I think this helps clarify the distinction between him being CEO and a blatant racist being CEO (a comparison that seems to be common in this thread). Should a

I think this helps clarify the distinction between him being CEO and a blatant racist being CEO (a comparison that seems to be common in this thread). Should a person be allowed in a position of power if they are able to separate their personal beliefs and lead the organization properly, without improper bias against anyone? I suspect this has happened many times before. I don't see how the LGBT community has benefited much from this. It seems to me that giving him credit for clearly not letting his personal beliefs affect his work relationships and taking a wait-and-see stance would've resulted in a more productive outcome. Would this not have been an opportunity to educate someone who is otherwise seemingly capable of reasoned and rational thought?