I dont care much for tim cooks personal issue with state laws. As a CEO he needs to keep muted on his opinions and not drag apple into this association with the gay agenda. If not he risks bringing down apple, he needs to back off.
So you value the freedom of religion more than freedom of speech?
It sounds like you haven't been paying attention. Apple has always been a socially liberial company. Tim Cook is certainly more open about his views but he's also raking in record profits.
I think the poster was merely pointing out that moving to another state is an option. California is a beautiful state, yet it is overwhelmingly liberal and progressive when it comes to elections, the net effect has been that the climate has become so hostile to so many businesses that they have fled the state for other states with fewer onerous regulations and risks to their operations. A person seeking greater personal freedoms could conceivably leave their state and move to New Hampshire to join the Free State Project.
Quite honestly, most people are unconcerned about liberty and personal freedom because they are dependent on public money for any number of reasons. I see people as "smart animals" (myself included, of course). This means that if a system exists that is designed to support the weak and the poor, that system will be gamed and taken advantage of by those whom are more devious and lean toward exploitation of weaknesses. I'd get rid of all social safety nets and have private charities take these functions over instead because state and federal government programs are 999 times out of 1,000 corrupt and ineffective and a waste of taxes.
Even with private charities, you might be frustrated by the amount that some of them (especially larger ones) allocate toward fundraising activities and administrative overhead. The PR aspect can consume a lot of man hours.
Providing a commercial service is not "speech", it is commerce, and fully within the Constitional boundaries for government to regulate. And attempting to equate requiring public accommodation to slavery is extremely abhorrent and rather revealing.
So you claim that if you want to run a business or earn a living, you must surrender your civil rights? Talk about abhorrent and revealing.
Is amazing how religion is always use to descriminate and sk harm instead of doing good and help others. Is not tht what religion preaches? Tolerance, respect, good will and all that good stuff
Seriously? Do you really believe that religion is always used to discriminate and cause harm? What about churches that teach non-discrimination? What about churches that devote their resources to helping the poor?
Ah - so are you saying that they did not have the necessary legal protections to enable them to participate in the free market that the rest of the population enjoyed?
And no, you don't have to be a socialist to understand that, because I didn't say it. Do I really need to explain that observing that slavery existed in the free market of that time neither requires, nor even suggests, that slavery and the free market are one and the same. No - I think you knew that, and that you just thought a random anti-socialist remark might score some points. Sorry - missed, and I'm not a socialist either.
It wasn't a free market. Not even remotely. PARTS of it were free, but a large percentage of the labour component was far from free, meaning it cannot be termed a "free market economy" by any stretch.
The closest thing the USA had to a free market economy is after the civil war through until about the late 1960s. During that time the United States of America became the wealthiest nation in the history of the world, by far, with more millions of people enjoying a rising and middle class lifestyle than ever before in the history of the world, by far.
I'm not talking about one lone incident, there's a massive pattern of "incidents" that's just the worse one. Another incident, someone threw bricks at my houses and windows, another one, a guy followed me home and tried breaking my door down (had to treaten him with a my non existing gun...), etc. Had good ol' evangelical litterature about damnation in my mailbox for months despite talking to police... I could go on and on and on. So, please spare me the crap! And that's just staying there less than two years!! I couldn't stand it anymore.
BTW, been in tech and business as engineer, tech manager, CTO, VP since the 1980s and made a mint along the way (as anyone who has seen it all would have...). I've been in close contact with probably an auditorium full of those rich people you talk so glowingly about. They're no better (or worse) than the average. Having money doesn't make you more generous; I'd say the vast majority of people are navel gazing individualists in all income brackets.
BTW, you using Liberal as an insult, makes me think that you are part of the Neo-GOP Harper conservative; which uses the GOP playbook at every turn to transform Canada into a Texas clone.
As for that pseudo milking of the middle class... Do you mean like Harper borrowing money in the name of the state and then give 70-90% of it as tax cuts to the richest (borrowing money for tax cuts, such a "good" ol" economist, he's going full tilt on that for the next 6 years), while giving crumbs to that "middle class" and telling them... Hey, see, you got money too! Bravo, now go spend you $10. And example of this is income splitting that his own finance minister Flaherty opposed (and all economists agreed was a bad idea) and yet Ideologue in chief Harpo is passing anyway. So, again spare me the mumbo jumbo about "caring" for the middle class .
