His entire post is about bad behaviour by employees, and he has just confirmed to you that if you were (visibly) LGBTQ it was impossible not to be hired there.

His entire post is about bad behaviour by employees, and he has just confirmed to you that if you were (visibly) LGBTQ it was impossible not to be hired there. Most likely also impossible to be fired given the OP's stories. That is exactly what you'd expect from a SF based firm that says it's committed to diversity hiring, because that word is code for "anyone who isn't a straight white man". That's why your response to me was not really in good faith. As the original writer later confirmed, the answer I gave you was correct - hiring standards vanished if you were the "best" orientation. Yet you just flatly rejected it and demanded an alternative (but wrong) answer you liked more. You also stated you wouldn't be able to discuss the issue without it "descending into a flame war", passive voice, implying that I'd be the one flaming you - that is also wrong. This seems to be an increasingly common tactic to avoid reading alternative viewpoints: just announce up front that polite debate is impossible, with the insinuation that it's the fault of other people. Not a great approach. From your other posts, you are feeling hurt that people might doubt your abilities because you're in a favoured class. Yes, that must really suck. We can all totally understand that. At the same time it sucks a lot more to be at that sort of company in a non favoured class.