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

1171820222325

Comments

  • Reply 381 of 492
    jungmarkjungmark Posts: 6,924member
    dunks wrote: »
    How anyone can think that "religious freedom" extends to imposing their beliefs onto others is beyond me.

    If someone has a religious objection to gay relationships the appropriate outcome is don't have one. Period. It doesn't give them special powers to discriminate against someone who might use their business (yes even a bed and breakfast) i<span style="line-height:1.4em;">n the same way that my personal/religious objection to firearms doesn't strip other people of their 4th amendments rights.</span>


    <span style="line-height:1.4em;">End of story.</span>

    Aren't you extending your beliefs towards those same religious folks?
  • Reply 382 of 492
    splifsplif Posts: 603member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by msantti View Post





    Thanks for the insightful reply. I expected nothing more really:

    And why am I apologizing to him.



    Not shocked you go along with him and what he says. Not surprised in the least.



    No one asked you to apologize. How about this....how about you explain why you made a negative comment towards your own comment.

  • Reply 383 of 492
    splifsplif Posts: 603member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

     



    AaronJ said that "Liberals do not hate the rich". The reply was to that comment. If he had said anything about "conservatives" the reply would have been different. Is that easy to understand?




    BS...I think that was exactly what you wanted implied. Nice spin though.

  • Reply 384 of 492
    splifsplif Posts: 603member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post





    Convenience? Hate? Take your pick.



    or that they are active politically? Did the Muslim right author this bill? Always so victimized.

  • Reply 385 of 492
    aaronjaaronj Posts: 1,595member

    HEY!  We should invite this lady to the thread!

     

     

    Quote:

    Arizona senator Sylvia Allen has a fix for the moral ills of society: Mandatory churchattendance. Allen, a newly appointed member of the Arizona Senate and an activist for the Snowflake Republican Party, is championing a call for all Americans to put on their Sunday best and sit (or kneel) front and center in the pews of Christendom’s churches.


     

    http://www.examiner.com/article/sylvia-allen-mandatory-church-ariz-senator-proposes-moral-mandatory-church

     

    She'd fit right it.  I'm telling' ya'!

  • Reply 386 of 492
    stourquestourque Posts: 360member
    aaronj wrote: »
    HEY!  We should invite this lady to the thread!



    http://www.examiner.com/article/sylvia-allen-mandatory-church-ariz-senator-proposes-moral-mandatory-church

    She'd fit right it.  I'm telling' ya'!

    What a novel idea, people learning about religion in a church instead of from Fox News.
  • Reply 387 of 492
    aaronjaaronj Posts: 1,595member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Stourque View Post





    What a novel idea, people learning about religion in a church instead of from Fox News.



    That's heresy!

  • Reply 388 of 492
    mstonemstone Posts: 11,510member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by AtlApple View Post

     

     

    It's my opinion and only my opinion that Tim Cook either needs to run Apple and STFU or step down and run for office. Or start his own activist group. 


    Whatever, I have no dog in this hunt. I'm just happy I can live everyday 2000 miles from the madness with no worries. I own no AAPL shares although they built my house.

  • Reply 389 of 492
    flaneurflaneur Posts: 4,526member
    mstone wrote: »
    What I find interesting is how the Apple demographic has changed over the years. In the beginning it was slanted heavily toward the liberal mindset, We were mostly graphic artists, scientists, teachers and hippies. Now there is a new more radical conservative movement, unless all the hippies are switching sides. They say people tend to become more conservative as they age, but I don't think the radical vocal conservatives here are the old guard. This seems to be a new younger angry delegation of conservatives. Honestly, I don't understand it at all.

    Nah, I don't think the hippies switched sides, but they're beginning to die off. The country did shift to the right. Nancy Reagan, ("just say no"), the DEA and D.A.R.E did their dirty work, the CIA stopped supplying acid, while there came a strange, huge supply of cocaine and then crack, meth and now opiates . . . everything became so hard-edged and self-absorbed. And much stupider and less tolerant. Apple is a remaining force of peace, love, and consciousness-raising, but it's not as focused as acid.
  • Reply 390 of 492
    This (whether it's completely accurate or not is beside the point) is why a consumer electronics business should stay out of socially and politically sensitive matters.

