[yorwba]

Members of a community should be allowed to hate each other, so long as they can leave each other alone. Worst case, they might have to be separated, with other community members acting as intermediaries.

It is simply not practical to exclude a community member whenever they have a passionate disagreement with someone else, even if that topic is highly relevant to the community, because every two people are going to find something they disagree about.

Part of being a mature person is being able to work together with someone you'd rather not interact with, because you realize that in that moment, your interests are partially aligned.

[yttrium]

That's a false equivalency - members of a community hating each other is not the same as members of a community conspiring to oppress other members of a community.

The idea that two reasonable human beings will find something they don't have in common is not equivalent to finding out that the coworker next to you doesn't think you should have human rights.

Part of being a mature person is being able to realize that some members of a community hold positions that are fundamentally incompatible, even if they represent a net positive from a work standpoint.

It doesn't matter if your coworker has partially aligned interests with you if some of their other interests infringe on your human rights - that's when you choose not to interact with them, and to exclude them from the community until they change their ways.

[yorwba]

How does excluding the coworker help you? It certainly won't make them suddenly realize that you do deserve human rights after all. Why not make the best of the situation and create something of value to both of you?

[yttrium]

Reform is not the intent, although it is the criteria for re-inclusion. The intent is to create a community that respects all of it's members rights. Excluding the co-worker helps me because I don't have to worry about whether the fruits of my labor are going to a effort that will cause me harm either in the present or in the future.

Social interaction and software development go hand in hand - The idea that someone with a fundamentally hostile viewpoint is needed to create something of value for both of us is not applicable. There are many software developers who don't wish harm upon others, and they will be more willing to work with you.

The best outcome in this situation is not the product that gets created. The best outcome is an environment in which members of the community don't feel like their basic rights are in question.

[yorwba]

How does excluding that person ensure that they won't use the fruits of your labor for an effort that will you cause you harm? If you think that was the ultimate reason for them to work on the same thing as you, they can still make use of your work indirectly. If you think that they are not just a one-dimensional character, and just happen to enjoy some of the same things as you; then excluding them deprives them of that enjoyment, but it doesn't really help you, does it?

Your second paragraph seems to assume a fixed number of developers working on a project, and in that case there is no downside in replacing them. But what about an open-source project where they keep sending PRs for bug fixes and features that all have technical merit? Would you ignore that and redo the work? If I'm working on the same project, should I avoid merging their work to accommodate you?

While I agree that a community where everyone can feel comfortable is something to strive for, I think that does not require excluding some members for the views they hold. It is enough when they don't push those views onto the others.

[yttrium]

You're right - you can't ensure that they won't use your work for bad, that's true. You can try to lessen the impact by making sure they're not part of your organization or community. Excluding them does help me, because I don't have to put up with someone who is actively trying to make my life worse.

I think if you manage an open source project you should feel comfortable taking a stand on contributors who have/advocate for actively discriminatory positions. Just because you organize a community project that may be used by people you fundamentally disagree with doesn't mean you have to check your sense of morality at the door.

If someone submitted a PR to my project who held openly racist positions, I would deny the PR. No amount of genius or technical merit makes up for that.

One could come up with a hypothetical of an open source project that is important enough to require any help it can get, and also somehow obscure enough that only a handful of developers are working on it. Nonetheless, I don't really think most open source projects (or even for-profit projects) fall into that category. At the point where work becomes so important that you need to compromise other parts of your character in order to finish it there are probably bigger things to worry about.

[explainplease]

> If someone submitted a PR to my project who held openly racist positions, I would deny the PR. No amount of genius or technical merit makes up for that.

In contrast, I, and many other people, would evaluate it on its technical merits and merge it if it was good. It's just code; it inherits no sin from its writer.

But you discriminate against code--not even a person--based on your personal dislike of its writer. Isn't that bigoted?

[bobthechef]

What is your basis for "rights"? The idea that there is a right to having a gay marriage recognized as a marriage by the state is very novel. How did that novel determination happen exactly? It can't be the will of the people because then rights are not recognized so much as commanded or agreed upon (in which case, it's possible that the will of the people can change and poof go your supposed rights).

P.S. My impression is that you believe that opposition to gay marriage is bigoted, that it's not possible to have intelligent and powerful arguments against the idea.