> The founder of Brave was canceled by the left for his religious opposition to calling gay unions “marriage”.
Insofar as he was opposed by “the Left”, it was for his political actions in opposition to equal rights. The religious basis of that action was probably important to Eich, but it was immaterial to the opposition.
> FWIW, I voted to call it that in my state, but I have no problem with someone holding a different opinion.
Good for you.
> That’s sorta how democracy works.
In a liberal (in the classical, Enlightment-derived sense, not either of the narrower senses it is used for factional positions within the US political system) democracy, you are absolutely permitted to have a problem with, and (peacably) take action based on such a problem, with unwelcome political actions, including actual or threatened refusal to participate in economic exchanges with the perpetrator.
This kind of thinking can go quite far if taken to its logical conclusion. The question therefore is, do _you_ want to live in a world where everyone is fighting everyone else over the most irrelevant of actions or even wrongthink? I know I don't.
I much prefer to be persuaded to vote for or against something than have to state my opinions under the barrel of a proverbial gun. After a free and fair election, I accept the results and move on, even if things do not go my way. Seems more civilized and less painful than all known alternatives.
> This kind of thinking can go quite far if taken to its logical conclusion
The logical conclusion of it being permitted is...that it will be done when the utility of the impact it is perceived as likely to have outweighs the perceived disutility of the protest action, including any beneficial exchange foregone. Which is, all in all, not very much, which matches pretty well with observed behavior.
> After a free and fair election, I accept the results and move on, even if things do not go my way
Well, when there is a free and fair election to strip you of fundamental liberties, and you lose, try to keep that attitude in mind.
Bet it looks like that if your "protest action" is confined to Twitter and TikTok. From where I sit, your "protest action" over the past year achieved NEGATIVE results. Murders and crime are UP. Segregation is UP. Racial strife is UP. I fail to see the "impact" other than several billions in damage, rising crime, and a senile octogenarian in the White House, who is the direct cause of incarceration of hundreds of thousands of African Americans due to his own misguided "legislation" from the 80s. Wonderful, wonderful "impact".
Insofar as he was opposed by “the Left”, it was for his political actions in opposition to equal rights. The religious basis of that action was probably important to Eich, but it was immaterial to the opposition.
> FWIW, I voted to call it that in my state, but I have no problem with someone holding a different opinion.
Good for you.
> That’s sorta how democracy works.
In a liberal (in the classical, Enlightment-derived sense, not either of the narrower senses it is used for factional positions within the US political system) democracy, you are absolutely permitted to have a problem with, and (peacably) take action based on such a problem, with unwelcome political actions, including actual or threatened refusal to participate in economic exchanges with the perpetrator.