    Completely agree. It's polarizing. There are at least a small handul of people who find the whole Liberal agenda and Tim Cook's insertion into it to be offensive. Before, it was they make the best cellular telephone in the world, everyone knows it and they sell tens of millions of them every few weeks. Now it's politics. If he wants to be a politician he should figure out a way to resonate also with people who are not just leftists IMHO.

    To someone on the other side of this issue, the whole thing feels like bullying. You have tens of millions of s certain class of people (religious folks) being told repetitively that they are stupid, uneducated, having psychotic breaks with reality, etc. However, some of them do have a higher education and can articulate why they disagree with socialism and communism and especially the kind that tries to pretend it is not.

    Homogenization of thought is the PC agenda. The vitriol in these threads thrown against religious people has been astonishing to me. I am not a religuios person but I did learn in elementary school in Philadelphia, that the founding colonists were escaping religious persecution. And then they persecuted the natives, and on and on it goes.

    I would tend to be wary of people who claim to have a monopoly on what is the correct way to think, speak and act, even so far as what cupcakes you must bake and what photography you must shoot. Whether or not they worship a god in the sky or a soup of amoebas under a volcano.
  • Reply 391 of 492
    reefoid wrote: »
    Don't be so simplistic.

    This law will cause discrimination against Apple customers and harm Apple's ability to attract and retain employees.

    To think there will be no harm to business as a result of this law is naive to the extreme.

    What? Tim Cook can hire whomever he pleases, even fly him in his corporate jet for the interview. He can issue an executive order that Apple will now have a quota of x number of gays to be hired, or whatver he thinks makes sense... As long as the board of directors puts up with it, he can do it.

    How do we get from someone refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding to 'gays are (going to be) discriminated against? Serious question - how do you justify economically punishing the good people of Indiana over this? What right of gays is being threatened so badly that whole companies need to boycott the state? I am just not seeing it.
  • Reply 392 of 492
    dunksdunks Posts: 1,254member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jungmark View Post



    Aren't you extending your beliefs towards those same religious folks?

     

    No, what I wrote had nothing to do with "beliefs". I described a logical argument that discrimination towards others cannot be considered a valid expression of religious freedom. Here's another:

     

    Consider a situation where person A's religious beliefs are infringed upon if X happens and person B's religious beliefs are infringed upon if X doesn't happen. Who's religious beliefs take precedence? How would you resolve that situation under these discrimination laws?

     

    Religious belief is a bit like a walled garden; you have the right to grow whatever you want within your garden. It could be a simple grassy lawn, a well-tended cornucopia or something full of weeds. But as long as it's in your own space that is totally fine. Religious people like to think that all discussions about religious freedom are about what's in their garden. But it's not the nature of their beliefs that is in question - it's the extent of their expression that is in question. This legislation is tantamount to some people claiming that their garden should be bigger than everyone else's or that they have the right to grow things outside of their walled garden, or even in other people's gardens.

     

    The only way to create a stable system is if we define "religious freedom" as the right to hold a belief and conduct your personal affairs. "Holding" a belief (prejudice) does not convey an automatic right to "act it out" (discriminate). Operating a public business does not fall within the realm of personal affairs. If you allow your weeds to start getting wild and growing over the fence into public space it shouldn't come as a shock when other people trim them down to size. Again, this is not a personal belief but conclusions drawn from logic.

  • Reply 393 of 492
    quadra 610 wrote: »
    Probably time to outgrow nonsensical "survival instincts", like most of the rest of the modern democratic world.

    I wonder why we don't have these "survival instincts" up here? Haven't had them for decades.

    All these "survival instinct" theories accomplish is just further justification of the very attitudes that are in the way of social progress. It's a question of right and wrong. And how some folks DO NOT see that treating PEOPLE this way is INHERENTLY wrong is beyond me.

    Come on. I live in Canada too. While it's true you're absolutely not allowed to say you dislike homosexuals here, enough with the 'moral superiority over Americans' act.
  • Reply 394 of 492
    rogifan wrote: »
    I'm patiently awaiting Apple to stop selling their products in the 19 states that have religious freedom laws. And I assume too then that Apple will move its offices from Austin to a state that doesn't have this so-called bigoted law? Put your money where your mouth is Tim.