Fact is that the quality of jobs has slipped continuously while the Cons have been in power. They're transforming Canada into Texas like petro-state, with loads and loads of garbage paying jobs.
Harper basically copies EVERYTHING the GOP is doing to a tee and is able to get away with it because the progressive vote is split (Harper never got more than 39%). Eventually people will wake up and put the Neo-GOP out of power for a generation like they deserve to be.
Meh, I think Harper is awesome. Most of my friends agree with me, and while that's anecdotal, I do know that leftists are in deep hysterics about him. I think his and Flaherty's handling of the impact from the US financial crisis of 2008-2009 was superb. Most western leaders think he's great, and so do I. I just LOL every time I see my hippie and lefty friends posting hysterical STOP HARPER!! ridiculous memes on Facebook.
Most of the people I know are better off since the last election, and I know people across the entire country. The biggest complaint I hear are from small business owners and from middle class friends who feel that taxes are still way too high, and the regulatory burden is still way too high. This is coming from a small business owner myself who doesn't think a politician is responsible for helping me, but he can overburden me with taxes and regulatory red tape.
Did you know that small businesses employ the vast majority of all Canadians? I don't know ANY small business owner who thinks taxes should be higher or the regulatory red tape needs to be more in order to "help society". Liberal philosophy would be hilarious if it wasn't so maddening. Talk to the people actually creating jobs and making payroll each week what they think.
If you think high school drama teacher "go hug a terrorist" Trudeau, or the virtual communist Mulclair, will "make things better" you're delusional. Get used to poverty persisting and massively higher tax burdens on the people who can least afford it, the middle class and small business owners.
As for your experience in the US, I am sorry to hear that. I lived in Florida for 3 years, Philadelphia for a year, and California for 6 months, and spent much of my childhood travelling through the States. My experience is far different than yours was. But yeah, a rough economy and what is now basically a police state is going to make for a lot of kids with a big chip on their shoulders. It's saddening to me what has happened, but my opinion is Obama has made it WORSE, not better. Yes we got an economic bounce but at what cost? The debt burden is atrocious and far too many people dependent on government, so they tolerate the waste and corruption of liberal policies.
Yup. I've read earnest libertarian writings that advocate a free-market solution to ending discrimination, but they woefully assume that all economic actors behave out of pure economic self-interest, which is an idealization. In reality people discriminate for all sorts of irrational reasons, including religious prejudice, racial prejudice, etc. We don't have a color-blind egalitarian society.
This may or may not be true; I tend to believe that the vast majority of humans are good natured and act first in their own self interest, then that of their families, then their communities. MOST people, not all people.
The problem arises when you try to stifle free speech, or force a Christian baker to make cakes for a gay wedding, or force a photographer to work for someone who he does not like or offends his beliefs. The problem with that is, no one will ever agree, and you can't trust the government to make the right decisions about things like this.
If you study the Civil Rights movement in the Southern US, you can see it was driven by economics. Whites said they would boycott businesses who didn't allow blacks. Once that happened, it was inevitable that segregation would be over for good. Anyone who thinks that any significant business is going to act discriminatory and NOT be punished by the market is being naive. Anyone who thinks that the government can and should FORCE a business to like and accept gays or any type of customer they disagree with, is completely delusional.
I mean it's beyond preposterous now. All of these liberal ideas – women's rights, hiring quotas, etc., have gone too far. If I could REALLY pay a woman less than her male equivalent, wouldn't I ONLY hire females? As a small business owner, you're damn straight I would. I need the best person for the job at the best price I can get him or her, period. If it were true that women got paid less for the exact same job (it's not, not where I live and work), then yes I would just hire women because that makes the most economic sense. Almost no one hates females or gays THAT MUCH that they're going to pay more ... and if they do, then they're at a very clear disadvantage in the marketplace.
People can't afford to be stupid about things like this. A Facebook meme or a bad reputation can spread like wildfire and destroy a small business. So we need someone to come down from the state capital to check up on me, and bill me with higher taxes, "just in case" I refused to do business with someone who likes to bang guys instead of women? The vast majority of people, even if bigoted, aren't so stupid to turn away good business. The whole regulatory regime is a sad joke and you guys are the punchline.
