I like Cook, but at the risk of being the contrarian here I think he should keep the focus 100% on Apple and on the products. Anything unrelated to Apple is a distraction and not his job to fix. If he wants to be a political activist, he should make that his focus.
But it is related to Apple because the law is in conflict with Apple culture and Apple is paying taxes in Indiana. If he didn't stand up for his beliefs, that would make him less honorable and degrade Apple's reputation.
I like Cook, but at the risk of being the contrarian here I think he should keep the focus 100% on Apple and on the products. Anything unrelated to Apple is a distraction and not his job to fix. If he wants to be a political activist, he should make that his focus.
See, I couldn't disagree more.
I think that if the CEO of the LARGEST COMPANY IN THE WORLD has some ideas on stuff that's going on, he should probably say what those are. I mean, I get what you're saying. But Cook has lots of people to do those sorts of things. He's the face of Apple, he IS Apple. So when some backasswardass state does something idiotic, and the CEO of the LARGEST COMPANY IN THE WORLD has something to say about it, I'm all for it.
Tim Cook doesn't need to design the internals of the new Watch or whatever. But when he can make a point as CEO of Apple, I think that's important. And I REALLY think that it's important to lots of gay and lesbian people in the US when someone who has come out, and is a CEO of massive corporation has things to say in support of gay rights.
I mean, get what you're saying. I do. But I hope you get what I'm saying, too.
Rights are inalienable. All people are supposed to be treated equally as described in the Constitution. Special "rights" for individuals of any color or belief, if created by the Federal government, are unconstitutional.
What special rights have been created? How do you stop discriminatory behavior without laws?
correct, the law is not there to eliminate the discriminatory belief -- it only exists to prevent the behavior which would refuse to recognize the inalienability of the right in question, such as the right to equal treatment based on race as a protected class.
If one is unequally treated under the law (with discrimination OR privilege) then the law can only be considered unconstitutional.
What special rights have been created? How do you stop discriminatory behavior without laws?
You can't stop it. Laws are a blunt instrument that imposes the will of the majority on the minority, which is something the Constitution (the supreme law of the US) is supposed to protect individuals against.
Hello! First post here… This story made me join AppleInsider just so that I can applaud Tim Cook's public stance on this. He knows he is in the spotlight and like it or not, this makes his voice carry more weight than many other individuals. As far as I can tell, this is a decent man doing the right thing with his status and public platform.
You can't stop it. Laws are a blunt instrument that imposes the will of the majority on the minority, which is something the Constitution (the supreme law of the US) is supposed to protect individuals against.
Yes ... and no.
What the Constitution says is what the SC says it says. And in the centuries since this crap has begun, we've had all sorts of decisions. Great decisions. Horrible decisions. Normal decisions. But until the SC decides something, it's neither Constitutional nor un-Constitutional. It's in a nether world where neither applies. I hate it, but that's the reality.
You can't stop it. Laws are a blunt instrument that imposes the will of the majority on the minority, which is something the Constitution (the supreme law of the US) is supposed to protect individuals against.
Its an impossible situation. The 'tyranny of the masses'. But you can make the blunt instrument less threatening. Laws should just be safeguards. Education is the ideal way to find equilibrium. The problem as always is religion which tends to defy logic and reason.
Businesses like Sales Force are pulling out of Indiana. The people have spoken and Indiana will wonder why unemployment is rocketing in a couple of years.
I think that if the CEO of the LARGEST COMPANY IN THE WORLD has some ideas on stuff that's going on, he should probably say what those are. I mean, I get what you're saying. But Cook has lots of people to do those sorts of things. He's the face of Apple, he IS Apple. So when some backasswardass state does something idiotic, and the CEO of the LARGEST COMPANY IN THE WORLD has something to say about it, I'm all for it.
Tim Cook doesn't need to design the internals of the new Watch or whatever. But when he can make a point as CEO of Apple, I think that's important. And I REALLY think that it's important to lots of gay and lesbian people in the US when someone who has come out, and is a CEO of massive corporation has things to say in support of gay rights.
