[coldtea]

>I'm still not sure why he feels so strongly about being inclusive of his employees when he felt it necessary to help fund a bill that would do the exact opposite to millions of people in California (including his employees).

For one, he never said he is against treating gays equally in the workplace (or elsewhere). Only that they should not be married -- something which is irrelevant to the workplace.

Some people take his stance on gay marriage to mean "he hates gays", which doesn't really follow. Actually the reverse could also be true: you could support gay marriage (on principle, as a civil rights issue) and personally hate gays.

>There is no grey scale here. Either you think that people (regardless of their sexual orientation) are equal, or you don't. You don't get to pick who to assign rights to based on if they work for your company or not.

Well, the rights of people in the confines of a company have nothing to do with marriage (except maybe marital leave?). So it's not like he's contradicting himself on anything.

It's also not like he would prevent people to marry outside the workplace. If you remember he helped fund a BILL (emphasis mine). That is, he went with the law, not against it. If the law allows it, he doesn't have a say anymore.