Take the cult test. Apply it to a company you work at. See how you feel:
(Edit: To be clear I'm not a member of a political party so I can't try that one.)
Although even for my country I could only honestly give a point for the title. (No idea if it's the king or the prime minister who counts as the leader here, but it's an impressive title. There's plenty of laws, but they don't restrict much on the relational front. Well, there's restrictions on marrying children, and criminal jobs are illegal, so that might be another point.)
If this causes you to be banished and ostracised, then it's probably a cult.
JK Rowling would be an example of this.
Non-Violence or 'Ahmisa' being a core tenant of Buddhism (and many other religions), is the one I would pick as a more apt comparison. I don't think it is reasonable to commit no violence, especially if you consider all life precious - even if you restrict to only humans. Not all people think the same, in fact some people are far more willing to enact violence to reach their goals.
Is protecting yourself and your community not included in the definition of 'violence'? If 'Ahmisa' is to be understood as, yes all forms of violence are sinful - then I outright reject that idea. You must be willing to protect other people, and you must be willing to enforce, and further able to enforce that.
I don't think I have to enumerate all the ways history has proven that violence in the protection of others (and self) was/is necessary.
My analogy was meant to out point that the argument, "I believe everything you believe, except for this one thing" is sophomoric, as the number of things we agree on matters less than the weight of what we disagree on – and vice versa.
Cult-like.
Honestly, the people here so desperate to find an argument for rigid ideological adherence just kind of prove my point.
If someone was a hard core advocate for equality and justice where black and Hispanic people were concerned but held an irrational bigoted views about Jewish people their fellow advocates would count their bigotry more significant than their tolerance.
You are naturally free to have your own positions on the topics raised but there is absolutely nothing logically inconsistent with the position that what they regard as bigotry being cause for concern and reaction even if as you say she and they agree on 19 other topics.
I'm confident I'm thinking clearly though.