You don't see Christians protesting outside credit card companies because they engage in usury, or against companies that make their employees work on Sundays, or for policies to help the poor, or anything else like that.
Ultimately what it comes down to is that ideology/religion is the cart, not the horse. People have prejudices and preconceived notions, then they cherry pick from their ideology of choice to rationalize them. People think gays are icky and weird, so they cherry pick from the Bible to support discrimination against them. But usury is profitable so they ignore those parts.
e: Just to be more clear, this isn't me coming up with my own justification. The Hebrew word "ratsakh" used in the commandment specifically refers to murder or manslaughter and isn't used in the context of killing in war.
Even without cherry picking, in this instance, when the Bible/God/Jesus declares it the greatest commandment, you'd think they would pay a little more attention to it.
>People think gays are icky and weird
http://research.vtc.vt.edu/news/2014/oct/29/liberal-or-conse...
People with stronger disgust response tend to be conservative.
"Progress occurs one funeral at a time."
Unfortunately I think he's grandstanding and this is simply symbolic. Which is fine, but he doesn't really mean it. It's a ploy.
Kind of like the legislation?
In a democratic country that is supposed to uphold human rights, public acts such as these can have a strong positive impact.
In an autocratic country such as china, the impact would be zero. Often, limited engagement can have a better impact.
in Africa too
Africa is not one homogenous mass of religious backwardness.
To call the response "seemingly-exaggerated" is an understatement. Frankly, I wonder if Mr. Benioff has even read the bill that Gov. Pence signed today, or whether he's relying on the rhetoric of those who oppose it, who claim it will inevitably lead to discrimination. What the bill actually says is that the state government can't (with some exceptions) enact a law that curtails religious freedom.
In the 20 or so other states that have very similar laws model after the 1993 federal Religious Freedom Act, the courts have ruled in the cases that have been brought forward that it isn't an excuse by the private sector to discriminate. (One assumes that no Salesforce personnel are allowed to travel to those states, either...)
You can love your neighbor as you love yourself, and still not condone or participate in or approve of activities that contradict your faith, just as on a purely secular level you might like an individual but find some of their behavior distasteful.
First, loving someone while saying one of the facets of their identity is wrong is... a weird definition of love, at the very least.
Second, that isn't what's at issue. What's at issue is whether someone's personal distaste should translate into a denial of service in the public sphere.
I also don't understand creating these laws and then creating loopholes for pet causes. People are either free to associate and disassociate or they are not.
Substitute the word 'same-sex' with 'black' in that famous example you mention and it should become obvious why laws like that are needed (and were needed 50 years ago).
And now you've discriminated and are subject to lawsuits. As has already happened in a number of cases.
Just sayin...