He believes in equality as long as it does not interfere with his choice of lifestyle. He most certainly does not believe in the equality of the right to practice your deeply-held beliefs, unless they happen to coincide with his own beliefs. He seems far more interested in using the political leverage of Apple to advance his own beliefs as more appropriate than the beliefs of those that may disagree with him. Homosexuals are a vocal minority currently leveraging political turmoil to their own advantage. This has happened many times throughout history.
Refusing to overtly support homosexuality does not equate to racism; race is not any part of the equation. Besides, for every one bakery that feels strongly against making a cake with two male figurines on the top, there are a dozen that have no problem with it. The type of lowlife that tries to force these people to do something contrary to their personal convictions is just doing so to pick a fight in an environment where the social barometer is still such that no minority member of society can get their feelings hurt, no matter the expense to majority members of society. They could easily take their business elsewhere, but they want the fight, to prove some inexplicable point ("I can FORCE you to do something against your most closely-held beliefs, or you will get shut down by the government. - give up your beliefs or die!").
I personally see the issue a little differently; I do see homosexuality as wrong, just as I do adultery and some of the other examples that were listed. However, I would not refuse to serve any of these people if I had a restaurant. I think to do so is of itself a problem. However, serving someone and endorsing their lifestyle are separate issues - mutually exclusive. While I would do the former, I would not do the latter. I can see why XYZ Bakery feels that if they make a cake celebrating the marriage of two homosexuals, they could feel as if they were endorsing that lifestyle; it's hard to make a cake with the message, "Congratulations John and Butch," with two male figurines standing on the top, and still pretend that you have not celebrated the issue of homosexuality on some real level. I've personally never seen a cake celebrating an adulterous relationship, but perhaps there have been some "Congratulations Bob, for cheating on your wife!" But as with the other issue, I feel that the bakery should continue to have the right to refuse to support this, if it would otherwise mean compromising their deeply-held religious beliefs.
If you don't agree with me, good for you! The right to have different opinions on important issues is one of the foundational tenets of the USA. This isn't North Korea; we have the constitutionally-granted right to differ in opinion. What we do not have, however, is the right to force everyone to abandon their personal beliefs.
I barely even know where to start with this absurdity.
So, you are also against Walmart's comments concerning Arkansas' similar law, right? And the NBA's comments? And the NCAA's comments? And Salesforce? And all the other companies and organizations and politicians who have either commented or flat out boycotted Indiana? What do you think when Arizona passed a similar law and the NFL told them that if the Governor signed it then they would relocate the Super Bowl which was supposed to be held in Phoenix? In other words, just to be clear, you are saying that none of these organization "believe in the equality of the right to practice your deeply-held beliefs," right? I'm just trying to make sure you're being consistent.
As for your bakery example, what if I owned a bakery and a Jewish customer wanted me to make a wedding cake, and I refused because my "deeply held belief" is that Jews are sub-human? What counts as a justifiable "deeply held belief?" Could it be anything? How is it defined? How is a court, if a customer who was turned away brings a case, supposed to determine whether the belief is "deeply held" and whether or not it falls under the law?
I am sure that every dictator, butcher, and despot in history thought so.
I believe he was making the point that Tim Cook is using his power as the CEO of Apple to push his gay agenda. I don't hear him speaking or tweeting about any other types of discrimination.
I also always find it interesting that the gay population always believe that if someone doesn't agree with their lifestyle they are racist which doesn't make sense unless being gay has now become it's own race or trying to discriminate.
Anyone that thinks Tim Cook isn't being political is living on fantasy island. Why wasn't he a vocal advocate when Steve Jobs was alive? That's simple he would have had his ass handed to him by Jobs. Jobs gave Ivy shit for just being concerned about the employees telling him he should only care about the product.
Do you believe its a good idea for a CEO to also be a vocal activist? For me it's simple Apple should be about the product, if Cook wants to push his gay agenda let him step down from Apple and run for office. Jony Ive had taken over the roll as true visionary anyways.
I barely even know where to start with this absurdity.
So, you are also against Walmart's comments concerning Arkansas' similar law, right? And the NBA's comments? And the NCAA's comments? And Salesforce? And all the other companies and organizations and politicians who have either commented or flat out boycotted Indiana? What do you think when Arizona passed a similar law and the NFL told them that if the Governor signed it then they would relocate the Super Bowl which was supposed to be held in Phoenix? In other words, just to be clear, you are saying that none of these organization "believe in the equality of the right to practice your deeply-held beliefs," right? I'm just trying to make sure you're being consistent.
As for your bakery example, what if I owned a bakery and a Jewish customer wanted me to make a wedding cake, and I refused because my "deeply held belief" is that Jews are sub-human? What counts as a justifiable "deeply held belief?" Could it be anything? How is it defined? How is a court, if a customer who was turned away brings a case, supposed to determine whether the belief is "deeply held" and whether or not it falls under the law?
Let's see if they actually boycott. Want to make a bet that never happens? That was trying with Duck Dynasty and chick fil a recently and all that did was make them even more money. It just goes to show how small the gay population is and when the larger evangelical population gets pissed and come out in force they will kick your ass every time.
A Republican president and maybe another conservative judge on the SCOTUS and all these gay laws are going to get killed. Social agendas are always in flux.
I believe he was making the point that Tim Cook is using his power as the CEO of Apple to push his gay agenda. I don't hear him speaking or tweeting about any other types of discrimination.
I also always find it interesting that the gay population always believe that if someone doesn't agree with their lifestyle they are racist which doesn't make sense unless being gay has now become it's own race or trying to discriminate.
Anyone that thinks Tim Cook isn't being political is living on fantasy island. Why wasn't he a vocal advocate when Steve Jobs was alive? That's simple he would have had his ass handed to him by Jobs. Jobs gave Ivy shit for just being concerned about the employees telling him he should only care about the product.
Do you believe its a good idea for a CEO to also be a vocal activist? For me it's simple Apple should be about the product, if Cook wants to push his gay agenda let him step down from Apple and run for office. Jony Ive had taken over the roll as true visionary anyways.
I am sorry but I lost you at the first sentence.
Please explain to those of us who don't know: what exactly is the 'agenda' that gays have?
Let's see if they actually boycott. Want to make a bet that never happens? That was trying with Duck Dynasty and chick fil a recently and all that did was make them even more money. It just goes to show how small the gay population is and when the larger evangelical population gets pissed and come out in force they will kick your ass every time.
A Republican president and maybe another conservative judge on the SCOTUS and all these gay laws are going to get killed. Social agendas are always in flux.
It already HAS happened. There are companies that have already declared that they aren't expanding into Indiana because of this, and conventions that have pulled out for example. And believe me: As long as this is on the books in Indiana, it will be a L-O-N-G time (read: never) before there is another Final Four or Super Bowl or major event held there.
Another example, this time from Georgia, is that DragonCon has said that they aren't holding their convention in Atlanta anymore unless their similar law is repealed. That's a loss of millions of dollars if it happens.
And there are more examples.
PS: This thread makes me very sad. But I'm also happy about it in a way, as it has made very clear the members who need to be added to my Blocked list.
Ah - so are you saying that they did not have the necessary legal protections to enable them to participate in the free market that the rest of the population enjoyed?
And no, you don't have to be a socialist to understand that, because I didn't say it. Do I really need to explain that observing that slavery existed in the free market of that time neither requires, nor even suggests, that slavery and the free market are one and the same. No - I think you knew that, and that you just thought a random anti-socialist remark might score some points. Sorry - missed, and I'm not a socialist either.
It wasn't a free market. Not even remotely. PARTS of it were free, but a large percentage of the labour component was far from free, meaning it cannot be termed a "free market economy" by any stretch.
The closest thing the USA had to a free market economy is after the civil war through until about the late 1960s. During that time the United States of America became the wealthiest nation in the history of the world, by far, with more millions of people enjoying a rising and middle class lifestyle than ever before in the history of the world, by far.
OK - so what stopped it from being a free market? And in the civil war through the 1960s period, how did it differ and become a free market? Both those periods were characterized by significant racial discrimination. And if the latter period was a free market, when segregation was widespread, how do you still maintain the argument that a free market will naturally prevent discrimination. I fail to see how you are furthering your argument in the slightest - in fact you seem to be making the counter-argument - that discrimination has only ever been tackled successfully by legislative methods.
Please explain to those of us who don't know: what exactly is the 'agenda' that gays have?
