There is no heuristic which will let a given party or organization accept only the Correct Views while disallowing all the Wrong Views; as a practical matter, for the sake of diversity, you should limit your shunning to those who espouse violence and those who discriminate in the workplace.
>Take a moment to put aside your very strongly held personal belief about gay rights to consider this dispassionately: aside from the fact that you feel right in your views, what is materially different about your suggestion from the suggestion that people should not be allowed to eat meat and participate in the community, because eating meat is unethical? What would your reaction be if I was advocating this position as strongly as you’re advocating yours?
Is your point in comparison. You're saying that there is no effective difference between someone saying 'People who eat meat shouldn't be allowed in our community' and 'People who are against gay marriage shouldn't be allowed in our community'. Your entire argument hinges on this false equivalence.
In point of fact, my entire argument relies on the axioms I explicitly and specifically outlined in the previous comment, which are:
1. nonviolent personal beliefs should not determine eligibility for employment, but violent activity, or endorsement of violent activity, may; and
2. nonviolent personal beliefs should only determine eligibility for employment if they are used for discrimination or advocation in the workplace, which is a matter of inappropriate professional conduct.
I'm happy to entertain an argument against those axioms or the actual comparison I made, but don't just keep replying insisting I've made a false equivalence about two things that I'm not even comparing.
>>Take a moment to put aside your very strongly held personal belief about gay rights to consider this dispassionately: aside from the fact that you feel right in your views, what is materially different about your suggestion from the suggestion that people should not be allowed to play League of Legends and participate in the community, because playing League is unethical? What would your reaction be if I was advocating this position as strongly as you’re advocating yours?
That statement is fundamentally equal to your previous statement. But the levels of controversial and how it actively affects people on a day-to-day basis vastly differs. Now to address your axioms:
>1. nonviolent personal beliefs should not determine eligibility for employment, but violent activity, or endorsement of violent activity, may; and
This depends on the collective community's beliefs. Note I am using the word community here, not just drawing a comparison to job-related activities. A company that advertises itself as being pro-LGBT hiring someone that espouses views like 'Transgender people don't exist', despite being a non-violent statement, goes against their overall goals. When a company hires someone like that, the end result is that people start leaving because people have a limit as to who they're willing to work with. Not all bigotry is violence and as an aside I have met people in tech who believe black people are inferior.
>2. nonviolent personal beliefs should only determine eligibility for employment if they are used for discrimination or advocation in the workplace, which is a matter of inappropriate professional conduct.
Often the two go hand-in-hand. We live in a world where what you do both outside and within the company represents them. The smarter people use multiple accounts and properly separate their work and personal lives. However when the two connect it becomes a matter of passive advocation in the workplace. A company allowing someone that believes black people are inferior to continue working at their company is not only a PR disaster in waiting (especially if they intend to promote him to higher positions) but it's also a tacit approval of his opinions. These views often subtly alter your perception too, and allowing said person to be a part of the recruiting process is, again, a PR disaster waiting to blow up.
No, I'm not ignoring any context. I'm asserting that they can both be the same level of nonviolent. Just as I haven't made a comparison about lifestyles, I also haven't made a comparison about how controversial the beliefs about those lifestyles are. At this point the discussion is just getting pedantic.
That's the problem with this whole argument chain - there are clear material differences between advocating strongly against gay people, versus advocating strongly against eating meat.
There is no diversity in opinion that includes bigotry - that's just a way racists, sexists, and other hate mongers hide in communities. Your axioms completely ignore the idea that there are opinions which cause harm without any introduction of violence - something anyone in a marginalized or oppressed group can and has experienced.
Diversity of opinion does not mean accepting opinions which directly and indirectly cause harm to others.
Your attempt to justify your bigotry is disgusting.
You don't have to pretend that you're not a bigot - opposition to gay marriage is bigotry.
The problem with this philosophy is that it has a significant potential (and likelihood) for abuse. You feel very strongly that your view is the Correct View about the rights of gay people. Maybe you are! That specific example doesn’t matter here - what matters is that the passion you feel is not a valid heuristic.
Take a moment to put aside your very strongly held personal belief about gay rights to consider this dispassionately: aside from the fact that you feel right in your views, what is materially different about your suggestion from the suggestion that people should not be allowed to eat meat and participate in the community, because eating meat is unethical? What would your reaction be if I was advocating this position as strongly as you’re advocating yours?
I posit that we should begin only with the axioms that 1. outright violence and advocation of violence should be impermissible, and 2. advocation of any controversial agenda does not belong in the workplace, violent or otherwise. Adding more to that has the insidious side effect of being used to suppress opinions which are actually diverse. Therefore, when an opposing perspective does not violate one of these axioms, we should consider it with a principle of symmetry: both parties feel very strongly about their views, and your personal feeling that you’re correct is not unique.
You can be effectively intolerant of violence, but I do not consider it plausible that you can construct a framework for tolerating diversity of opinion without tolerating some opinions you find personally abhorrent. That implies the person who implemented that framework has only Correct Views and no Incorrect Views, which seems extremely unrealistic.