I don't support people who advocate for policies that hurt and kill people (mostly women in this case). That cause tremendous suffering.
I can't support such people in any way, even if their personal politics have nothing to do with their work or whatever event they plan.
People can believe and support what they want, but they should not be free of consequences for such beliefs: exclusion and boycots.
Seems like an obvious slippery slope to me. While I disagree with those religious views personally, I strongly believe people should be able to hold whatever beliefs they want and shouldn’t be punished for them.
Maybe I’m just too liberal in that regard tho.
At no point did I talk about government intervention or something like that.
Just civilians being informed to make choices they want to make
Also, as we’ve seen in the case of DHH and others (https://drewdevault.com/weird-guys should not be taken as gospel, but it’s certainly a reasonable place to start), public figures have a tendency to move their “personal” business more towards their professional/public platform.
I've thought about it a fair bit, and I don't think there's really a very clear line between which religious beliefs people should politely decline to comment on, vs openly critisise. The cultural taboo that exists in much of the west against privately excluding people on the basis of religion has had some really positive effects (the marked decrease in religious violence of the past few hundred years is amazing), but it also leaves society somewhat vulnerable to the spread of some particularly cancerous ideas.
I think if you'd also say under every traditional Muslim's post "by the way this person thinks gay people should be thrown off roofs, and women's votes should be half that of men's, and they should only be able to divorce if the man consents, and men should be able to hit their wives to discipline them, and women should walk around in dehumanising clothing because only women are to blame for rape, and supports a religion that builds the most backward societies on the planet" then you'd look a lot more honest.
But you won't. Because you look away from the catastrophic stuff and instead poorly mis-summarise mild stuff that you disagree with to make it sound catastrophic.