> We aren't talking about just accepting them we are talking about making it specific issues to fight for.

Huh? I think you're missing some key words in this sentence. You're trying to say that it's inappropriate for a company to "fight for" gay acceptance? Is that it? That could have many different meanings, depending on who you ask. Why don't you show me a specific thing a SV company has done that you find objectionable?

> Since when was being a gay a problem any of the SF/SV based companies we are talking about?

Already addressed this issue. Current existence of anti-gay animus IS NOT a prerequisite for inoculating a company against anti-gay animus.

It's like I'm saying "Let's make sure the kitchen has a fire extinguisher" and you're saying "But the kitchen isn't on fire yet."

Anti-gay animus exists outside of the workplace; it is a threat, even in the SF bay area. (Heck, I was called a faggot on MUNI the other day for holding hands with my partner.) It's important to keep it outside the workplace. This is a point you've neglected.

> Gays are not minorities in SF/SV companies

??? Gay people are not in the majority, what are you talking about?

> Virtue signaling is nothing but that. It's dishonest. It helps no one and alienates everyone who doesn't agree

Virtue signaling is ... dishonest? What? If a company advertises that they're cool with gay people, and they are actually cool with gay people, that is not dishonest.

As far as alienating people who disagree, GREAT! That's the whole point! Those people who have a problem with gay people should find somewhere else to work.

> As far as alienating people who disagree, GREAT! That's the whole point! Those people who have a problem with gay people should find somewhere else to work.

This is glorious! Thanks for great illustration of problems with politics at work / US* politics in general. You are winning, but at the cost of alienating opposition. You will never convince anyone outside of your social "tribe", and therefore you are just sewing conflict.

And THAT is the biggest problem in politics today.

* of course this tribalism is natural to humans, therefore everywhere. But few "democratic" countries are as polarized as USA.

A company can do what it wants but when it decides to fight for one cause then it's ignoring others by definition or it won't be in business for long. You claimed you can fight for more things at once I am saying you can't fight for all things and thus you will be ignoring some by favoring others.

In this case, it's especially absurd as those companies that are most vocal about supporting ex "gay rights" didn't have the problem to begin with.

And no it's not addressed and you are setting up a strawman.

No, it's like saying. Let's make sure the kitchen has a fire extinguisher only for gay people. That's what you are saying and that illustrates exactly the problem here.

What about the fat? the ugly? The introvert? the short, the stutters etc. That's why fire extinguishers are for EVERYONE not just one type of person.

You don't have to advertise that you are cool with gay people to be cool with gay people that's the point.

You don't have to celebrate gay, white, black, Hispanic, straight, man, woman to be cool with any of them.

And that' brings us back to the beginning. You don't have gay rights, you have human rights. Unless you don't subscribe to being a human which would be odd then you don't have rights I don't have. You don't have your own fire-extinguisher in the kitchen. But the reality is that today that's exactly what's happening and that's sad because life is complicated for everyone, not just gay people or minorities.

You’re wrong about minority rights. They ought to be specifically labeled and supported under that label.

You’re wrong about the benefits a company and its workers enjoy from specifically protecting itself against allowing in the animus that exists outside the workplace. Being an inclusive workplace which goes out of its way to accommodate minorities carries a small price — but pays excellent dividends. Doing this in no way would alienate any prospective employee — except a person like yourself, which seems 100% okay to me.

What things ought to be is a moral question so far you haven't given me a single reason to support that idea.

I repeat. I am for human rights I don't discriminate and I don't favor people. I treat everyone the same. That's a perfectly ethical position and I am no more villain than someone a saint regardless of whether i choose to prioritize one group of minorities over another.

It pays dividends to those who are favored by the rights yes. It's still discriminatory towards a bunch of other minorities.