To me, this is little more than a bunch of ignorant jackasess grandstanding.
If an acting Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan took over as CEO of a company, would employees refusing to work for him or outright resigning on principle be grandstanding as well?
Not really a good analogy. The head of an organization whose basis is prejudice to anyone not a white protestant is entirely different from this case. He opposes marriage equality, nothing said about race color religion etc.
The point being the person who becomes your boss believes you should be treated less in our society than himself (and others like him). I used the Grand Wizard for emphasis on that basic belief of others not being equal to one's self, not to say that this particular person was concerned about race, color or religion …
But the question still stands: would employees refusing to work for such a person or outright resigning simply be "grandstanding" or acting on their beliefs using the only real leverage they have available?
And others have covered the anathema angle.
Perhaps "anathema" may have been a bit strong (although I think it logical to assume that if you believe some people should be denied rights afforded everyone else, you also probably hold a less-than-respectful view of them as a whole, if not as individual persons as well). Given the rhetoric along those very lines of not just a few of those of the anti-gay (rights) contingent, I don't think "anathema" inappropriate in general. In this particular instance, it may have been a bit much, however, so I'll withdraw the comment in favor of "someone who believes you personally are less than worthy of some of the basic rights enjoyed by everyone else". Either way, I believe the point I was making stands ...