They're fighting for the right to fuck children, which is a right denied to all, not just some, and not on the basis of race, religion or sexual preference.

Being able to inherit your partner's estate, and being able to make medical decisions for your partner when they are incapacitated, and being able to visit them when they are in the hospital and unconscious, are all basic human rights. Rights which used to be routinely denied gay couples, and still are in many states.

They aren't leading the company, and they aren't out. Leader's intolerance is a lot more significant than individual contributors' intolerance.

Marriage as an instrument of state is simply a package of rights that you get when you marry. It's nothing more than that. So in fact, when you take away the religious aspect, it makes opposition of those rights even more blatantly reprehensible: you are reserving for yourself rights that you do not want others to have, because of your disapproval of those others, and you can't even hide behind the church the way people who claim it's about religion are able to.

So, kudos for being honest, but that's all you get. Not supporting your desire to retain rights for yourself that you would withhold from others is not intolerance.

No, it actually has to be what we mean when we say "intolerance," which is to say, it has to be actions taken to take away peoples' rights based on their beliefs or skin color or whatever. You don't have a right to impose your views on others, so when we act to stop you from doing so, that isn't what we mean by "intolerance."

No, I don't want that. But you can't always get what you want. I can be fired anytime for my views, and I think about that when I express them. And I express them anyway, because I'd rather speak truthfully and participate fully in democracy, which I consider important, than take the coward's way out and stay silent out of fear for my job.

Eich didn't just voice his opinion. He tried to use government force to impose his opinion on others, by taking rights away from them that he holds dear for himself.

Yes, you're tired of people not tolerating your intolerance.

The weird thing about religious beliefs is that people feel that they are not being tolerated when they try to force those beliefs on others, and that somehow it's their right to force their beliefs on others. You are absolutely free to hate gay people. You are free to think women should all wear burkas. It's when you stone a woman in the street for not wearing a burka, or take a gay person's rights away, that you are being intolerant. And it's no surprise that people who disagree with you don't tolerate your behavior.

So the idea that the problem is that we don't "agree" with you is a complete red herring. It's true that we don't agree with you (those of us who don't). But what we are intolerant of is not your opinion, but your actions in forcing your opinion on us.

If someone said that in Alabama in 1957, it would speak directly to their character. I certainly would not hire them for a leadership position if they refused to even talk about why they said that. And that is precisely what Brendan did. I think it's fine to be open to people changing and growing, and when someone has had a change of heart we should honor and even reward that. But what if that person who said what they said in 1957 refused to talk about it? Did not seem to exhibit any remorse? Should we just give them a pass, because the times were what they were? What about the people in 1957 who said "I don't give a damn what people think, every citizen deserves the right to vote?" Treat them both the same?

Being physically restrained from entering the hospital room where your loved one and partner of thirty years is dying, because you and they are the same sex, is WAY THE FUCK WORSE than losing a cushy job because you exercised your right to advocate for a law that would prevent same-sex partners from having the same rights that opposite-sex married partners have. I can barely begin to imagine how bad that would be, and I don't have to find out, because I am straight, and was able to marry my partner over a decade ago.

Er, no. You are free to advocate whatever you think is best for your municipality, state, country, and world, and people are free to disagree with you. And in the process, hopefully we arrive at a place that's generally beneficial. Your freedom is a freedom from government interference. This freedom is crucial. We've seen the government act to chill free speech in the past, and it's very dangerous. You should look into the Alien and Sedition act, for instance. The idea is that if you disagree with the government's decision to go to war, you can be prosecuted. This doesn't work, because it prevents debate, and prevents a plurality of views. It's better for the government to let you say what you want.

What is not the case, however, is that if you say something reprehensible in public, there need not be any consequences for doing so. The only consequence you are free from is prosecution. You can be shunned by people who despise what you stand for. You can be asked to step down from a leadership position. This is one of the strongest powers that the people, as opposed to the government, have. It's been used to unseat despots in the past.

Which bible verse says (or doesn't say) you're not supposed to fuck children? AFAIK that's something our society decided was important—that is, it's not a religious dictate codified as law, but an ethical judgment codified as law.

If the Democrats are working to curtail the rights of others, then you probably should be ashamed to vote for them, and fearful of being judged for doing so, yes. If you are working to give to others rights that you currently have, or fighting so that you and your fellows can have rights that others currently have and you don't, that's praiseworthy. The people who are withholding those rights might still take action against you (there are a fair number of corporations in the U.S. who will punish/fire employees for being openly Democratic). But from a moral standpoint, people who would treat others equally clearly occupy the high ground, and people who want to treat some people better than others do not. I can provide quotes from the New Testament, spoken by Jesus, if you have any questions that need clarification.

Actually peer pressure is one of the ways that persecution stops. This is a classic example of peer pressure punishing someone for engaging in persecution of a minority. This is not analogous to having a disagreement about a matter of fact. This is a case where someone deliberately took action to make sure that someone he doesn't like wouldn't have the same rights he has.

So while I think the basic point you are making has some validity, the problem is that while I would not shun Brendan for actively supporting proposition 8, any more than I would shun someone who opposed freeing the slaves, it would definitely color my attitude toward that person, and the contexts in which I would trust that person to speak on my behalf.

The nature of leadership roles, such as CEO, is that the leader is not being hired solely for their ability to do a particular set of tasks. They are being hired to lead the organization. So a CEO who is willing to take away from others rights that he keeps for himself is simply not someone I'd want to work for. How do I know he's not going to do the same to me? And an organization looking for a CEO ought to be concerned about the direction in which that CEO would lead the organization.

Free speech is a constitutional restriction on the government. It does not mean that you are not subject to criticism. It just means the government can't stop you from speaking. That's _all_ it means.