I find myself reacting more and more negatively to "language-specific-experience-required" statements in a job posting for a full-time employee. It's fine for a contractor or consultant needed to solve a specific problem or set of them on a time-limited basis. For a full-time employee however such language is, in my opinion, an indicator that at least one of the following apply:

a) the company is looking for junior level talent with specific language experience so they don't have to train them

b) the company is looking for senior level talent but thinks it can't afford them using any time to pick up the syntax or quirks of the language

c) the company is looking for senior level talent but doesn't think it's even possible a competent senior developer with mostly X experience and no Y experience can pick up Y in an "acceptable" amount of time

d) the company is so invested in their "stack" that (even considering) deviation from it will introduce a net negative (to the process, culture, whatever)

These all have a common theme: the labor that provides the bulk of the value they are able to trade and profit off of is seen as a commodity, as fungible as the brand of paper used in the printers. The company wants a developer who works "out-of-the-box" without any investment and can be discarded/upgraded at any time for any reason. They probably also want the human line-item to display a near-maniacal enthusiasm for the work and loyalty in return.

It's not that they want people who aren't discerning: they probably don't care, as long as the people they hire can fake it.

Also, being "ridiculously in love" with a language doesn't mean one doesn't know it well. For me, it's the opposite: I'm "ridiculously in love" with C++ because I know it as well as I do (which isn't to say I'm an expert). That doesn't mean I'm going to turn down non-C++ jobs or view them as being less interesting, etc.