It's fairly simple. They want to push everyone into buying into their lifestyle yet refuse to accept anyone that may not believe in their way of life. It's interesting when a minority group is always talking about tolerance while at the same time attacking those that may disagree with them.
Lets be honest if a social conservative from a large high profile company tweeted about how great the law is every LGBT group would be trying to get him fired. Perfect example Brendan Eich had to resign , lets face it he was fired for supporting am anti gay bill.
So Tim Cook publicly being an advocate for a bill to fail is okay, but having a different opinion is not and you're forced to resign.
Tolerance isn't trying to beat the shit out of people that believe something different.
Comments
So you value the freedom of religion more than freedom of speech?
It sounds like you haven't been paying attention. Apple has always been a socially liberial company. Tim Cook is certainly more open about his views but he's also raking in record profits.
I think the poster was merely pointing out that moving to another state is an option. California is a beautiful state, yet it is overwhelmingly liberal and progressive when it comes to elections, the net effect has been that the climate has become so hostile to so many businesses that they have fled the state for other states with fewer onerous regulations and risks to their operations. A person seeking greater personal freedoms could conceivably leave their state and move to New Hampshire to join the Free State Project.
https://freestateproject.org
Quite honestly, most people are unconcerned about liberty and personal freedom because they are dependent on public money for any number of reasons. I see people as "smart animals" (myself included, of course). This means that if a system exists that is designed to support the weak and the poor, that system will be gamed and taken advantage of by those whom are more devious and lean toward exploitation of weaknesses. I'd get rid of all social safety nets and have private charities take these functions over instead because state and federal government programs are 999 times out of 1,000 corrupt and ineffective and a waste of taxes.
Even with private charities, you might be frustrated by the amount that some of them (especially larger ones) allocate toward fundraising activities and administrative overhead. The PR aspect can consume a lot of man hours.
Providing a commercial service is not "speech", it is commerce, and fully within the Constitional boundaries for government to regulate. And attempting to equate requiring public accommodation to slavery is extremely abhorrent and rather revealing.
So you claim that if you want to run a business or earn a living, you must surrender your civil rights? Talk about abhorrent and revealing.
Is amazing how religion is always use to descriminate and sk harm instead of doing good and help others. Is not tht what religion preaches? Tolerance, respect, good will and all that good stuff
Seriously? Do you really believe that religion is always used to discriminate and cause harm? What about churches that teach non-discrimination? What about churches that devote their resources to helping the poor?
Why is religion so important? And how is religion no longer about respect, love, cooperation and compassion?
michael jackson
Ah - so are you saying that they did not have the necessary legal protections to enable them to participate in the free market that the rest of the population enjoyed?
And no, you don't have to be a socialist to understand that, because I didn't say it. Do I really need to explain that observing that slavery existed in the free market of that time neither requires, nor even suggests, that slavery and the free market are one and the same. No - I think you knew that, and that you just thought a random anti-socialist remark might score some points. Sorry - missed, and I'm not a socialist either.
It wasn't a free market. Not even remotely. PARTS of it were free, but a large percentage of the labour component was far from free, meaning it cannot be termed a "free market economy" by any stretch.
The closest thing the USA had to a free market economy is after the civil war through until about the late 1960s. During that time the United States of America became the wealthiest nation in the history of the world, by far, with more millions of people enjoying a rising and middle class lifestyle than ever before in the history of the world, by far.
I'm not talking about one lone incident, there's a massive pattern of "incidents" that's just the worse one. Another incident, someone threw bricks at my houses and windows, another one, a guy followed me home and tried breaking my door down (had to treaten him with a my non existing gun...), etc. Had good ol' evangelical litterature about damnation in my mailbox for months despite talking to police... I could go on and on and on. So, please spare me the crap! And that's just staying there less than two years!! I couldn't stand it anymore.
BTW, been in tech and business as engineer, tech manager, CTO, VP since the 1980s and made a mint along the way (as anyone who has seen it all would have...). I've been in close contact with probably an auditorium full of those rich people you talk so glowingly about. They're no better (or worse) than the average. Having money doesn't make you more generous; I'd say the vast majority of people are navel gazing individualists in all income brackets.
BTW, you using Liberal as an insult, makes me think that you are part of the Neo-GOP Harper conservative; which uses the GOP playbook at every turn to transform Canada into a Texas clone.
