Apple contributes $100,000 to fight California's No on 8 battle - Page 7

Almost any civil rights issue can be defined as a political one in some respect, but it does't mean it's not a civil rights issue too. Apple has more of a right to make a claim on this CA state issue than UT mormons do. 100K is nothing compared to the billions corporations spend shareholder money on all the time. We just don't hear about it.

BTW, 3.8 billion a day?


LAWL


There's also tolerance and intolerance. Wonder which side you fall on that one. Better join the sheltered mormons in UT, before the California gays get a chance to "force" their perversions on them. Oooh, scary.

Polygamy should be legal. No need for government interference. Gay marriage should be legal. It's nobody's business but theirs.

"Infringing on your beliefs"? Cross that bridge when you come to it. No one is forcing churches to perform any kind of ceremonies.

You might recall that after Jesus prayed to the Father that he wouldn't have to go through with the scourging and crucifixion, he said, "yet not my will but yours be done." Jesus knew that the will of God the Father was what was important, even though he wanted very much to avoid the cross. But it was God's will that his son be sacrificed for all of mankind.

Likewise, whether or not Prop 8 passes or fails....God may stir the hearts of the voters to ban gay marriage, or he may stand back and let gay marriage become the law of the land, even though it's not what he wants. Either way, his will has been done. He maybe help us, or he may stand back with his arms crossed and not help us, because we've turned away from him as a country.

In the end, though, God does not rule by the laws of government. He rules in the hearts of humans, one at a time. My brother is gay, and only God can change him. A law isn't going to do it.

You're making things up to support your dislike of gays. Just admit you don't like gay people and don't hide behind specious arguments.

That's the beauty of the free market. Take your business elsewhere. Enjoy your Vista riddled PC.

Intolerance is not always bad. We should be intolerant of what is wrong.

Good for you. This does not affect you, so why are you commenting?

You are confusing 2 uses of the word "discrimination".
It literally means "to make a disctinction between".
That is what you describe God does: He makes a distinction between good and evil.

In the legal and moral context of this discussion discrimination has an extended meaning:
To make distinctions between individuals based on characteristics of any group that they belong to, and to treat them differently than others because of such characteristics.
In this context "discrimination" is when you don't treat someone like a person (like an equal) because they belong to a certain group.
Discrimination is considered immoral because it is the depersonalisation of individuals.

You are wrong when you assume that the constitution and people in general think it is OK to discriminate against murderers, child-molesters, gays or goat-marriers.
The opposite is true.

Under the constitution:
- Nobody has the right to take another's live, whether they are atheist or Christian.
- When someone is accused of murder, they are entitled to a fair trial, whether they are guilty or not, whether they are gay or straight.
- A child molester should receive their lawful sentence whether they are black or white.
- 2 consenting individuals have the right to a civil marriage, whether they are Christian or Hindu, gay or straight.

I think that you don't really understand the concept of discrimination, and that's why you can't recognize it in yourself.

Well, "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" are in the Declaration of Independence. I believe that counts for something. And the government should have no say whatsoever in religious matters regarding marriage. In matters of contract law, we have plenty of precedence.

Nice. I never knew there were so many intolerant shmucks on AI. I wonder... are they pro-Palin plants?

Perhaps there should be 2 distinct phases of "marriage". The Marriage Contract and the Marriage Ceremony.

I'd like to introduce you to a fella named Bill Clinton. When being questioned about the Monica Lewinski scandal, he tried to make a few different definitions of the word 'is'.

I understand the word 'discrimination' -- to make a distinction between two things. Sometimes there is a value judgment based on that discrimination (right and wrong), and sometimes there is no value judgment based on that discrimination (orange or green.) You may disagree with my value judgment, but the point still stands -- discrimination is often good and necessary.

Since your god doesn't get to speak for everybody, right and wrong becomes all the more subjective.

And so I have you in my heart, when I think of these words:
"Forgive them Father, for they know not what they do."

