One shouldn't feel obligated to be tolerant of intolerance expressed by people with power and privilege against those who have less power and privilege (like a wealthy, straight, white male attacking LGBTQ folks). That's a very common tactic of bigots to claim that being told they should stop oppressing people is oppressive toward them. Demanding an end to oppression is not oppressive toward those who currently benefit from that oppression.
There are other good reasons not to listen to OSC, like having never run a software company or been a significant participant in the software industry.
But, I think it's OK to point out that the guy is a backward bigot and is driven by his religion more than good sense; it speaks to his character and to his approach to the world. If his views on life, society, law, and everything else, are shaped by a fairy tale (and they are), I'd like to know it.
It's not being tolerant of intolerance to consider his views on an entirely disparate topic. If his views on LGBTQ people were being discussed, then yes they are repellant and I would say so, but they have nothing to do with the topic at hand.
Judging all of someone's views as wrong because some of their views are wrong is foolish.
As for the article itself, I found it to be overly stereotypical and lacking in actual insight.
We should never tolerate intolerance, unless we are considering the intolerance of intolerance. That intolerance, and only that intolerance, must be accepted:
"The so-called paradox of freedom is the argument that freedom in the sense of absence of any constraining control must lead to very great restraint, since it makes the bully free to enslave the meek. The idea is, in a slightly different form, and with very different tendency, clearly expressed in Plato.
Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal."
--Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies (1945)
The problem with this line of argumentation is that you really don't need to invoke vague nominalizations like "power" and "privilege" to argue against this "i'm being oppressed because of my homophobic beliefs" nonsense. When you do, it invariably leads to the sorts of responses you're seeing from the likes of 127 and aaronem below.
