The real question is why every single major company in America is vigorously enforcing social norms that significant portions of the population, often a majority, don’t even agree with. This is very different than other eras.
Some obvious answers:
Companies are made of people, so decisions that are made are often a reflection of the values of those people, not necessarily those of some country or another.
That some group of companies tends to be American is unsurprising since (a) America owns tons of 'loud' industries like tech, so it will always seem this way, and (b) unsurprisingly the values of those who make up a company are tied to some extent by their background.
Companies may feel that their targeted consumer groups are likely sympathetic with some specific social norm.
Companies may feel that the issue is in fact bad for business ie: that someone is a bad fit for a role, is incompetent, etc.
etc
It's so obvious I wonder why one would even ask.
These days the big difference isn't so much about who's writing the rules so much as its about the tools available to these people/companies/interest groups and their respective motives/criteria for using them.
If RMS were a leader at a church or youth club, yes we'd rightly worry about where that view was coming from. But your data being your business is squarely within the goals of the FSF, and RMS staking out unpopular opinions based on their implications for his philosophy is precisely why he has been so prescient.
Unsupported claim.