I mean, get what you're saying. I do. But I hope you get what I'm saying, too.
I do get what you're saying and I still disagree. Tim isn't the president of the United States. His duty to Apple and the shareholders is to keep the company profitable. I believe Cook may want to focus 100% on personal causes when he leaves and he should do whatever he thinks is right. I simply think he needlessly draws attention to issues he is neither suited to address, nor will he be able to change minds. He'll just alienate potential customers. As the head of a consumer products company, the company is the reason he has his current job title.
Rights are inalienable. All people are supposed to be treated equally as described in the Constitution. Special "rights" for individuals of any color or belief, if created by the Federal government, are unconstitutional. Individual rights cannot be taken away, but they can be ignored, trod upon or violated.
there are no "special" rights at play here. the "right" in the examples is very plain: "the right to equal treatment based on race". or "the right to equal treatment based on gender", for example. those are inalienable rights, that exist for all citizens. however, they were not always recognized as such, and were since codified into the US constitution in order to make it very plain to those who didnt understand this (1960s soda shops, for example).
and yes, this codification was done by the federal government, and is 100% constitution. it was in fact the southern states who refused to honor the inalienability of equal protection for protected classes such as race that were unconstitutional.
there are no "special" rights at play here. the "right" in the examples is very plain: "the right to equal treatment based on race". or "the right to equal treatment based on gender", for example. those are inalienable rights, that exist for all citizens. however, they were not always recognized as such, and were since codified into the US constitution in order to make it very plain to those who didnt understand this (1960s soda shops, for example).
and yes, this codification was done by the federal government, and is 100% constitution. it was in fact the southern states who refused to honor the inalienability of equal protection for protected classes such as race that were unconstitutional.
you get that, right? or are you just punking us?
A "protected class" is by definition, unconstitutional. The Constitution recognizes and protects individuals, not classes.
I realize this is an uncommon belief because of the collectivist propaganda we've been taught since childhood, but it is the only defensible position, in my opinion.
You can't stop it. Laws are a blunt instrument that imposes the will of the majority on the minority, which is something the Constitution (the supreme law of the US) is supposed to protect individuals against.
What a total nonsensical statement. Stop may have been the wrong word. How do you enforce what the constitution states without laws? Also, the constitution is a living document which is the reason it can be amended & cases go to the Supreme Court (different interpretations). You're arguments make absolutely no sense in the real world.
Exactly correct: Laws are intended to protect the rights of citizens from harmful actions by others. They are not (or at least should not be) intended to force behavior or require commerce.
That's why there was such a controversy over ACA (aka "Obamacare"): It now requires that I make a purchase from someone, even if I don't want to, even if I wish to independently support my own medical needs, and don't wish a subsidy from anyone, not even the government. And through my forced purchase of insurance I don't want, I am subsidizing the medical needs of someone who may engage in behaviors I find abhorrent, behaviors that open the door to or even cause disease.
Allow the government to force behavior means I'm allowing the government to take away rights. I'm not ready to cross that bridge.
If one is unequally treated under the law (with discrimination OR privilege) then the law can only be considered unconstitutional.
that doesnt make any since. if a black man is unequally treated via discrimination at the hambuger shop, then the law can only be considered unconstitutional? uhhh, no....then the hamburger shop is behaving unconstitutionally.
seriously, how is this so hard to grasp? the rights *recognized* by our constitution (not granted by it, because they are naturally rights, but instead officially *recognized*) are INALIENABLE. google "inalienable rights" to get an idea of what is being discussed.
Yes. But that does not mean that person with the prejudice can't allow someone to come into their store.
Ever seen the sign "We reserve the right to refuse service".
According to our Bill of Rights, the people of the United States reserve that right. It should be obvious, but the problem with trying to fairly legislate what people feel in their hearts or think in the their head is that it's impossible. Further it's impossible to find or trust anyone who can judge everyone fairly.
There's something depressing about the continued decline of religion in western civilization, as a life long atheist it should be a celebration. However the extremely emotionally fragile, secular based moralizing that's replaced it, is every bit as hateful, discriminating and toxic to those around them.
