The trans bathroom laws are a good example. What makes your position "right"? The other position happens to go against some of your core values (presumably), but that doesn't make it "wrong." Maybe your core values are "wrong" or at least incomplete.

There's a lot of people that are trying to push their values on people under the guise of "it's right." Ironically, these people will say they want people to have the freedom to live the way they want. Trans bathrooms, homosexual marriage: well, maybe I don't want to live in a world where I have to put up with that. Too bad, I don't get a choice, because "it's right."

You'd better have concrete direction from the independent moral authority (i.e. God) if you're going to push your values on other people, because otherwise it's just intolerant. "I feel strongly about this" != "it's right"

That's a philosophical challenge but not a real argument. Obviously we can, we do, and we must make moral distinctions despite the handicap of our lack of omniscience.

One way we do it is by the use of reason, which separates humans from beasts and our current world from the Dark Ages. There are arguments against the universality of these values, but the one above isn't one of them.

If Chinese law required Apple to hand over names and locations of its users for mass executions, obviously the moral relativism argument wouldn't hold. The issue here is that VPNs are a less clear moral issue - obviously it would be better if Chinese people had free speech, but is it worth Apple fighting a battle for it? Another way to ask: Is it ok for Apple to sacrifice their rights in order to make more money?

I'll also point out that the values are not "Western", but universal. The people of Taiwan and Hong Kong strongly embrace these values. As do the people of India, Japan, South Korea, most South American countries, South Africa, all the protestors of the Arab Spring from Iran to North Africa, etc. The only people who say otherwise are the dictators and oppressors, who conveniently find that their cultures are not conducive to freedom (Putin is making the same argument these days - it's a universal value of dictators).

My family is from Bangladesh. My cousin, who is a woman, moved to Australia. She's way happier in a society that allows freedom and equal participation to women. She, in particular, had chaffed at the social restrictions imposed on women in Bangladesh. I don't need to invoke God to realize which way is better.

Bangladesh is an interesting example because it was founded on western principles: a secular democracy with freedom of religion, women's suffrage, etc. Over the years those ideals have been chipped away. In my view, people who equivocate on westernization, or apologize for the forces that oppose westernization under the banner of tolerance, in Bangladesh are doing something profoundly immoral. They take responsibility for depriving people of happiness and prosperity.

Adding an objectively unverifiable external actor to whom you have ascribed the role a of moral arbiter and your belief that they feel strongly about a moral point to the equation doesn't really help anything compared to you feeling strongly about it yourself.

There's a universal declaration of human rights. It's a pretty decent attempt at a starting point for non-divine moral authority.

They did what was popular. That it was right was a coincidence.