I agree. Some of the posters say that software would have been better if the people he made uncomfortable weren't made uncomfortable by him and thus continued making software. That is extremely implausible. People who do software because it is something they are passionate about would not be so fragile, and that is necessary to make ground breaking changes.
I sometimes hear people say "if tech wasn't stereotyped as a bunch of nerds, there would be more women in it". This ignores the fact that there is a strong causal relationship between being perceived as a nerd and having a serious interested in software. It's like saying "if I didn't hold people who do software in contempt, then I might have done software!".
I agree to the general idea that the government should try to do as little moral arbitration as possible. The concept of "separation of church and state" would be best modernized and secularized as the "separation of morality and state".
The doctrine of disparate impact is plainly immoral and flies in the face of freedom of association. Society should punish companies which display behaviors they do not approve of using the market instead of the government.
My thought is that it is because humans are prediction machines, and death is the most unpredictable event possible. Many cultures try to make death predictable by introducing concepts of heaven, which does seem to work for people who believe it.