All laws enforce the beliefs of the lawmakers on those who believe differently.
Much like homosexuality, consuming marijuana, drugs not approved by the FDA, failing to purchase health insurance, and paying below minimum wage all fall into the category of acts that don't hurt another. Do you oppose all such laws?
Could you elaborate on that?
I don't care either way what your answers are to the above questions, but understand that if you say no to either then you are joining the majority in imposing your belief on a minority. In the first case there can be no reasonable justification for such a belief except that you believe in "traditional marriage." Perhaps that is what Brendan Eich believes in too?
I realize that my point got a little lost in my example. I was just trying to provide context for Dolimiter to explain why there's a distinction between Eich telling homosexuals they can't marry (from the article's perspective, this is wrong) and people telling Eich that he shouldn't act on his beliefs in this way. They are not equal-and-opposite forms or repression.
Religious fundamentalism (from more than one religion) teaches that homosexuality is as wrong as, say, rape. But the latter hurts another, while the former does not. In my mind, that's where the line is drawn. I have my own personal beliefs. I am glad to live in a country that supports these beliefs. I do not try to use the legal system to force others to follow my beliefs.