or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by Rogifan

really? I'd love to know all the ways you can ascertain someone's intentions. Unless I come right out and say I refuse to hire you because you're gay how can you prove it. Also, I think religious institutions should be able to hire or not hire whomever they want. This will just pave the way for, say, Catholic Churches to be forced to hire gay men as priests.
Liberals have no problem with discrimination. They had no problem with the Mozilla CEO being forced out because of his personal beliefs on gay marriage. But if, say, another company forced out an executive because they supported gay marriage liberals would be enraged. You see because they're all for free speech so long as it's speech they agree with.
Explain to me how a gay or lesbian individual would prove they were not hired for a job based on their sexual orientation. And I would imagine people don't get hired for positions for all kinds of reasons all the time. What if two equally qualified women applied for a position but the women who was tall and skinny was hired over the shorter, fatter woman. Should the latter be allowed to sue for discrimination? And how would you prove it?
Why just gays and women? And who, exactly is not being hired because they're gay? How in the world would you prove it?
How would one know if they were denied a position based on sexual orientation? Should we also ban companies for discriminating based on hair color, tattoos, facial piercings, looks etc.
Obviously their desperation didn't work.
Ah, so Apple doesn't really believe they're owed billions due to lost sales but they have to argue it that way because that's how patent trials work?
They should. And don't use the lame argument that no one else "breaks" Apple news. If what you're breaking isn't accurate then what good is it? But maybe now he'll think twice about posting some of the stuff that gets leaked to him.
Well on his Twitter feed he's certainly being defensive about his story. And is claiming anything contrary to what he reported are plants coming from Apple PR. So basically he's saying either John Gruber got played by Apple or is knowingly lying on their behalf. I can understand why he'd defend what he wrote, but he shouldn't be surprised if some are questioning it. No on is questioning the what, but the why.
Btw, Bob Borchers, who used to work at Apple and was part of the original iPhone team, called Gurman's report "total BS". Seems to me Gurman got the what right, but not the why.
New Posts  All Forums: