In this situation, Brendan Eich would probably have been better served by saying less, though that would probably not have changed the outcome. Is your position that weak that you are really reduced to this degree of nitpicking?

A group of people prevented couples that wanted to be married from being married. That is clearly an act.

In the same manner that speaking is an 'act.' Imagine a world where the worst villains would donate $1000 to a PAC supporting their view, then quietly accept the outcome and get on with their work. That world would be a utopia compared to this one.

Again, there was "actual behavior", as a matter of "historical fact".

This entire line of argument only makes sense if you believe that there is a clear "right" and "wrong" and that you are in a perfect position to judge which is which. In a free society, there is no one in such a position, and those who value a free society would be unwise to advocate the punishment of such expression, even if it's technically legal and resembles "civil actions" of the past.

Seriously, watch some documentaries about repressive regimes. Talk to people who understand these principles and have lived in such places. There is a compelling reason why free societies should tolerate unpopular opinions, and why such tolerance should go above the minimum required by the law.

But similarity on one point out of 4 is hardly a strong case.

I think your nitpicking speaks for itself for those who are mindful of principles and will appear as some kind of stirring justification to those who are of the mind "but we're right and they're wrong."