Woodstock looked like a lot of fun, why did the hippies all turn out to be total killjoy douches with life-long axes to grind, now greedily trying to hang on longer by having the public fund their nursing and long term care?
I think that if the CEO of the LARGEST COMPANY IN THE WORLD has some ideas on stuff that's going on, he should probably say what those are. I mean, I get what you're saying. But Cook has lots of people to do those sorts of things. He's the face of Apple, he IS Apple. So when some backasswardass state does something idiotic, and the CEO of the LARGEST COMPANY IN THE WORLD has something to say about it, I'm all for it.
Tim Cook doesn't need to design the internals of the new Watch or whatever. But when he can make a point as CEO of Apple, I think that's important. And I REALLY think that it's important to lots of gay and lesbian people in the US when someone who has come out, and is a CEO of massive corporation has things to say in support of gay rights.
I mean, get what you're saying. I do. But I hope you get what I'm saying, too.
The fact that Tim Cook is the CEO of a company that does business around the world he should be careful. Being an vocal activist and a CEO isn't aways a good mix. While this may not hurt him or Apple in the US lets remember there are many countries or societies that have a really bad outlook on this topic. I believe there are 66-78 counties that consider being a gay a crime and about a dozen where you could be put to death for being gay.
Society also tends to swing over time. Just because gay rights and marriage is moving in a forward direction doesn't mean that is always going to be the case. Movements go backwards sometimes. What Cook does in his private life isn't anyones business but his number one priority is being the CEO of Apple and not doing anything that could hurt the company or it's shareholders.
I'm not a fan of someone using the power of a company to push their personal agenda. With all that being said I also agree that I will never understand why we "a general term" as humans hate people because they are different. The color of someones skin, they believe in another God or what they do in the privacy of their own home. As far as this bill is concerned it's just another good example why we need to decrease the size of government in this country.
A "protected class" is by definition, unconstitutional. The Constitution recognizes and protects individuals, not classes.
I realize this is an uncommon belief because of the collectivist propaganda we've been taught since childhood, but it is the only defensible position, in my opinion.
nope. "protected classes" are by definition constitutional, because we've defined them IN the constitution. read up:
....if a hamburger shop tries to deny equal treatment (service) based solely on one of those enumerables, they are doing so at odds w/ our very constitution.
i believe you have confused your desired world view with reality. one exists in your mind...the other exists in Real Life. im here to discuss what exists in real life, not what exists in your mind.
that doesnt make any since. if a black man is unequally treated via discrimination at the hambuger shop, then the law can only be considered unconstitutional? uhhh, no....then the hamburger shop is behaving unconstitutionally.
seriously, how is this so hard to grasp? the rights *recognized* by our constitution (not granted by it, because they are naturally rights, but instead officially *recognized*) are INALIENABLE. google "inalienable rights" to get an idea of what is being discussed.
If the Federal government owns that hamburger shop, that would be a problem. You cannot dictate personal beliefs with laws. That's not how reality works.
I do get what you're saying and I still disagree. Tim isn't the president of the United States. His duty to Apple and the shareholders is to keep the company profitable. I believe Cook may want to focus 100% on personal causes when he leaves and he should do whatever he thinks is right. I simply think he needlessly draws attention to issues he is neither suited to address, nor will he be able to change minds. He'll just alienate potential customers. As the head of a consumer products company, the company is the reason he has his current job title.
Tim Cook offered part of his very rare blood type liver to Steve. Steve turned it down.
Do you have any idea what that takes? You're saying, basically, "I might not get a transplant in the future, but I care about you so much that I will offer this to you."
And Steve turned it down. Because why? Because he believed in Tim. Just as the rest of us do.
That was seriously badass. And as far as shareholders go, I first bought Apple stock when it was at $13, then it split, then it split 7 times. I have thousands of shares at over $123 per share. I could sell everything I own tomorrow and be a millionaire. Neither Steve nor Tim have screwed me over as a shareholder. Trust me. Somehow, I'm rich. I never planned on any of this.
