Apple throws clout behind Equality Act blocking discrimination against LGBT Americans

Posted:
in General Discussion edited November 2015
Via a press statement, Apple on Thursday officially backed the Equality Act, an expansion of 1964's Civil Rights Act that -- if voted in -- would add gender identity and sexual orientation to non-discrimination protections for Americans.




The statement appeared on the website of Human Rights Campaign, an activist organization devoted to LGBT issues. The proposed legislation was introduced to Congress on Tuesday afternoon, and has the support of other major corporations like Dow and Levi Strauss.

"At Apple we believe in equal treatment for everyone, regardless of where they come from, what they look like, how they worship or who they love," Apple wrote. "We fully support the expansion of legal protections as a matter of basic human dignity."

Most U.S. states still lack non-discrimination laws for the LGBT community. Such laws can be controversial, since they sometimes conflict with conservative religious views, but supporters consider them essential to safeguarding access to jobs, housing and other civil rights.

Apple has been a leading corporate backer of LGBT causes for decades, having been one of the first American companies to offer equal benefits to same-sex couples. It vocally and financially opposed a 2008 ballot measure that temporarily banned gay marriage in California, and current CEO Tim Cook -- who is gay himself -- has spoken out repeatedly on LGBT issues.

The company has also become a staple of San Francisco's annual Pride Parade. In June, thousands of Apple workers and supporters marched for the parade's 45th anniversary, wearing official t-shirts and carrying a corporate banner.
«134

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 64
    slurpyslurpy Posts: 5,384member
    I'm absolutely SHOCKED at this news, I expected Apple to back the discrimination of LGBT.

    Cue the predictable false shock and outrage to come from the incessant trolls.
  • Reply 2 of 64
    9secondko9secondko Posts: 929member
    Ridiculous
  • Reply 3 of 64
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Slurpy View Post



     the incessant trolls.

    Internet troll: A person whose sole purpose in life is to seek out people to argue with on the internet over extremely trivial issues.

     

    (that's from Urban Dictionary)

     

    I'd hardly consider people's personal beliefs to be classified as "extremely trivial issues". News flash: people will disagree with you. Deal with it.

  • Reply 4 of 64
    itrollitroll Posts: 1member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by TheWhiteFalcon View Post

     

    Internet troll: A person whose sole purpose in life is to seek out people to argue with on the internet over extremely trivial issues.

     

    (that's from Urban Dictionary)

     

    I'd hardly consider people's personal beliefs to be classified as "extremely trivial issues". News flash: people will disagree with you. Deal with it.


    he said incessant not internet

     

    in·ces·sant



    in?ses(?)nt/



    adjective





    1. (of something regarded as unpleasant) continuing without pause or interruption.


      "the incessant beat of the music"


       


      (That's from google.) 






  • Reply 5 of 64
    slurpyslurpy Posts: 5,384member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by TheWhiteFalcon View Post

     

    Internet troll: A person whose sole purpose in life is to seek out people to argue with on the internet over extremely trivial issues.

     

    (that's from Urban Dictionary)

     

    I'd hardly consider people's personal beliefs to be classified as "extremely trivial issues". News flash: people will disagree with you. Deal with it.


     

    You can have all the personal beliefs you want, as long as you don't infringe on the freedom of others. But people like you want to shove their personal beliefs down the throats of others, and decide what they can and can't do- and everything you believe they shouldn't be able to do, always falls in the category of things you yourself can do- conveniently. Apple supporting equality does NOT infringe upon you or your rights in any way whatsoever, nor does it affect you negatively, so deal with that. The fact that you want Apple to run according to your "personal beliefs" is so utterly childish and ludicrous.

     

    A troll is also someone who harps on the same shit no matter what the evidence is introduced to the contrary, and when they make sure their ideology trumps rationality. You go nuts in all these threads, and make laughable statements (like blaming any issues you have with Apple products on Cook's gayness) so don't pretend you're above being a troll. I couldn't care less about your personal beliefs- they can be whatever you want. What I do have a problem with is your petty and childish attitude that a global almost trillion $$ corporation should mirror your personal beliefs in their social and corporate policies.  

  • Reply 6 of 64
    Go apple! Nice!
  • Reply 7 of 64
    boltsfan17boltsfan17 Posts: 2,294member

    Gender identity? That is ridiculous. It's either you are a man or a woman. No in between like these idiots Bruce Jenner and others. I'm sorry but there shouldn't be protections for people who want to be a man one day and then a woman the next. 

     

    I hope this bill fails. If you read it, there is a part that says you can't use the Religious Freedom Restoration Act to defend people who believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. The bill also says that if you are a biological male and identify yourself as a woman, by law you would be able to enter women's bathrooms. This bill goes way to far. These LGBT groups are nuts. It's their way or the highway. 

  • Reply 8 of 64
    flaneurflaneur Posts: 4,526member
    Internet troll: A person whose sole purpose in life is to seek out people to argue with on the internet over extremely trivial issues.

    (that's from Urban Dictionary)

    I'd hardly consider people's personal beliefs to be classified as "extremely trivial issues". News flash: people will disagree with you. Deal with it.

