Cook says discriminatory 'religious freedom' laws are dangerous, calls for action

1101113151625

Comments

  • Reply 241 of 492
    slurpyslurpy Posts: 5,362member
    Quote:



    Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post





    Whom, exactly, is Tim Cook not tolerant of?

     

    Bigots, racists, and xenophobes. According to people like BF, these are the types of individuals that should be coddled. and their hateful views championed and supported. But yes, these people go through quite a series of hilarious mental gymnastics to justify their assertion at how those that demand equality (like Cook)  are actually "intolerant" and " against freedom". Hilarious, but at the same time vile and dangerous, considering the purposes of such statements.

     

    Not a single person on the entire fucking planet is going to be negatively affected in any real way by a gay couple getting married. That's all there is to it. 

  • Reply 242 of 492
    richlrichl Posts: 2,213member

    And the bill is effectively dead.

     

    Tim chooses his battles wisely. He's not going to turn around China in a day but he can turn around Indiana in a couple of speeches. 

  • Reply 243 of 492
    koopkoop Posts: 337member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by AaronJ View Post

     



    There are a great deal of Americans who believe that you either have to accept the entire picture, and love it without reservation or you're un-American.  You can't criticize slavery, for instance, because you're saying that the US did something bad.  You just need to accept that it was "bad" and move on silently.

     

    And there is more than one state legislature that flies the Stars and Bars (more or less, the Confederate flag) above their statehouses.  

     

    This is a very strange place. :)


     

    It's the idea of American Exceptionalism that has permeated in our culture for a long time. "We defeated Nazi Germany with some help from Britain and the Soviet Union". (27,000,000 lives lost on the Soviet side). "The bomb was an engineering marvel that ended the war with Japan" (despite Japan signaling they wanted to the end war before the bombs dropped). It's a strain of blind patriotism that rewrites history and overlooks real and hard criticisms. Every single President has to follow some ideal of American Exceptionalism to be elected, or at least pretend they do in the case of Obama. The American people thought "Hope and Change" meant changing the state of our government and policies, but I suspect Obama also meant that for the American electorate at large, who holds just as much responsibility for the problems of the country as any government official does.

     

    After all, we elected them, but pretend we hold no accountability for our vote. Then we let elected officials tell us just how precious of a people we are, so we blush and they collectively put the binky back in our mouth as they prepare for the next war.

  • Reply 244 of 492
    mstonemstone Posts: 11,510member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post



    Some of you DO know that you can have both, right? Religious "freedom" AND freedom from its use as a discrinatory mechanism.



    None of this is an issue for your neighbour north of the border. We have folks of all sexual orientations here, all religious persuasions, and all colours and ethnicities. The practice of religion - whatever it might be - is open and accepted as a facet of the diversity Canadian culture.



    However, the buck stops where individual rights to access services - private or personal - are concerned, as they relate to discriminatory pracitces based on gender, sexual orientation, and so on.



    People understand this. Always have. It's for the collective good and it's ingrained culturally that since we're all in this together, we need to make room for each other.



    But this is probably difficult where you're born into and conditioned by a culture that places a premium on "the other vs. me", separateness, and little to no concept of the collective good.



    Sounds good. I have mentioned it before but I decided to say again. Even with the religious law, the bad consequences are going to come up so rarely as to not make much difference. It will only happen in cases of small solo entrepreneur shops owned by irrational religious zealots, not at the grocery store, movie theater, taxi, etc. In the strange case where the store owner would rather not serve some gay people, the civil thing to say is, "It is nothing personal, it just makes me uncomfortable because of my religious beliefs. I know another cake baker who can help you, shall I give him a call?"

     

    If you are polite and helpful there will never be a problem. I think it would be better to not have any law for or against and just try to get along with everyone. But in the end most likely we will need to make gays a protected class just like ethnicities.

  • Reply 245 of 492
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post

     

    Here we go again ;)




    Indeed yes!

  • Reply 246 of 492

    For all we know (and we do not), Jesus was a homosexual. A man hanging around 12 other men all the time, no wife or girlfriend that we know of... always eating out together. If some think Abraham Lincoln was gay for hanging out with one guy, then what about hanging out with twelve? You self-righteous people get off your high horse, a lot of people who yell and protest the loudest are the ones struggling with their own temptations and demons.

  • Reply 247 of 492
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by PScooter63 View Post

     

     

    Yours was an equally broad statement.  I fail to see how I didn't address your assertion (which appears to treat an apple like an orange).


     

    However, you quoted my comment. Why not just make the comment on your own without piggybacking on a statement unrelated to yours?

  • Reply 248 of 492
    mstonemstone Posts: 11,510member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by websnap View Post

     

    I think any Graphic designer that is part of a community would know it would be no different then if a client contacted you wanting any design service you can’t or don’t do – say, Illustration or app design – you politely refer them to someone who does. You could even build them up by saying that thing they need done "well Designer “X” is amazing at that!”. Insulting them and belittling them ...


    I think it is better yet to honestly and respectfully explain the problem instead of hiding it. You don't have to make up false pretenses in order to be polite. Just like the gays who asked for a wedding cake, if they aren't intelligent enough to understand the problem once it is politely explained to them, then they are the ones being unreasonable. My guess is it wasn't explained politely or respectfully which then does produce an angy reaction on the part of those being rejected.

  • Reply 249 of 492
    I must say, it's heartwarming to see so many good Christian folk here (and maybe some non-Christian ones, too) defending freedom and the Commandment 'Love thy neighbour'.