I happen to have a copy of the Constitution here at my house (have had it since I was a kid) and I have never seen anything in there (or it's amendments) referencing a right to marry. But then again the "separation of church and state" has never been in there either but most people seem to think it's in there somewhere... (The truth is Andrew Jackson referenced it in a paper he wrote but it was never an official stance of the US gov't and wasn't again seen from until a US justice referenced it in a court ruling but that doesn't make it a law). And don't give me the argument about the government shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion - that's not the "separation of church and state." That simply says that the gov't will not require anyone to be a part of any one religion nor granting preference to any one religion over any other (or lack of religion).

"Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" is in the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution, so arownious' assertion still stands.

So, it's ok for schools to teach what you agree with, but not other parents? What about the other parents who don't want schools to teach their kids that gay marriage is NOT ok? Aren't their rights just as valid as yours?


Catholics do not allow divorce. Why isn't this a problem.

"Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"

Umm, that's not the Constitution - that's the Declaration of Independence...

Is it the natural order of things to marry at all? Marriage is a man-made institution. Labeling something as "natural" or not is irrelevant.

I'm not talking about my own personal god, I'm talking about the God -- the one and only.

You're right, though. Without him, all right and wrong is subjective. Everything goes.

If right and wrong is truly subjective, people's blood pressure need not rise when someone declares their pet sins to be wrong.

Guess what I am sure you pay your hard earned money to a lot of Gay people every day..

PS and Redmond is a gay free place... ya right..

This is why your argument is ridiculous:


Irrelevant. Two family members marrying each other is not similar to two gay people marrying any more than it is similar to a man and woman marrying.

Dogs and cats do not have the right to marry. We're talking about people here. Again, not similar to gay couples any more than heterosexual couples.

If you believe any of your arguments are even slightly valid, then you are arguing against marriage itself, let alone homosexual marriage.

My argument is not just rhetorical. Words represent different concepts in different contexts.
"Marriage" means "holy matrimony" when it is done in a church and "civil union" when it is done in city hall.

"Discrimination" in a legal context is about ACTIONS based on VALUE JUDGEMENTS based in DISTINCTIONS.
It doesn't merely mean "to distinguish A from B".
You can look up the legal description.

Also, there ARE several meanings to the word "is".
"To be" can refer to being alive, to being in a geographical location. FYI, Mandarin has 2 seperate verbs for these two meanings of "to be".
You are confusing two related meanings of the word "discrimination".

LOL. Quacks are fun.

Thanks for correcting me. I have reworded my post because it was not about whether it's a constitutional or other right.

It is so great to have someone like you who REALLY knows. Kind of God-like.
But I beg to differ - to keep quiet and stay out of a political cause / debate can arguably be as much of a political statement as getting involved. If, as a company you feel strongly about a civil rights issue where no financial advantage will be gained, I see no wrong. Washington is rife with lobbyists representing corporations or corporate interest groups and by comparison Apple's involvement in a civil rights issue of this kind is admirable. If a company 50 years go had been involved in civil rights issues and supported a movement or group fighting for racial equality would you lambast them today for their involvement then, or praise them for their efforts?

[QUOTE=Fotek2001;1329582]I take it you just went straight to the comments to post your flame without reading this bit:

Quote: That claim prompted California Superintendent of Schools Jack O'Connell to announce that the proposition "has nothing to do with schools or kids. Our schools aren't required to teach anything about marriage, and using kids to lie about that is shameful."

I take it you didn't see it in CA where a teacher took her first grade class on a field trip to the teacher's gay wedding! Field trip - taxpayer funding - INDOCTRINATION anyone?! Liberals take small steps but never keep their eye off the ball of reaching their social reengineering. CA School Superintendent should have said the following... "has nothing to do with schools or kids. Our schools aren't required to teach anything about marriage, YET"...

Mark my words in time it 'll be up there with that "Heather has two mommies" book.

Am I a anti-gay for believing in a union between one man and one woman when it comes to defining marriage? Am I a bigot for agreeing that same sex couples should not be denied any rights because of their lifestyle, just don't try and redefine an institution and definition that has preceded that lifestyle for their own conveniences.