    But opposing support for the granting of civil rights to a previously marginalized group is so perverse and unenlightened that you could indeed call it trivial.

    To see how history makes "conservatism" look absurd, here's George Wallace in his 1963 inaugeral speech as governor of Tim Cook's home state of Alabama:



    Corporations in the age of television and electronic media have often shown themselves to be ahead of large numbers of the general population when it comes to social enlightenment. It's good business. But that's another story of cultural ecology. I keep telling you guys, you have to read Marshall McLuhan, and you have to take Steve Jobs's advice and take your medicine. You're virgins arguing about whether sex is worthwhile.
  • Reply 9 of 64
    quadra 610quadra 610 Posts: 6,757member
    Activism in the right, progressive, and socially responsible direction.

    I'm all for it. Especially in the U.S.
  • Reply 10 of 64
    flaneurflaneur Posts: 4,526member
    boltsfan17 wrote: »
    Gender identity? That is ridiculous. It's either you are a man or a woman. No in between like these idiots Bruce Jenner and others. I'm sorry but there shouldn't be protections for people who want to be a man one day and then a woman the next. 

    I hope this bill fails. If you read it, there is a part that says you can't use the Religious Freedom Restoration Act to defend people who believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. The bill also says that if you are a biological male and identify yourself as a woman, by law you would be able to enter women's bathrooms. This bill goes way to far. These LGBT groups are nuts. It's their way or the highway. 

    Good thing California's a big state.

    But make it a point to see Tangerine. It was shot entirely on iPhonr 5S around Santa Monica and Highland in LA. i'm sure you know the area.
  • Reply 11 of 64
    isteelersisteelers Posts: 738member
    boltsfan17 wrote: »
    Gender identity? That is ridiculous. It's either you are a man or a woman. No in between like these idiots Bruce Jenner and others. I'm sorry but there shouldn't be protections for people who want to be a man one day and then a woman the next. 

    I hope this bill fails. If you read it, there is a part that says you can't use the Religious Freedom Restoration Act to defend people who believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. The bill also says that if you are a biological male and identify yourself as a woman, by law you would be able to enter women's bathrooms. This bill goes way to far. These LGBT groups are nuts. It's their way or the highway. 

    Now the part that says you can go into different bathrooms if you identify yourself as a woman when you are still a dude I definitely disagree with, if that is true. You can cross dress all you want and that's your business, but unless you complete the transformation that should be off limits. I don't care if you're gay or straight, but that is nuts.
  • Reply 12 of 64
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,388member
    Originally Posted by Slurpy View Post

    You can have all the fucking personal beliefs you want, as long as you don't infringe on the freedom of others.


     

    That’s obviously false; your feelings end where my rights begin. The point of government is to balance freedom with damage to others.

  • Reply 13 of 64
    tony1tony1 Posts: 259member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by iSteelers View Post





    Now the part that says you can go into different bathrooms if you identify yourself as a woman when you are still a dude I definitely disagree with, if that is true. You can cross dress all you want and that's your business, but unless you complete the transformation that should be off limits. I don't care if you're gay or straight, but that is nuts.

    And so go the freaks in California. Maybe a transgender bathroom would be best, like family bathroom's that I've seen. I damn well would not want a guy that's "confused" today in the same * bathroom as my daughter. 

  • Reply 14 of 64
    gustavgustav Posts: 827member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tony1 View Post

     

    And so go the freaks in California. Maybe a transgender bathroom would be best, like family bathroom's that I've seen. I damn well would not want a guy that's "confused" today in the same bathroom as my daughter. 




    That hypothetical situation doesn't make sense. So a pedophile that is willing to break a much worse law (molesting a child) is going to be stopped because there's no law allowing him in the bathroom? If he wanted to attack your daughter in a public bathroom he's going to sneak in anyway.

  • Reply 15 of 64
    tony1tony1 Posts: 259member

    Gustav. I agree with you and maybe we're talking about the same thing. I can't see giving a sicko pedophile a law that simply allows him into the bathroom in the first place. I was a teen boy at one time and not naive'. I know, if given the chance, they'll peep or who knows what. Why give them ammunition? "Transgender", "gay", confused, whatever this will be abused and should be voted against and fought hard.

     

    BTW, I should have said "Girls" or "Lady's" room in my previous post. See *

  • Reply 16 of 64
    foggyhillfoggyhill Posts: 4,767member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by iSteelers View Post





    Now the part that says you can go into different bathrooms if you identify yourself as a woman when you are still a dude I definitely disagree with, if that is true. You can cross dress all you want and that's your business, but unless you complete the transformation that should be off limits. I don't care if you're gay or straight, but that is nuts.

     

    The bathroom meme... Right... So, I guess gays and lesbians should get their own bathroom too, hey! 

    Cause hey, they can "see things" in there and can corrupt little children... (sic)

    Hmm, so what are you afraid of in there?

    You do know there are stalls right, people are not pee naked in the middle of the floor.

     

    You think a little symbol on the door will stop a sexual predator, however he's dressed to enter whatever room he likes?

    100% being very male looking BTW.