Tim Cook and Steve Jobs were good people. Perfect? Nope. But decent human beings? Yep.
Comments
I like Cook, but at the risk of being the contrarian here I think he should keep the focus 100% on Apple and on the products. Anything unrelated to Apple is a distraction and not his job to fix. If he wants to be a political activist, he should make that his focus.
But it is related to Apple because the law is in conflict with Apple culture and Apple is paying taxes in Indiana. If he didn't stand up for his beliefs, that would make him less honorable and degrade Apple's reputation.
I like Cook, but at the risk of being the contrarian here I think he should keep the focus 100% on Apple and on the products. Anything unrelated to Apple is a distraction and not his job to fix. If he wants to be a political activist, he should make that his focus.
See, I couldn't disagree more.
I think that if the CEO of the LARGEST COMPANY IN THE WORLD has some ideas on stuff that's going on, he should probably say what those are. I mean, I get what you're saying. But Cook has lots of people to do those sorts of things. He's the face of Apple, he IS Apple. So when some backasswardass state does something idiotic, and the CEO of the LARGEST COMPANY IN THE WORLD has something to say about it, I'm all for it.
Tim Cook doesn't need to design the internals of the new Watch or whatever. But when he can make a point as CEO of Apple, I think that's important. And I REALLY think that it's important to lots of gay and lesbian people in the US when someone who has come out, and is a CEO of massive corporation has things to say in support of gay rights.
I mean, get what you're saying. I do. But I hope you get what I'm saying, too.
Rights are inalienable. All people are supposed to be treated equally as described in the Constitution. Special "rights" for individuals of any color or belief, if created by the Federal government, are unconstitutional.
What special rights have been created? How do you stop discriminatory behavior without laws?
correct, the law is not there to eliminate the discriminatory belief -- it only exists to prevent the behavior which would refuse to recognize the inalienability of the right in question, such as the right to equal treatment based on race as a protected class.
If one is unequally treated under the law (with discrimination OR privilege) then the law can only be considered unconstitutional.
What special rights have been created? How do you stop discriminatory behavior without laws?
You can't stop it. Laws are a blunt instrument that imposes the will of the majority on the minority, which is something the Constitution (the supreme law of the US) is supposed to protect individuals against.
This story made me join AppleInsider just so that I can applaud Tim Cook's public stance on this.
He knows he is in the spotlight and like it or not, this makes his voice carry more weight than many other individuals. As far as I can tell, this is a decent man doing the right thing with his status and public platform.
You can't stop it. Laws are a blunt instrument that imposes the will of the majority on the minority, which is something the Constitution (the supreme law of the US) is supposed to protect individuals against.
Yes ... and no.
What the Constitution says is what the SC says it says. And in the centuries since this crap has begun, we've had all sorts of decisions. Great decisions. Horrible decisions. Normal decisions. But until the SC decides something, it's neither Constitutional nor un-Constitutional. It's in a nether world where neither applies. I hate it, but that's the reality.
Businesses like Sales Force are pulling out of Indiana. The people have spoken and Indiana will wonder why unemployment is rocketing in a couple of years.
See, I couldn't disagree more.
I think that if the CEO of the LARGEST COMPANY IN THE WORLD has some ideas on stuff that's going on, he should probably say what those are. I mean, I get what you're saying. But Cook has lots of people to do those sorts of things. He's the face of Apple, he IS Apple. So when some backasswardass state does something idiotic, and the CEO of the LARGEST COMPANY IN THE WORLD has something to say about it, I'm all for it.
Tim Cook doesn't need to design the internals of the new Watch or whatever. But when he can make a point as CEO of Apple, I think that's important. And I REALLY think that it's important to lots of gay and lesbian people in the US when someone who has come out, and is a CEO of massive corporation has things to say in support of gay rights.
I mean, get what you're saying. I do. But I hope you get what I'm saying, too.
