Red herring. Has that happened yet? Can we talk about it when it does?

Making the bullying of homosexuals (esp in the workplace) "not cool" is one of the proudest achievements of the "SJW's" you so derisively mention. The message is pretty consistent. Don't punch down.

P.S: "maybe some tech CEOs that supported prism-like initiatives should also be ousted", I would love it if that happens, unfortunately, supporting prism-like initiatives might make them more money. Board's voting against making money doesn't make sense. Maybe if we could create strong a loud dis-incentive against this, the board would react as we expect but then again Glenn Beck doesn't like this kind of corporate shaming.

> Making the bullying of homosexuals (esp in the workplace) "not cool"

We're not talking about that. We're talking about losing your job for (being found to) support[ing] prop 8.

> The message is pretty consistent. Don't punch down.

Unless you live in Palestine? No liberal ousting of pro-Israel CEOs.

Of course, the reason might be is that the issue is a complex one, there are many reasons to be pro-Israel other than wishing ill of Palestine/Palestinians. Why is that nuance not exist here? "Support prop 8? Must be homephobe then!".

If it's political, it should not be treated in this way. Any more than I should harass you for your political beliefs. SJWs belief their pet topics are different, special; That they get to behave in a different manner. I disagree.

I'd love to hear a reason for supporting Prop 8 that doesn't explicitly degrade homosexual relationships. I can't think of any and I would be uncomfortable working around Prop 8 supporters (esp if I was gay). What is this nuance you speak of? Why must all issues be treated the same? Some issues are more complex than others.

If I were uncomfortable with a co-workers religion, should they be fired?

I can't see this as any more than allowing punishment for having certain political beliefs...

> Why must all issues be treated the same? Some issues are more complex than others.

These issues are complex, they are just oversimplified to binary "with or against", "good or bad" by activists.

This is specifically not about religion or some kind of hatred for war-hawks. Both of which are choices and therefore more complex. You are still skirting the issue. Why would someone support Prop 8 without trying to enforce some level of heteronormativity on the people around them? Until, I see any way for someone to care about who else can or cannot get married without being bigoted, this issue remains pretty binary.

Deal with everything on a case-by-case basis, is my point.

> Why would someone support Prop 8 without trying to enforce some level of heteronormativity

This is an appeal to ignorance. Quite simply, you don't know.