    Let's all pray that Timmy Cook reads this thread and comes to his senses.

    Whom, exactly, is Tim Cook not tolerant of?

    Liberty.
  • Reply 250 of 492
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by MessagePad2100 View Post

     



    There is now.  

     

    There was also no round Earth either in those books of Bronze Age Myths.   

     

    Look what else doesn't exist today:


     

    That has nothing to do with the comment I responded to.

     

    Spaceships also did not exist back then. Neither did cars. One has nothing to do with the other.

  • Reply 251 of 492
    slurpy wrote: »
    Bigots, racists, and xenophobes. According to people like BF, these are the types of individuals that should be coddled. and their hateful views championed and supported. But yes, these people go through quite a series of hilarious mental gymnastics to justify their assertion at how those that demand equality (like Cook)  are actually "intolerant" and " against freedom". Hilarious, but at the same time vile and dangerous, considering the purposes of such statements.

    Not a single person on the entire fucking planet is going to be negatively affected in any real way by a gay couple getting married. That's all there is to it. 

    Ah. The old "but but but think of the children bigots" argument. Yes, the irony of preaching "tolerance of the intolerant," just so they can label those preaching tolerance and diversity "intolerant" in a lame attempt to "beat the liberals with their own argument." It's all in service of diverting attention from the fact that they are using religion to hide or justify their personal bigotry, pure and simple.
  • Reply 252 of 492
    msantti wrote: »
    Liberals love the Koch brothers, especially Harry Reid. The guy eats, sleeps and dreams about the Koch brothers.

    I like Cook. Its just that Steve Jobs never felt he had to stand on a soap box.

    An China still has a ton of problems.

    But the money is real good.

    And I thought liberals hated capitalism anyways?

    Huh? Liberals hate capitalism? Sounds like a straw man argument or, if we are playing that game, I thought Conservatives hate freedom.

    Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Soros, etc. Nope, I think liberals are better capitalists than conservatives. Just because liberal capitalists actually have a conscience doesn't mean they aren't capitalists- unless that's how you define capitalism.
  • Reply 253 of 492
    msanttimsantti Posts: 1,377member
    Then why is there a lot of hate by liberals towards the wealthy?
  • Reply 254 of 492
    mstonemstone Posts: 11,510member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by msantti View Post



    Then why is there a lot of hate by liberals towards the wealthy?



    Because they drive like shit and treat average people like dirt.

  • Reply 255 of 492
    Liberty.

    I think it's hilarious how conservatives define liberty to mean they should be free to infringe on the rights of others.

    Liberals, in contrast, define liberty to mean one can do whatever one wishes, so long as they don't hurt others. I believe the right to choose ones own family is paramount in a free society, but conservatives believe that the government should define who one can marry. I believe that folks should be able to use marijuana and other drugs, but conservatives believe the government knows best. I believe that couples should be able to use birth control as they see fit, conservatives think the government should be able to ban birth control. Etc, etc, etc.
  • Reply 256 of 492
    msanttimsantti Posts: 1,377member
    Soros is nothing but bad news. Currency manipulator and not in a good way.

    The Kichs are rich. Why no mention? ????
  • Reply 257 of 492
    msantti wrote: »
    Then why is there a lot of hate by liberals towards the wealthy?

    Why are conservatives so stupid to say things like this?

    Let's ask Warren Buffett why he hates the wealthy.
  • Reply 258 of 492
    msanttimsantti Posts: 1,377member
    H
    ned bulous wrote: »
    Huh? Liberals hate capitalism? Sounds like a straw man argument or, if we are playing that game, I thought Conservatives hate freedom.

    Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Soros, etc. Nope, I think liberals are better capitalists than conservatives. Just because liberal capitalists actually have a conscience doesn't mean they aren't capitalists- unless that's how you define capitalism.

    How can socialism and capitalism both be believed in at the same time?
  • Reply 259 of 492
    websnapwebsnap Posts: 224member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mstone View Post

     

    I think it is better yet to honestly and respectfully explain the problem instead of hiding it. You don't have to make up false pretenses in order to be polite. Just like the gays who asked for a wedding cake, if they aren't intelligent enough to understand the problem once it is politely explained to them, then they are the ones being unreasonable. My guess is it wasn't explained politely or respectfully which then does produce an angy reaction on the part of those being rejected.




    With all due respect, that’s silly. They don’t care why you think they are lesser than (here is a tip, I guarantee they have heard it numerous times), nor should they. Your reasons are your own and that is about you. They cannot/will not/should not be expected to both understand and not be offended by your own personal choice when you have, by all accounts, set up shop to cater to a certain service or industry. So you want to tell them “honestly” why they are such heathens that you won’t take their money? That is even MORE insulting. Your answer is to take the time to tell them how their personal lives are so disgusting to you that you not only won’t take their money, you wouldn’t politely lie to them? As a minority – let me tell you – The polite lie is much better from a stranger than the honest truth. The polite lie – even if it is obvious – at least tells the person they didn’t want to hurt your feelings. The honest truth from a stranger is a sermon no one asked for and is just about always insulting and condescending.

     

    Then again, if you were to turn away service from a person just looking to give you money – you don’t care much about people’s feelings anyway.

  • Reply 260 of 492
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by mstone View Post

     



    Because they drive like shit and treat average people like dirt.


     

    "Wealthy donors sided with Democrats in the mid-terms"

    http://townhall.com/news/politics-elections/2014/12/24/wealthy-donors-sided-with-democrats-in-midterms-n1935497

Sign In or Register to comment.