As for that pseudo milking of the middle class... Do you mean like Harper borrowing money in the name of the state and then give 70-90% of it as tax cuts to the richest (borrowing money for tax cuts, such a "good" ol" economist, he's going full tilt on that for the next 6 years), while giving crumbs to that "middle class" and telling them... Hey, see, you got money too! Bravo, now go spend you $10. And example of this is income splitting that his own finance minister Flaherty opposed (and all economists agreed was a bad idea) and yet Ideologue in chief Harpo is passing anyway. So, again spare me the mumbo jumbo about "caring" for the middle class .
Fact is that the quality of jobs has slipped continuously while the Cons have been in power. They're transforming Canada into Texas like petro-state, with loads and loads of garbage paying jobs.
Harper basically copies EVERYTHING the GOP is doing to a tee and is able to get away with it because the progressive vote is split (Harper never got more than 39%). Eventually people will wake up and put the Neo-GOP out of power for a generation like they deserve to be.
Meh, I think Harper is awesome. Most of my friends agree with me, and while that's anecdotal, I do know that leftists are in deep hysterics about him. I think his and Flaherty's handling of the impact from the US financial crisis of 2008-2009 was superb. Most western leaders think he's great, and so do I. I just LOL every time I see my hippie and lefty friends posting hysterical STOP HARPER!! ridiculous memes on Facebook.
Most of the people I know are better off since the last election, and I know people across the entire country. The biggest complaint I hear are from small business owners and from middle class friends who feel that taxes are still way too high, and the regulatory burden is still way too high. This is coming from a small business owner myself who doesn't think a politician is responsible for helping me, but he can overburden me with taxes and regulatory red tape.
Did you know that small businesses employ the vast majority of all Canadians? I don't know ANY small business owner who thinks taxes should be higher or the regulatory red tape needs to be more in order to "help society". Liberal philosophy would be hilarious if it wasn't so maddening. Talk to the people actually creating jobs and making payroll each week what they think.
http://www.cfib-fcei.ca/english/index.html
If you think high school drama teacher "go hug a terrorist" Trudeau, or the virtual communist Mulclair, will "make things better" you're delusional. Get used to poverty persisting and massively higher tax burdens on the people who can least afford it, the middle class and small business owners.
As for your experience in the US, I am sorry to hear that. I lived in Florida for 3 years, Philadelphia for a year, and California for 6 months, and spent much of my childhood travelling through the States. My experience is far different than yours was. But yeah, a rough economy and what is now basically a police state is going to make for a lot of kids with a big chip on their shoulders. It's saddening to me what has happened, but my opinion is Obama has made it WORSE, not better. Yes we got an economic bounce but at what cost? The debt burden is atrocious and far too many people dependent on government, so they tolerate the waste and corruption of liberal policies.
Yup. I've read earnest libertarian writings that advocate a free-market solution to ending discrimination, but they woefully assume that all economic actors behave out of pure economic self-interest, which is an idealization. In reality people discriminate for all sorts of irrational reasons, including religious prejudice, racial prejudice, etc. We don't have a color-blind egalitarian society.
This may or may not be true; I tend to believe that the vast majority of humans are good natured and act first in their own self interest, then that of their families, then their communities. MOST people, not all people.
The problem arises when you try to stifle free speech, or force a Christian baker to make cakes for a gay wedding, or force a photographer to work for someone who he does not like or offends his beliefs. The problem with that is, no one will ever agree, and you can't trust the government to make the right decisions about things like this.
If you study the Civil Rights movement in the Southern US, you can see it was driven by economics. Whites said they would boycott businesses who didn't allow blacks. Once that happened, it was inevitable that segregation would be over for good. Anyone who thinks that any significant business is going to act discriminatory and NOT be punished by the market is being naive. Anyone who thinks that the government can and should FORCE a business to like and accept gays or any type of customer they disagree with, is completely delusional.
I mean it's beyond preposterous now. All of these liberal ideas – women's rights, hiring quotas, etc., have gone too far. If I could REALLY pay a woman less than her male equivalent, wouldn't I ONLY hire females? As a small business owner, you're damn straight I would. I need the best person for the job at the best price I can get him or her, period. If it were true that women got paid less for the exact same job (it's not, not where I live and work), then yes I would just hire women because that makes the most economic sense. Almost no one hates females or gays THAT MUCH that they're going to pay more ... and if they do, then they're at a very clear disadvantage in the marketplace.
