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

1121315171825

Comments

  • Reply 281 of 492
    pscooter63pscooter63 Posts: 1,067member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

     

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


     

    Because they are related; my response directly applied to your comment; I'd have never created it otherwise.

     

    I can't tell if you just don't "get it"; or you have too many conversational plates spinning to keep track of them all; or you're deliberately being obtuse.  Regardless, never mind already.  :no:

  • Reply 282 of 492

    So, for those of you who somehow think this is slightly ok, where do you draw the line? If a baker can refuse to serve an lgbt person, what about a restaurant owner? A paramedic? A fireman? Are only certain groups allowed to discriminate? I'll admit, I don't want a bigot baking my wedding cake--because I can almost guarantee that same individual would have no problem baking a cake for a twice-divorced schoolteacher, or a nice young lady celebrating her dog's birthday--but those people should have big ol' signs in their windows that say, "We selectively discriminate against some people based on our religious beliefs (but we don't actually live our lives completely by the Bible)".

  • Reply 283 of 492
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by adambravo View Post

     

    So, for those of you who somehow think this is slightly ok, where do you draw the line? If a baker can refuse to serve an lgbt person, what about a restaurant owner? A paramedic? A fireman? Are only certain groups allowed to discriminate? I'll admit, I don't want a bigot baking my wedding cake--because I can almost guarantee that same individual would have no problem baking a cake for a twice-divorced schoolteacher, or a nice young lady celebrating her dog's birthday--but those people should have big ol' signs in their windows that say, "We selectively discriminate against some people based on our religious beliefs (but we don't actually live our lives completely by the Bible)".




    There's a difference between a private establishment (like a bakery or a restaurant) and the Fire Department. Public servants must treat all people regardless of personal ideology.

  • Reply 284 of 492
    aaronjaaronj Posts: 1,595member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Stourque View Post



    Gay people: we just want to be treated like everyone else.



    Religious Right: then act like everyone else. You're free to not be gay.



    Gay people: Well, no, we don't have that choice.

     


    [SNIP]


    Gay people: omg!

     

    I actually laughed out loud.  Nicely played, sir. :)

  • Reply 285 of 492
    mytdavemytdave Posts: 447member

    Cook is on the wrong side of this issue.  A law that reinforces the 1st Amendment to the Constitution, which is increasingly under attack, is a good law.  Apple should stay out of politics and social issues, and stick to just making insanely great products.  It never ends well for companies who get distracted away from their core purpose.

  • Reply 286 of 492
    splifsplif Posts: 603member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

     



    There's a difference between a private establishment (like a bakery or a restaurant) and the Fire Department. Public servants must treat all people regardless of personal ideology.




    Aren't hospitals, doctors offices private establishments?

  • Reply 287 of 492
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by mytdave View Post

     

    Cook is on the wrong side of this issue.  A law that reinforces the 1st Amendment to the Constitution, which is increasingly under attack, is a good law.  Apple should stay out of politics and social issues, and stick to just making insanely great products.  It never ends well for companies who get distracted away from their core purpose.




    I agree with you in general, however the law that was passed was unnecessary and was merely political pandering to constituents.

  • Reply 288 of 492
    aaronjaaronj Posts: 1,595member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by mytdave View Post

     

    Cook is on the wrong side of this issue.  A law that reinforces the 1st Amendment to the Constitution, which is increasingly under attack, is a good law.  Apple should stay out of politics and social issues, and stick to just making insanely great products.  It never ends well for companies who get distracted away from their core purpose.




    No, he's on the right side.  And he's on the same side as the NFL, the NCAA, the NBA, Angie's List (and she's a total right-wing nut-job!), Salesforce, PayPal, Google, and even Bret freakin' Bair from FOX NEWS!

     

    You -- and your compatriots here -- seem to be almost the ONLY people on the planet who think he's on the wrong side.

     

    Let me ask you:  When AZ passed a similar law, and the NFL said that they would cancel the Phoenix Super Bowl, and move it somewhere else if it were signed into law, did you feel exactly the same way?  Because you know Gov. Brewer vetoed that law, a law which she had pushed for until the rubber met the road with the NFL.  So, did you think that, "The NFL should just stick to playing football and stay out of politics and social issues?"

  • Reply 289 of 492
    splifsplif Posts: 603member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post





    Just for your edification, go to Truthdig, Huffpo, Daily Kos, Politico and other liberal and progressive sites and you'll see regular posts calling for the murder of "the rich". It's very disturbing.

    Hmmmm...I wonder what kind of posts I would find on conservative sites. Should I base my opinion on what a few people entered on a website forum? You seem to be a fairly intelligent person most of the time and I'm pretty sure that you can distinguish between what is noise and what is not. Yet, you always seem to shank it into the weeds.

  • Reply 290 of 492
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,002member
    ned bulous wrote: »
    Well, it is believed that Joseph was much older than Mary when she married him at the age of 12. Wouldn't a 20-30 year old marrying a 12 year old count as pedophilia?

    You can't apply current laws and customs to another era.
  • Reply 291 of 492
    muppetrymuppetry Posts: 3,331member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by msantti View Post

     
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by msantti View Post



    H

    How can socialism and capitalism both be believed in at the same time?




    You don't frequent many message boards do you?



    Since you have started talking to yourself in public, now might also be a good time to cut your losses and stop posting nonsense.

