Should he have been fired?

Fine Eos, if I didn't properly answer the base question: should he have been fired? YES. Even though the rest of the site is morally bankrupt, racist, sexist, etc.? Honestly, the whole site should be fired. It's through vocal communities of bigots like these that all of the -isms and phobias continue to persist. Just because it's hypocritical doesn't mean he shouldn't be fired.

Now in writing that last sentence I had to pause because I've argued the exact opposite when debating the moral argument of Shakespeare's Measure for Measure. In the end I feel it comes down to logic and circumstantial situations. In the play the question hinges on putting a man to death for impregnating his lover out of wedlock. Clearly the world has determined the religious bases of laws like that are illogical, and thus it's no question that the severity of the punishment far exceeds the crime. But in cases of blatant -ism or phobia, I have a tough time believing a zero tolerance policy is at times illogical or inappropriate. I don't think treating other human beings as inferior will ever be "in style," and thus it's not a question of where such behavior occurs - end it.

So again, should he have been fired? Yes, he's promoting racism and all of the problems associated with it. Even though he's writing on a site filled with -isms and phobias? Yes, and the whole site should be fired/shut down.

EDIT: Another way of saying things

It's about damn time someone speaks out from the "white" side of that equation, but it would figure he was fired for it. It's really sad that blacks can still play the racism card at the slightest thing and have a white person severely reprimanded.

Are -isms and phobias dual-sided at times? Yes. But in the same vein that two wrongs don't make a right, your aforementioned "equation" wouldn't exist if people wouldn't respond to racism with racism.

Here's an idea to solve pomegranate: to ALL PEOPLE: don't be racist. Jesus fucking Christ it's 2012 people.