I do get what you're saying and I still disagree. Tim isn't the president of the United States. His duty to Apple and the shareholders is to keep the company profitable. I believe Cook may want to focus 100% on personal causes when he leaves and he should do whatever he thinks is right. I simply think he needlessly draws attention to issues he is neither suited to address, nor will he be able to change minds. He'll just alienate potential customers. As the head of a consumer products company, the company is the reason he has his current job title.
Rights are inalienable. All people are supposed to be treated equally as described in the Constitution. Special "rights" for individuals of any color or belief, if created by the Federal government, are unconstitutional. Individual rights cannot be taken away, but they can be ignored, trod upon or violated.
there are no "special" rights at play here. the "right" in the examples is very plain: "the right to equal treatment based on race". or "the right to equal treatment based on gender", for example. those are inalienable rights, that exist for all citizens. however, they were not always recognized as such, and were since codified into the US constitution in order to make it very plain to those who didnt understand this (1960s soda shops, for example).
and yes, this codification was done by the federal government, and is 100% constitution. it was in fact the southern states who refused to honor the inalienability of equal protection for protected classes such as race that were unconstitutional.
you get that, right? or are you just punking us?
there are no "special" rights at play here. the "right" in the examples is very plain: "the right to equal treatment based on race". or "the right to equal treatment based on gender", for example. those are inalienable rights, that exist for all citizens. however, they were not always recognized as such, and were since codified into the US constitution in order to make it very plain to those who didnt understand this (1960s soda shops, for example).
and yes, this codification was done by the federal government, and is 100% constitution. it was in fact the southern states who refused to honor the inalienability of equal protection for protected classes such as race that were unconstitutional.
you get that, right? or are you just punking us?
A "protected class" is by definition, unconstitutional. The Constitution recognizes and protects individuals, not classes.
I realize this is an uncommon belief because of the collectivist propaganda we've been taught since childhood, but it is the only defensible position, in my opinion.
You can't stop it. Laws are a blunt instrument that imposes the will of the majority on the minority, which is something the Constitution (the supreme law of the US) is supposed to protect individuals against.
What a total nonsensical statement. Stop may have been the wrong word. How do you enforce what the constitution states without laws? Also, the constitution is a living document which is the reason it can be amended & cases go to the Supreme Court (different interpretations). You're arguments make absolutely no sense in the real world.
Exactly correct: Laws are intended to protect the rights of citizens from harmful actions by others. They are not (or at least should not be) intended to force behavior or require commerce.
That's why there was such a controversy over ACA (aka "Obamacare"): It now requires that I make a purchase from someone, even if I don't want to, even if I wish to independently support my own medical needs, and don't wish a subsidy from anyone, not even the government. And through my forced purchase of insurance I don't want, I am subsidizing the medical needs of someone who may engage in behaviors I find abhorrent, behaviors that open the door to or even cause disease.
Allow the government to force behavior means I'm allowing the government to take away rights. I'm not ready to cross that bridge.
If one is unequally treated under the law (with discrimination OR privilege) then the law can only be considered unconstitutional.
that doesnt make any since. if a black man is unequally treated via discrimination at the hambuger shop, then the law can only be considered unconstitutional? uhhh, no....then the hamburger shop is behaving unconstitutionally.
seriously, how is this so hard to grasp? the rights *recognized* by our constitution (not granted by it, because they are naturally rights, but instead officially *recognized*) are INALIENABLE. google "inalienable rights" to get an idea of what is being discussed.
Yes. But that does not mean that person with the prejudice can't allow someone to come into their store.
Ever seen the sign "We reserve the right to refuse service".
According to our Bill of Rights, the people of the United States reserve that right. It should be obvious, but the problem with trying to fairly legislate what people feel in their hearts or think in the their head is that it's impossible. Further it's impossible to find or trust anyone who can judge everyone fairly.
There's something depressing about the continued decline of religion in western civilization, as a life long atheist it should be a celebration. However the extremely emotionally fragile, secular based moralizing that's replaced it, is every bit as hateful, discriminating and toxic to those around them.
Woodstock looked like a lot of fun, why did the hippies all turn out to be total killjoy douches with life-long axes to grind, now greedily trying to hang on longer by having the public fund their nursing and long term care?
