Yes, but that’s not relevant to the conversation at hand. No one is saying it’s reasonable to have a CEO who has announced a campaign to eradicate all homosexuality, in an official or unofficial capacity. They’re saying that, when not so extreme as violence, and not expressed in an official capacity, privately held controversial opinions shouldn’t be used to assess an employee’s eligibility for a job.

True, but the question was about people who oppose gay marriage, not people who think gays should be exterminated.

(Effective) opposition to gay marriage has real consequences though too. Just less serious ones.

Opposition to or support of anything important has real consequences. What's your point?

Opposition to or support of unimportant things have real consequences, too. Just smaller ones, typically, but the butterfly effect can be a real bitch.

All political movements have real consequences, so you are effectively saying that a person can not have political opinions you disagree with, and if they do they should be fired from their job.

It does not matter what side of the issue you are on, or what your nuanced position is on the issue, if you disagree with my position you should fired. That is what you are saying.

I can not support such position.

Noticed I said Peaceful Collaboration.

What part of "people should be exterminated" is peaceful to you?

"people should be exterminated" largely happens when people stop collaboration, isolate themselves from "the others" in a mono-culture of extremism.