonitions when they jettisoned Brendan Eich and James Damore for their views about marriage and human nature?

Although he is a "distinguished engineer," Yonatan Zunger is obviously a complete dunce when it comes to thinking about morals, ethics, politics, and human nature. At the very moment he thought he was refuting James Damore, the "distinguished engineer" was simply proving James' point: Silicon Valley is an intolerant, illiberal, mindless echo chamber, filled with fascists like Yonatan Zunger, who are willing to be tolerant only of those who agree with them. Everyone else can get punched in the face.