    You do know there are actual laws against sexual and other crimes don't you?

     

    So, how will you police that bud, get every women to drop their skirts or trousers?

    And only police women's bathroom, not the opposite.

    are only trans woman freaks (or nuts) in your book? Or did you not know about the others.

     

    BTW, you won't tell either way for 90% of transgenders and gender ambiguous males or females

    So, the chance of being wrong in a "non drop pants",  tests is very high.

    ID can be changed without operation these days, so that won't help you.

    Guess asking all women to "drop it" to "reassure you", doesn't phase you at all...

     

    Having a close trans women friend for several decade, I've heard this kind of nonsense idiocy for quite some time.

  • Reply 17 of 64
    foggyhillfoggyhill Posts: 4,767member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Tony1 View Post

     

    Gustav. I agree with you and maybe we're talking about the same thing. I can't see giving a sicko pedophile a law that simply allows him into the bathroom in the first place. I was a teen boy at one time and not naive'. I know, if given the chance, they'll peep or who knows what. Why give them ammunition? "Transgender", "gay", confused, whatever this will be abused and should be voted against and fought hard.

     

    BTW, I should have said "Girls" or "Lady's" room in my previous post. See *


     

    Right... Pedophiles,.

     

    What about the men's restroom, male pedophiles have access to little boys... Oh my! (Just like gay men can see other men..). The horror.

    BTW, pedophiles don't care which gender the kid is, they're attracted to children.

     

    Where are the stats about pedophile attacks by males in male restrooms?

    As there been more than a handful in this century? I'm going to say : no.

    Should we ban males from the male restroom for this hypothetical scenario?

    Run background checks on males before they enter the male restroom?

     

    Or... You don't give a shit about those boys, only poor defenseless little girl deserves protection... cause men are evil.... (sic)

    Yes, that's how it ends by your own crazy ass logic.

     

    The fact that 99.9999999% of crimes committed by pedophiles don't occur anywhere close to a public bathroom, because that's the stupidest place in the world to approach a child and the chance of being caught is so high (with the mother/father nearby and other people often around), doesn't seem to phase you at all.

     

    That even if it did, dressing up is not needed and a little logo would not prevent any real criminal's action, especially violent ones, from acting.

     

    It's build a fracking straw man day. Bring in the straw, build it bigger.

  • Reply 18 of 64
    9secondko9secondko Posts: 929member
    When I was little, I ws taught that playing make believe was ok. but there is a time to knock it off.

    But we live in an era where grown adults are stuck in a make believe infinite loop and try to pass it off as reality.

    a man calls himself a woman. it''s not true, but then he is calld "she."

    as if cosmtic surgery somehow chages the fundmnetals of who they are, chromosomes be damned...

    a white woman sas she is black, and it's not lying,... it's just how she "identifies..."

    sheesh. enough is ennough already.

    These people don't need even more room to step all over everyone elses morals just because they want to live out a fantasy.

    That is not right, progressive, or forward anything. It is just plain sad.
  • Reply 19 of 64
    9secondko9secondko Posts: 929member
    When I was little, I ws taught that playing make believe was ok. but there is a time to knock it off.

    Now, we live in an era where grown adults are stuck in a make believe infinite loop and try to pass it off as reality.

    A man calls himself a woman. it''s not true, but then he is calld "she."

    As if cosmtic surgery somehow chages the fundmnetals of who they are, chromosomes and original equipment be damned...

    A white woman says she is black, and it's not lying,... it's just how she "identifies..."

    sheesh. enough is ennough already.

    These people don't need even more room to step all over everyone elses morals just because they want to live out a fantasy.

    That is not right, progressive, or forward anything. It's the opposite. And It is just plain sad.
  • Reply 20 of 64
    9secondko9secondko Posts: 929member
    foggyhill wrote: »
    Right... Pedophiles,.

    What about the men's restroom, male pedophiles have access to little boys... Oh my! (Just like gay men can see other men..). The horror.
    BTW, pedophiles don't care which gender the kid is, they're attracted to children.

    Where are the stats about pedophile attacks by males in male restrooms?
    As there been more than a handful in this century? I'm going to say : no.
    Should we ban males from the male restroom for this hypothetical scenario?
    Run background checks on males before they enter the male restroom?

    Or... You don't give a shit about those boys, only poor defenseless little girl deserves protection... cause men are evil.... (sic)
    Yes, that's how it ends by your own crazy ass logic.

    The fact that 99.9999999% of crimes committed by pedophiles don't occur anywhere close to a public bathroom, because that's the stupidest place in the world to approach a child and the chance of being caught is so high (with the mother/father nearby and other people often around), doesn't seem to phase you at all.

    That even if it did, dressing up is not needed and a little logo would not prevent any real criminal's action, especially violent ones, from acting.

    It's build a fracking straw man day. Bring in the straw, build it bigger.

    Crime happening or no, my daughter should not be subject to seeing some guys junk simply because he wants to pee in her bathroom. And he shouldnt be privy to seeing her in that private a setting.

    It's difficult enugh raising kids right. they don't need temptation at every turn.

    enough already.
Sign In or Register to comment.