I don't disagree with your point, whatsoever, but I did see another perspective that I might not have otherwise considered while working with a larger company recently.

During the public debates regarding marriage equality, the company showed a very public display of support for marriage equality. They updated their branding and I assume their marketing as well to show that support.

From the inside, it was clear that this was to ensure the people who worked for the company could be proud of where they worked. From my perspective, it seemed the affect on the customer was second priority to the affect upon the employees, and that seemed to do well for all parties involved.

> From the inside, it was clear that this was to ensure the people who worked for the company could be proud of where they worked. From my perspective, it seemed the affect on the customer was second priority to the affect the employees, and that seemed to do well for all parties involved.

I'd like that, and it is a good way to support a cause and it makes employees feel good too. It would also be more impressive if they did it in a time or place where it would be have been unpopular or dangerous because of general prejudices. But I am sure they didn't push emails to customers every-time some politician did something against marriage equality.

That's an interesting perspective. Thanks for sharing.

Another perspective is that Christian and Muslim employees of those companies were told that the management's official policy is that certain aspects of their religious beliefs are wrong. Can you imagine those employees weighing speaking up for themselves vs. their need to keep their jobs?

I've seen employees in that situation, and their morale was definitely not boosted.

Given that their opinion was the law of the land until recently, yeah. I can imagine some of them are mad that they've lost the ability to project their beliefs onto others.

I was raised a militant protestant. I don't use that term lightly; I was told I was "God's soldier" daily. I know exactly the depth of conviction people have about controlling others.

Companies that accept mixed gender marriages were complying with the law of the land at the time, but were also actually making the neutral statement. "I don't know who is right or which God wants what, but we'll try and support our employees with health care for them and their family because that's how they are free to do good work."

A very small but vocal segment of Christian society and Muslim society wants to forbid that. Not because they have any real standing to, but because they want their specific sect of their religion to be dominant. They connect the success of their sect in affecting policy with the success of their beliefs.

In practice we see it all over the place from many actors. And why I appreciate how frustrating it is to have a belief system somewhat at odds with the world, ultimately these people are not damaged in any material OR spiritual way by the presence of dissent or secularism. They still get access to financial and social benefits that other minority cultures almost never get (e.g., complete immunity to taxation, special consideration in law's for education, a huge amount of political consideration). That they're dissatisfied is disturbing, because it means they've lost perspective on how much better off they are than most groups in America.

> Another perspective is that Christian and Muslim employees of those companies were told that the management's official policy is that certain aspects of their religious beliefs are wrong.

How so? To my knowledge, the modern "Christian" marriage (and marriage rites) are dogmatic and have no basis in the either the old nor the new testament. Those whose sensibilities were offended were creating, to use your words "fake outrage". Would they be offended if the Government passed a law that allowed non-believers to pay a tithe?

Attempting to disentangle modern faiths from their culture and social controls is a fundamentally flawed idea and gives no one pause. Everyone is primed by even decades of training to dismiss one aspect of holy text for another. And even if you could win that argument, a "personal" relationship with their deity (actually: their status within their religious community) will still reinforce their position until their rationalizations can be drafted.

Trust me on this. I spent years learning how to call Catholics hypocrites while dismissing every book in the new testament. We were very good at it, and they were very good at pressing us.

> Attempting to disentangle modern faiths from their culture and social controls is a fundamentally flawed idea and gives no one pause

Thanks for spelling it out plainly! I had not considered that "religious beliefs" can be anything one wants it to be, it doesn't need to be rooted on any theology. I guess it serves me right for my arm-chair sociology.

Fake outrage? I don't understand. Must I preface any complaint about a current event with a list of every historical event that I think was worse? A general argument against unsolicited emails is fine, but you seem to be making a much more specific complaint than that.

Yes its very simple, he is complaining about hypocrisy and opportunism manifesting as unsolicited notifications from his ride sharing app.

Wait... Starbucks indicated they'll take nation of origin and immigration status into consideration when making hiring decisions?

Wouldn't that be illegal in the U.S.?