I suppose it is hypocritical. That being said, he donated to a cause that actively sought to deny people's equal rights. A pro-gay person would have donated to a cause that actively sought to give people equal rights.
Sure. And people firing pro-gay supporters will say that they were donating to a cause that was destroying natural institutions and Eich was trying to save traditional marriage.
The problem with thinking that way is that, from the outside, it's indistinguishable from saying "That guy agrees me and has a right to free speech, those other guys disagree with me and their speech is destroying us all". I agree 100% that gay rights is a worthy cause and "protecting traditional marriage" is bullshit. But I can't expect mobs of outraged people to agree with me on what is worthy cause and what isn't in every case, so I'm strongly opposed to a system where mobs of outraged people determines who gets to keep their job.
Unless he's been calling for gay people to be killed and I didn't hear about it, I'm pretty sure he's not KKK-equivalent. And frankly, the idea of "harm" as the separator between free speech and hate speech is useless. Any political action will in some way or another harm a group to some extent, even if it is just losing privileges they already have.
Prove the bolded statement. And do tell why harm can not be used as a separator.
I believe I already said why. "Harm" is ridiculously vague. Is a group harmed by losing their right to marry who they want? Then, is a group harmed by losing their right to impose their values on the rest of the people? Certainly they don't seem happy about it.
How is it analogous? A political campaign generally aims to change some aspect of society in general.
You are confusing the means with the effect. A campaign is the means in which a political figure uses to obtain office by demonizing other persons in order to affect change. Nasty tactics can be used in an campaign, eg what you described below.
Sorry, I thought you meant a political campaign in the sense of "collect signatures to outlaw X Y Z". In any case, the comparison is still invalid. Not getting a job you want is fundamentally different from losing one you already have.
Targeting a person's employment is direct punishment to an individual for having views you don't like, which leads to a political environment where you're not free to express your views if a sufficiently large number of people disagrees with you strongly enough.
He donated money to the AFA, he is not a corporation, and thus it is action not speech.
a) I don't recall arguing he was a corporation. I don't see how it gets into this in any way.
b) So the distinction here is that he actually donated money. So... he has a right to have anti-gay views, but not to want to change the law to reflect those views? If he had merely said that he doesn't think gays should marry and not given money to a campaign, you'd be right here with me bothered that he lost his job over it?