See, I couldn't disagree more.
I think that if the CEO of the LARGEST COMPANY IN THE WORLD has some ideas on stuff that's going on, he should probably say what those are. I mean, I get what you're saying. But Cook has lots of people to do those sorts of things. He's the face of Apple, he IS Apple. So when some backasswardass state does something idiotic, and the CEO of the LARGEST COMPANY IN THE WORLD has something to say about it, I'm all for it.
Tim Cook doesn't need to design the internals of the new Watch or whatever. But when he can make a point as CEO of Apple, I think that's important. And I REALLY think that it's important to lots of gay and lesbian people in the US when someone who has come out, and is a CEO of massive corporation has things to say in support of gay rights.
I mean, get what you're saying. I do. But I hope you get what I'm saying, too.
The fact that Tim Cook is the CEO of a company that does business around the world he should be careful. Being an vocal activist and a CEO isn't aways a good mix. While this may not hurt him or Apple in the US lets remember there are many countries or societies that have a really bad outlook on this topic. I believe there are 66-78 counties that consider being a gay a crime and about a dozen where you could be put to death for being gay.
Society also tends to swing over time. Just because gay rights and marriage is moving in a forward direction doesn't mean that is always going to be the case. Movements go backwards sometimes. What Cook does in his private life isn't anyones business but his number one priority is being the CEO of Apple and not doing anything that could hurt the company or it's shareholders.
I'm not a fan of someone using the power of a company to push their personal agenda. With all that being said I also agree that I will never understand why we "a general term" as humans hate people because they are different. The color of someones skin, they believe in another God or what they do in the privacy of their own home. As far as this bill is concerned it's just another good example why we need to decrease the size of government in this country.
A "protected class" is by definition, unconstitutional. The Constitution recognizes and protects individuals, not classes.
I realize this is an uncommon belief because of the collectivist propaganda we've been taught since childhood, but it is the only defensible position, in my opinion.
nope. "protected classes" are by definition constitutional, because we've defined them IN the constitution. read up:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_class
....if a hamburger shop tries to deny equal treatment (service) based solely on one of those enumerables, they are doing so at odds w/ our very constitution.
i believe you have confused your desired world view with reality. one exists in your mind...the other exists in Real Life. im here to discuss what exists in real life, not what exists in your mind.
that doesnt make any since. if a black man is unequally treated via discrimination at the hambuger shop, then the law can only be considered unconstitutional? uhhh, no....then the hamburger shop is behaving unconstitutionally.
seriously, how is this so hard to grasp? the rights *recognized* by our constitution (not granted by it, because they are naturally rights, but instead officially *recognized*) are INALIENABLE. google "inalienable rights" to get an idea of what is being discussed.
If the Federal government owns that hamburger shop, that would be a problem. You cannot dictate personal beliefs with laws. That's not how reality works.
I do get what you're saying and I still disagree. Tim isn't the president of the United States. His duty to Apple and the shareholders is to keep the company profitable. I believe Cook may want to focus 100% on personal causes when he leaves and he should do whatever he thinks is right. I simply think he needlessly draws attention to issues he is neither suited to address, nor will he be able to change minds. He'll just alienate potential customers. As the head of a consumer products company, the company is the reason he has his current job title.
Tim Cook offered part of his very rare blood type liver to Steve. Steve turned it down.
Do you have any idea what that takes? You're saying, basically, "I might not get a transplant in the future, but I care about you so much that I will offer this to you."
And Steve turned it down. Because why? Because he believed in Tim. Just as the rest of us do.
That was seriously badass. And as far as shareholders go, I first bought Apple stock when it was at $13, then it split, then it split 7 times. I have thousands of shares at over $123 per share. I could sell everything I own tomorrow and be a millionaire. Neither Steve nor Tim have screwed me over as a shareholder. Trust me. Somehow, I'm rich. I never planned on any of this.
Tim Cook and Steve Jobs were good people. Perfect? Nope. But decent human beings? Yep.