They're certainly Christian values, but they're not "conservative", at least not by the American definition. I'll point you to these tenets:

* Relieve the poor. * Clothe the naked. * Visit the sick.

... those seem like "liberal values" to me, at least on the American spectrum.

Christ never advocates for the state to do anything. These are individual commands.

Christ does exhort his followers to render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, and Democrats believe the state acts on behalf of the populace to perform tasks that we individually could not do. So a community can clothe and house the poor better than an individual can.

Clothing and housing are artefacts of this world, not the kingdom of Christ. Ergo rendering unto Caesar what is caesar’s involves providing clothing and housing to those who do not have it, with the state as proxy and effort multiplier.

Yeah, the "render unto Caesar" episode was so much deeper than just "pay your taxes."

Also, whatever the state does, it accomplishes through the threat of violence to collect taxes. For a Christian, the ends are as important as the means.

I think they can be both - the liberal vs conservative part is merely the means by which you do so - do you vote small parts of other people's property to the task or do you donate your own property voluntarily to the task.

And lest this seem like a conservative jab - it is not intended in any such manner - I willingly admit that in those times the system worked completely different than it does now in ways that would create a great deal of consternation in both modern liberals AND conservatives.

Not to get into a huge political philosophy discussion here, but conservative people are on average some of the biggest donators to charitable groups who focus on tenets such as these. The "liberals" don't have a corner on wanting to help people, although people disagree how that help should be organised.

Isn't homelessness the worst in California?

You are explicitly associating virtuous characteristics with "liberals" and suggesting that "conservatives" don't have those virtues.

Very divisive and unfounded IMHO.

If you are equivocating this CoC to Republican conservative values, you are laughably wrong.

I did not say Republican. Nor did I mean Republican.

Because I'm not a complete moral relativist, I think there is a difference between good values and bad values

That's almost a tautology. Everyone find their own values good, and other people's values less good (if not downright bad).

In any case, you might have gained some understanding of why other people get upset, when _your_ values are imposed on them.

And those people are wrong. It's OK, and necessary, for human beings to make ethical judgments. The correct position is one that minimizes suffering, not one that absolves itself of the responsibility to make difficult choices, in deference to some arbitrary, inhumane objectivity.

'Rule of Saint Francisco' :D

Of course value-based CoCs are fine. The problem with this isn't the content, it's the fact that they're using the content because they fundamentally disagree with codes of conduct.

So you would be fine if projects started adoping CoCs like these, if they did so seriously?

Their house, their rules. I can choose to not participate.

What values are you referring to?

By "San Francisco Democrat"? I mean the values held by the average Democrat-voting San Franciscan.

...capitalism?

So what is the game here? Put a random noun between "…" and "?"?

Let me try:

…airhockey?

Are you trying to communicate or be a dick? The only universal value I am aware of in san francisco is capitalism.

I would ask the same thing of you. Are you playing dumb or are you really not aware that SF is kinda out there on the U.S. left wing?

If I, a european who've only visited the U.S. a handful of times, know more of U.S. politics than you do, I really don't know what to say.

It’s only left wing in a very meaningless definition of left wing. I live there :) San Francisco hasn’t deserved the reputation for decades at this point. It’s the stronghold of Pelosi, a neoliberal and a staunch centrist. Ditto with Feinstein.

It sounds like you have no clue what "left wing" means when you refer to capitalists as "left wing". Because generally, it refers to anti-capitalists (socialists, anarchists etc).

By "San Francisco Democrat" do you mean "gay people exist and are fine"? Or "women are an equal part of society"? I'm having trouble unraveling your dogwhistle here.

You're basically saying that putting "SF Dem" in front of anything makes it less evil. Brainwashed.

Maybe it would go better if you just took my words at face value instead of trying to find some way to misinterpret them.