To be clear, I don't care about Tim's personal life, but I do care about the CEO of Apple diverting attention away from Apple.
This happened with Steve when he was ill and he raised awareness of the need for organ donation. Issues that affect the CEO do affect how Apple is run.
What about if Tim Cook said he was a member of a Tea Party group? Would liberals and progressives denounce Apple?
I know that the founder of Whole Foods (John Mackey) has strong political opinions and that has earned Whole Foods the wrath of liberals/progressives. In fact, he was told by his board to shut up about it when he's in the public eye.
Taking sides on political topics is a matter of choice and this can be changed. Sexuality is not like this:
"While genes do contribute to sexual orientation, other multiple factors play a greater role, perhaps including the levels of hormones a baby is exposed to in the womb. "Sexual orientation has nothing to do with choice," said Bailey. "We found evidence for two sets [of genes] that affect whether a man is gay or straight. But it is not completely determinative; there are certainly other environmental factors involved.""
People do experiment with sexuality such as the following actress who had lesbian affairs but says she didn't identify with being gay:
but those attractions are still not something a person chooses consciously nor can trivially change. Of course the same is true of illegal sexual attractions but as a society, people make decisions about what is accepted and what isn't. If Tim had been in a relationship with a close relative then that would be condemned by society and by law and few people would fight to change that but there isn't any evidence of harm caused from homosexual unions and without that, society has to reach a consensus that it's an acceptable union.
The sad part about this is that those supposedly principled conservatives have already shown their true colors by even investing in Apple stock in the first place. They have already displayed that they are more concerned with capital gains and profits than moral standards or they wouldn't have put their money into making Apple one of the largest corporations in the world. Then of course, they come into forums like this are indignant that Apple's corporate fabric is all about inclusion.
I would like to see some of these people say that they are dumping this stock because of Tim Cook's actions because it goes against their principles or because they do not believe that a public corporation should not instill social principles. But you know they never will because in the end, the money they make is more important. It's just sad to see them play the victim card here unless they admit they were so ignorant they didn't realize that Apple was like this and are looking to dump the stock.
Good point, thank you. "If it's all about ROI to you, get out of the stock."
Interesting that some can even posit "what if?" questions, like what if Tim were espousing conservative, Tea Party views, what would we say then?
As if Apple could ever embrace anything but values of equality, inclusion, social development, all the "liberal" values inherent in making artful intelligence machines. Sorry, they're designing in California, not Texas. Apologies to the oasis of Austin, but I don't imagine Jony Ive would be very happy there. He even has to commute to San Francisco to make California worthwhile, or so I imagine.
The main point is that Tim's humanitarian statement in the past, and this one too, are directly part of Apple's business. They are selling improvement in people's lives. Perhaps a slight modification of GE's slogan: "Social progress is our most important product."
Comments
This happened with Steve when he was ill and he raised awareness of the need for organ donation. Issues that affect the CEO do affect how Apple is run.
Taking sides on political topics is a matter of choice and this can be changed. Sexuality is not like this:
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/feb/14/genes-influence-male-sexual-orientation-study
"While genes do contribute to sexual orientation, other multiple factors play a greater role, perhaps including the levels of hormones a baby is exposed to in the womb. "Sexual orientation has nothing to do with choice," said Bailey. "We found evidence for two sets [of genes] that affect whether a man is gay or straight. But it is not completely determinative; there are certainly other environmental factors involved.""
People do experiment with sexuality such as the following actress who had lesbian affairs but says she didn't identify with being gay:
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/07/30/gillian-anderson-gay_n_1718411.html
but those attractions are still not something a person chooses consciously nor can trivially change. Of course the same is true of illegal sexual attractions but as a society, people make decisions about what is accepted and what isn't. If Tim had been in a relationship with a close relative then that would be condemned by society and by law and few people would fight to change that but there isn't any evidence of harm caused from homosexual unions and without that, society has to reach a consensus that it's an acceptable union.
That's the whole problem, that possibility of losing business shouldn't exist as far as this issue is concerned.
Good point, thank you. "If it's all about ROI to you, get out of the stock."
Interesting that some can even posit "what if?" questions, like what if Tim were espousing conservative, Tea Party views, what would we say then?
As if Apple could ever embrace anything but values of equality, inclusion, social development, all the "liberal" values inherent in making artful intelligence machines. Sorry, they're designing in California, not Texas. Apologies to the oasis of Austin, but I don't imagine Jony Ive would be very happy there. He even has to commute to San Francisco to make California worthwhile, or so I imagine.
The main point is that Tim's humanitarian statement in the past, and this one too, are directly part of Apple's business. They are selling improvement in people's lives. Perhaps a slight modification of GE's slogan: "Social progress is our most important product."