What about change? People on this board show more consternation about the new MacBook lacking Firewire then the attempts made to redefine marriage. If any definition should be changed, I think pennies should be redefined as dollars! What do you think Apple? I have 1599.00 pennies for a new Macbook. I don't have 1599.00 dollars! See how easy and efficient and self serving that was!

Hey Apple what's next on your social agenda?! What other consumers and stockholders do you want to aggravate because of your ideals? Do it on your own dime please!

We agree on this when you take discrimination to mean "to make distinctions".
Laws are all about making distinctions. They need to define distinctions in order to negotiate them, so individuals will have equal rights regardless.

My point is that my value judgement should not impact your rights to be less than mine.
Your value judgement should not impact others to not have the same rights as you do.
Because that's where discrimination got its other meaning.

[edit spelling and wording]

Intolerance is not simply being against something. Intolerance is being against something that isn't victimizing anyone. Intolerance is when you fear and hate something for no real reason, and as such, make up reasons in your mind.

Gay marriage is happening all over the world. Society isn't crumbling because of it. Children all over the world are growing up learning that homosexuality is ok, and they are growing up ok.

Children who are taught that homosexuality is wrong are afraid to come out to their parents when they grow up and realize they're homosexual. These same people often have serious emotional problems when what they were taught conflicts with reality.

Please show me where it is a RIGHT to marry. Where would I find this? Thanks.

So you changed it to "civil marriage"? That still isn't in there. You do realize that the word marriage never once shows up in the constitution or it's amendments right? And when the supreme law governing the land not once references the claim you are trying to make it is no longer an issue of "rights" - it's an issue to be determined by the voters (i.e. Democracy).

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

Most of the people who use Apple's products are intelligent liberals. Apple doesn't cater to the people that push this kind of ignorant legislation, or the people who vote for it.

Try to see it from God's point of view.

That can easily be interpreted as a separation of church and state as no religion is denied, nor is any religion required. How else do you achieve that unless you government is impartial to religion? Of course, there are aspects of religious icons throughout our government, but that is as much an endorsement as it as a violation of one of the commandments. There are also plenty of pagan symbols that appear to go back to the Masons, which apparently require a belief to join, though specific no specific religion or God... but I'll let Dan Brown's next book tackle the more excited side of all that.


PS: Out of curiosity, who here uses BCE/CE instead of BC/AD?

Umm, wow, that's an interesting stereotype. I don't happen to know any liberal Apple owners - not one. I know a few moderates and a ton of conservatives (even in Ohio). Furthermore, Apple caters to those with money, they don't give a crap about your political affiliation...

How lovely for you. Either way, God is right. How can you fail? Tell you what, as no-one knows about god - whether she is a man or a woman, is gay or lesbian, black or white, or if god even exists - lets toss a coin. Lets do it your way to make it more Christian. You say yes, God is real and exists - I say no, God is not real and does not exist. lets flip the coin - Heads I win, tails you loose....

BC/AD. Old skool, baby!

I don't know anyone who isn't a history professor that uses BCE/CE. Most interestingly because of the insane argument used for it. The years coincide directly with AD/BC so they are saying that the year Jesus is believed to have been born we magically entered a "civilized" era? Historically speaking nothing of significance happened in that year other than the believed birth of Jesus.

Prop no 8 is about ammending state law to disallow certain federal rights. Isn't it?
Or what is this thread about do you think?

OOOHHHH I forgot about that. Im sure the 2-3% of homo's of which less than 25% have a median income over 100k will make a huge boost in apples iphone sales. Lets see...... 50,000,000 adult working males in this country X 2% = 1,000,000 X 25% = 250,000.

Apple has sold 6.8 million Iphones. For every one homo it sold 25 to a hetro.

BTW, my income is 200k plus. My wife (a female)and I have purchased new from apple over the years... 1 performa mac, 3 imacs, 4 macbooks, 1 mac mini, 9 ipods, 1 iphone, 2 iphone 3g's.

Unless they also give 100k to the YES ON 8 campaign, the lost customers for life. Im sure im not the only one.


You homos are not as powerful or as popular as you think. YOU WILL LOSE THE PROP 8 FIGHT BY A LANDSLIDE. I cant wait!!!!