That's not really the same thing.
In your example, that would be the equivalent of Gitlab *users* dumping Gitlab because they don't like the fact Gitlab do business with ICE. That's... not unreasonable, but like you say where do you draw the line?
For Gitlab *employees* it's different. They're actively building a tool which ICE are using to help them do things that the Gitlab employees object to. The things they're objecting to are rather more firm and serious than "might be used for bullying" but that's probably neither here nor there.
So in your example, it'd be more like Apache developers complaining about El Reg being allowed to use it, and saying the license should be changed to prevent El Reg from using it. It's not a great analogy really, anyway because there's a commercial relationship between ICE and Gitlab, whereas the Apache Foundation has very little say in who uses its products.
I don't disagree that a lot of projects can sit in that grey area, but there's a huge distinction between being part of that project and a user of that project, which is where your example falls short.