People can't afford to be stupid about things like this. A Facebook meme or a bad reputation can spread like wildfire and destroy a small business. So we need someone to come down from the state capital to check up on me, and bill me with higher taxes, "just in case" I refused to do business with someone who likes to bang guys instead of women? The vast majority of people, even if bigoted, aren't so stupid to turn away good business. The whole regulatory regime is a sad joke and you guys are the punchline.
David Bowie "I'm afraid of Americans"
This situation will make Americans afraid of themselves.
Please we don't need another Middle East situation, of religious warfare !
'Morality is private?'
I am sure that every dictator, butcher, and despot in history thought so.
He believes in equality as long as it does not interfere with his choice of lifestyle. He most certainly does not believe in the equality of the right to practice your deeply-held beliefs, unless they happen to coincide with his own beliefs. He seems far more interested in using the political leverage of Apple to advance his own beliefs as more appropriate than the beliefs of those that may disagree with him. Homosexuals are a vocal minority currently leveraging political turmoil to their own advantage. This has happened many times throughout history.
Refusing to overtly support homosexuality does not equate to racism; race is not any part of the equation. Besides, for every one bakery that feels strongly against making a cake with two male figurines on the top, there are a dozen that have no problem with it. The type of lowlife that tries to force these people to do something contrary to their personal convictions is just doing so to pick a fight in an environment where the social barometer is still such that no minority member of society can get their feelings hurt, no matter the expense to majority members of society. They could easily take their business elsewhere, but they want the fight, to prove some inexplicable point ("I can FORCE you to do something against your most closely-held beliefs, or you will get shut down by the government. - give up your beliefs or die!").
I personally see the issue a little differently; I do see homosexuality as wrong, just as I do adultery and some of the other examples that were listed. However, I would not refuse to serve any of these people if I had a restaurant. I think to do so is of itself a problem. However, serving someone and endorsing their lifestyle are separate issues - mutually exclusive. While I would do the former, I would not do the latter. I can see why XYZ Bakery feels that if they make a cake celebrating the marriage of two homosexuals, they could feel as if they were endorsing that lifestyle; it's hard to make a cake with the message, "Congratulations John and Butch," with two male figurines standing on the top, and still pretend that you have not celebrated the issue of homosexuality on some real level. I've personally never seen a cake celebrating an adulterous relationship, but perhaps there have been some "Congratulations Bob, for cheating on your wife!" But as with the other issue, I feel that the bakery should continue to have the right to refuse to support this, if it would otherwise mean compromising their deeply-held religious beliefs.
If you don't agree with me, good for you! The right to have different opinions on important issues is one of the foundational tenets of the USA. This isn't North Korea; we have the constitutionally-granted right to differ in opinion. What we do not have, however, is the right to force everyone to abandon their personal beliefs.
I barely even know where to start with this absurdity.
So, you are also against Walmart's comments concerning Arkansas' similar law, right? And the NBA's comments? And the NCAA's comments? And Salesforce? And all the other companies and organizations and politicians who have either commented or flat out boycotted Indiana? What do you think when Arizona passed a similar law and the NFL told them that if the Governor signed it then they would relocate the Super Bowl which was supposed to be held in Phoenix? In other words, just to be clear, you are saying that none of these organization "believe in the equality of the right to practice your deeply-held beliefs," right? I'm just trying to make sure you're being consistent.
As for your bakery example, what if I owned a bakery and a Jewish customer wanted me to make a wedding cake, and I refused because my "deeply held belief" is that Jews are sub-human? What counts as a justifiable "deeply held belief?" Could it be anything? How is it defined? How is a court, if a customer who was turned away brings a case, supposed to determine whether the belief is "deeply held" and whether or not it falls under the law?
'Morality is private?'
I am sure that every dictator, butcher, and despot in history thought so.
I believe he was making the point that Tim Cook is using his power as the CEO of Apple to push his gay agenda. I don't hear him speaking or tweeting about any other types of discrimination.
I also always find it interesting that the gay population always believe that if someone doesn't agree with their lifestyle they are racist which doesn't make sense unless being gay has now become it's own race or trying to discriminate.
