> "The term 'thought-police' does not necessarily have a government connotation."
If it is not government, then the party under discussion therefore must be a private individual or organization. I don't understand how this is anything like the commonly accepted understanding of "thought police". It is simply one private party critiquing the behavior (in this case, a monetary donation to support certain legislation) of another private party.
It is an inherent double standard.
Also: if Eich, rather than fund legislation which discriminates against gays, funded legislation that discriminated against, for example, black people, would you be confident that black people who worked for Mozilla would be working in a fair environment? Would another private organization, like OKCupid, be justified in questioning such an individual?
If this is to be branded the "thought police" then I worry about freedom of expression and our cultural mores, in general.