Marriage is a legal institution in the United States. If you call for discriminatory access to a legal asset, you should be ready for the scrutiny.

Had the shoe been on the other foot and we were funding a proposition to limit the recognition of Christian marriage, Christians would call it an opposition to their existence too. And rightfully so! The backlash makes sense on a logical, emotional and authoritative level. I don't see how you could possibly interpret it otherwise.

Of course it is bigoted and discriminatory. The point is that discrimination is itself a scale, and "you're not allowed to exist" is a very far end of that scale - much further than opposing same-sex marriage.

But how can you oppose same sex marriage unless you think same sex couples are not deserving of the same legal status as straight couples. There's no religious grounds for opposing it because marriage is a legal matter. The ceremony that many churches do that they call marriage has no legal standing, and is not generally recognized (on it's own) by the government.

Your two options to oppose gay marriage then are either believing the United States should base it's tax and property laws on specifically christian religions (plenty others have no problem with gay marriage), or that gay couples should not be "valid" in the eyes of the law.

"There's no religious grounds for opposing it because marriage is a legal matter."

No, it isn't. For some it's strictly a legal matter, for others it's both a legal matter and a religious matter. That's why you can legally marry in 5 minutes by placing a signature, and separately marry "for church".

"The ceremony that many churches do that they call marriage has no legal standing"

That's not the point of the ritual.

The distinction is irrelevant. Whether or not you consider Eich's contribution to be offensive, the inciting action was strictly related to the legal aspect.

Plus, even if this was a strictly religious belief, that doesn't protect him from the criticism of peers. That's the cost of picking people to make your enemy. Eich resigned after the reaction.

If that is the cost (cheap pile-ons to go after someone's job) would you apply the same method to any of your moslim colleagues? Or is that "different"?

You're putting words in my mouth; the cost is criticism. Brendan Eich surrendered his job after thousands of people called for his removal.

If my colleagues, "moslim" or otherwise, were in this position, I would only say 'tough luck'

Again: do you equally call for the removal of your Muslim co-workers, based on their believes, which on this matter are on average far more..."restrictive"?

You cannot participate in (or plainly accept..."tough luck") the criticism on Brendan if you're not also willing to apply the same criticism to pretty much every muslim worldwide.

So, do you measure by one standard, or two?

Reread my last post, I didn't misunderstand what you said.

> You cannot participate in (or plainly accept..."tough luck")

I disagree.

When a muslim coworker donates $1000 to support overturning marriage equality, yes, I would absolutely tell them that's fucked up and if they were in a C level position I would voice an opinion that they do not uphold our company's explicit core value to be inclusive.

I absolutely do not give a fuck about what someone PRIVATELY believes. The problem is not religious people believing in something, the problem is religious people FORCING their beliefs into law.

When muslim people do that, it's called Sharia law and I am against that, same as I am against laws based on christian beliefs.