Anyone that thinks Tim Cook isn't being political is living on fantasy island. Why wasn't he a vocal advocate when Steve Jobs was alive? That's simple he would have had his ass handed to him by Jobs. Jobs gave Ivy shit for just being concerned about the employees telling him he should only care about the product.
Do you believe its a good idea for a CEO to also be a vocal activist? For me it's simple Apple should be about the product, if Cook wants to push his gay agenda let him step down from Apple and run for office. Jony Ive had taken over the roll as true visionary anyways.
I barely even know where to start with this absurdity.
So, you are also against Walmart's comments concerning Arkansas' similar law, right? And the NBA's comments? And the NCAA's comments? And Salesforce? And all the other companies and organizations and politicians who have either commented or flat out boycotted Indiana? What do you think when Arizona passed a similar law and the NFL told them that if the Governor signed it then they would relocate the Super Bowl which was supposed to be held in Phoenix? In other words, just to be clear, you are saying that none of these organization "believe in the equality of the right to practice your deeply-held beliefs," right? I'm just trying to make sure you're being consistent.
As for your bakery example, what if I owned a bakery and a Jewish customer wanted me to make a wedding cake, and I refused because my "deeply held belief" is that Jews are sub-human? What counts as a justifiable "deeply held belief?" Could it be anything? How is it defined? How is a court, if a customer who was turned away brings a case, supposed to determine whether the belief is "deeply held" and whether or not it falls under the law?
Let's see if they actually boycott. Want to make a bet that never happens? That was trying with Duck Dynasty and chick fil a recently and all that did was make them even more money. It just goes to show how small the gay population is and when the larger evangelical population gets pissed and come out in force they will kick your ass every time.
A Republican president and maybe another conservative judge on the SCOTUS and all these gay laws are going to get killed. Social agendas are always in flux.
I am sorry but I lost you at the first sentence.
Please explain to those of us who don't know: what exactly is the 'agenda' that gays have?
Let's see if they actually boycott. Want to make a bet that never happens? That was trying with Duck Dynasty and chick fil a recently and all that did was make them even more money. It just goes to show how small the gay population is and when the larger evangelical population gets pissed and come out in force they will kick your ass every time.
A Republican president and maybe another conservative judge on the SCOTUS and all these gay laws are going to get killed. Social agendas are always in flux.
It already HAS happened. There are companies that have already declared that they aren't expanding into Indiana because of this, and conventions that have pulled out for example. And believe me: As long as this is on the books in Indiana, it will be a L-O-N-G time (read: never) before there is another Final Four or Super Bowl or major event held there.
Another example, this time from Georgia, is that DragonCon has said that they aren't holding their convention in Atlanta anymore unless their similar law is repealed. That's a loss of millions of dollars if it happens.
And there are more examples.
PS: This thread makes me very sad. But I'm also happy about it in a way, as it has made very clear the members who need to be added to my Blocked list.
OK - so what stopped it from being a free market? And in the civil war through the 1960s period, how did it differ and become a free market? Both those periods were characterized by significant racial discrimination. And if the latter period was a free market, when segregation was widespread, how do you still maintain the argument that a free market will naturally prevent discrimination. I fail to see how you are furthering your argument in the slightest - in fact you seem to be making the counter-argument - that discrimination has only ever been tackled successfully by legislative methods.
I am sorry but I lost you at the first sentence.
Please explain to those of us who don't know: what exactly is the 'agenda' that gays have?
I was wondering the same thing.
I am sorry but I lost you at the first sentence.
Please explain to those of us who don't know: what exactly is the 'agenda' that gays have?
It's fairly simple. They want to push everyone into buying into their lifestyle yet refuse to accept anyone that may not believe in their way of life. It's interesting when a minority group is always talking about tolerance while at the same time attacking those that may disagree with them.
Lets be honest if a social conservative from a large high profile company tweeted about how great the law is every LGBT group would be trying to get him fired. Perfect example Brendan Eich had to resign , lets face it he was fired for supporting am anti gay bill.
So Tim Cook publicly being an advocate for a bill to fail is okay, but having a different opinion is not and you're forced to resign.
Tolerance isn't trying to beat the shit out of people that believe something different.
I was wondering the same thing.
There could be 10,000 posts in this tread and you still wouldn't get it.