  • Reply 292 of 492
    jungmarkjungmark Posts: 6,924member
    ned bulous wrote: »
    Funny, in Griswold versus CT the conservatives wanted to ban birth control for married couples. Prominent conservatives like Santorum and Rush Limbaugh have still said they believe Griswold was wrongly decided. More recently, some have wanted to ban the morning after pill and any birth control which prevents implantation.

    I believe in free speech, but also that all should be treated equally. Which is actually in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

    I don't really want to get into abortion (but it was practiced in biblical times and never once mentioned in the Bible), but if you're for "small government", you most certainly don't want to ban abortion. Unless, of course, you want women prosecuted and sentenced to death for "murder", investigated for things like not wearing seatbelt or drinking or smoking while pregnant, etc, etc.

    Griswold v CT is 50 years ago. Rush and Santorum are idiots.
  • Reply 293 of 492
    aaronjaaronj Posts: 1,595member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Splif View Post

     

    Hmmmm...I wonder what kind of posts I would find on conservative sites. Should I base my opinion on what a few people entered on a website forum? You seem to be a fairly intelligent person most of the time and I'm pretty sure that you can distinguish between what is noise and what is not. Yet, you always seem to shank it into the weeds.




    Y-E-A-R-S ago, before Huffington went to FB for commenting, and all that crap -- IOW, back when it was a credible site -- I used to post there all the time, in pretty much every section; from the Front Page, to Sports, to Tech, to Style, to Celebrity, to Entertainment ... the whole deal.  And it was mostly (as much as any mostly-unmoderated Internet site can be anyways) a pretty decent place.  You could have real discussions with people, go back and forth.

     

    Now, of course, it's complete trash.  But I still for some reason read the comments, such as they are, now and again.  And I don't ever remember seeing people saying that they hate the rich.  Yes, people immediately react out of misplaced jealously on the Celebrity stories.  Sure.  But ... *shrug*

     

    Honestly, once you're talking about people who are posting from FB -- what the hell sort of level of discourse does one expect?!

  • Reply 294 of 492
    aaronjaaronj Posts: 1,595member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post





    You can't apply current laws and customs to another era.



    I think that's sort of the point, no?

     

    (Just for those who are slow on the uptake: WTF do I care what some desert dwelling nomads thought about anything 3,000 years ago?  Why the hell should that interest me in the slightest as far as how I live my life is concerned?)

  • Reply 295 of 492
    muppetrymuppetry Posts: 3,331member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jungmark View Post

     
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ned bulous View Post



    Funny, in Griswold versus CT the conservatives wanted to ban birth control for married couples. Prominent conservatives like Santorum and Rush Limbaugh have still said they believe Griswold was wrongly decided. More recently, some have wanted to ban the morning after pill and any birth control which prevents implantation.



    I believe in free speech, but also that all should be treated equally. Which is actually in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.



    I don't really want to get into abortion (but it was practiced in biblical times and never once mentioned in the Bible), but if you're for "small government", you most certainly don't want to ban abortion. Unless, of course, you want women prosecuted and sentenced to death for "murder", investigated for things like not wearing seatbelt or drinking or smoking while pregnant, etc, etc.




    Griswold v CT is 50 years ago. Rush and Santorum are idiots.



    Not sure that they are idiots. I think that they are shrewd enough to know what plays well with the unthinking, conservative base of their party but, for some reason, unable to realize that the base is just too small for those views to be held by an electable candidate.

  • Reply 296 of 492
    aaronjaaronj Posts: 1,595member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

     



    Not sure that they are idiots. I think that they are shrewd enough to know what plays well with the unthinking, conservative base of their party but, for some reason, unable to realize that the base is just too small for those views to be held by an electable candidate.




    That may ... note: MAY ... be true of Santorum.

     

    But Rush long, long ago did enough damage to whatever he started with as a brain as to be more or less incomprehensible anymore.  

  • Reply 297 of 492
    muppetrymuppetry Posts: 3,331member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by AaronJ View Post

     
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

     



    Not sure that they are idiots. I think that they are shrewd enough to know what plays well with the unthinking, conservative base of their party but, for some reason, unable to realize that the base is just too small for those views to be held by an electable candidate.




    That may ... note: MAY ... be true of Santorum.

     

    But Rush long, long ago did enough damage to whatever he started with as a brain as to be more or less incomprehensible anymore.  




    Maybe so. In which case it just goes to show that an idiot can be very popular in certain circles.

  • Reply 298 of 492
    mytdave wrote: »
    Cook is on the wrong side of this issue.  A law that reinforces the 1st Amendment to the Constitution, which is increasingly under attack, is a good law.  Apple should stay out of politics and social issues, and stick to just making insanely great products.  It never ends well for companies who get distracted away from their core purpose.

    You must be livid with the Koch brothers, Hobby Lobby and Chik-Fil-A!
  • Reply 299 of 492
    msanttimsantti Posts: 1,377member
    muppetry wrote: »

    Since you have started talking to yourself in public, now might also be a good time to cut your losses and stop posting nonsense.
    thanks for the insightful reply. I frankly expected nothing more.
  • Reply 300 of 492
    dasanman69 wrote: »
    You can't apply current laws and customs to another era.

    Good to know. Then why all this talk about The Bible and homosexuality and traditional biblical marriage? Especially since it rarely involved one man and one woman, least of all in romantic love.
Sign In or Register to comment.