    RFRA1.jpg

    Simply leaving those places is stupid and pointless and hurts those discriminated against as much as Apple. Think before you demand stupidity.
  • Reply 395 of 492
    richlrichl Posts: 2,213member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by AtlApple View Post

     

    If you looks at that map it's pretty clear Tim Cook can pen an editorial until his arm falls off and these laws for now are going to stay in place. The threat for a boycott is a joke because they never ever work. 


     

    Scroll up to my previous post. The Indiana governor is amending the bill to exclude discrimination against gay people. What Tim Cook did worked.

  • Reply 396 of 492
    misamisa Posts: 827member
    moreck wrote: »
    Are you honestly so stupid that you believe that gay marriage will lead to nationwide polygamy and beastiality? Get a grip.

    Gee Whiz.

    I do find it funny how people think that "just letting gay people to get married" is somehow equivalent to "being forced to get gay married." If suddenly Polygamy was made legal, do you think every dude in the country would get married to as many women/men as they wanted? It would confuse and cause utter chaos around tax time and who is entitled to what benefits should the marriages be dissolved, but civilization will not cease to exist because of it. Arguably the Polygamy question has more to do with not wanting to create more bureaucracy. Gay Marriage on the other hand is fixed in existing laws simply by replacing "man and woman" with "partners" in most legal documents.

    So these unashamed attempts to legalize hate crimes I find just brazenly stupid. It's just a redo of the racist hate laws.
  • Reply 397 of 492

    “When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross.” Sinclair Lewis, 1935

     

    What I would love to see happen is a few non-Christian business owners refuse service to Christians and site this law. Then we would see if a 'religious freedom' law really works, or if it only applies to Jesus lovers.

  • Reply 398 of 492
    arlomediaarlomedia Posts: 271member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by frankie View Post

     



    Your religious freedom doesn't trump others' freedoms and rights.


     

    Nailed it.

  • Reply 399 of 492
    jungmarkjungmark Posts: 6,924member
    dunks wrote: »
    No, what I wrote had nothing to do with "beliefs". I described a logical argument that discrimination towards others cannot be considered a valid expression of religious freedom. Here's another:

    Consider a situation where person A's religious beliefs are infringed upon if X happens and person B's religious beliefs are infringed upon if X doesn't happen. Who's religious beliefs take precedence? How would you resolve that situation under these discrimination laws?

    Religious belief is a bit like a walled garden; you have the right to grow whatever you want within your garden. It could be a simple grassy lawn, a well-tended cornucopia or something full of weeds. But as long as it's in your own space that is totally fine. Religious people like to think that all discussions about religious freedom are about what's in their garden. But it's not the nature of their beliefs that is in question - it's the extent of their expression that is in question. This legislation is tantamount to some people claiming that their garden should be bigger than everyone else's or that they have the right to grow things outside of their walled garden, or even in other people's gardens.

    The only way to create a stable system is if we define "religious freedom" as the right to hold a belief and conduct your personal affairs. "Holding" a belief (prejudice) does not convey an automatic right to "act it out" (discriminate). Operating a public business does not fall within the realm of personal affairs. If you allow your weeds to start getting wild and growing over the fence into public space it shouldn't come as a shock when other people trim them down to size. Again, this is not a personal belief but conclusions drawn from logic.

    The law is poorly written. If it's my walled garden I should be able to decide if I want to make a wedding cake for a gay couple. I should be able to decide if I want to make a swastika shaped cake. I shouldn't be able to not serve gays just because they're gay.
  • Reply 400 of 492
    Whites on average score 100 in intelligence. Jews tend to score slightly higher, as well as East Asians. Native Americans (both hemispheres) and most others slightly lower. But always, the black race averages about 15 points lower... which is very significant. Google "race bell curve" for images.

    What this means is the average white person (or Asian, or Jew) when confronted with a black person can reliably assume they are dealing with somebody with a good deal less intelligence. That is the ugly truth, and no amount of "Jesus loves us all" or "man was created equal" philosophy can change that.

    Google "African American Genius". It is very likely that there has never been one (documented)! Not to say that it is impossible, as the Bell Curve stretches to infinity (as the probability decreases). That is why one cannot say ALL blacks have low IQ. As our Bell Curves intersect SOME blacks will have a higher IQ than SOME whites. Some... the dumbest whites and the smartest blacks.

    These numbers have been repeated countless times with matching results. That is why IQ is not used anymore. Our masters have just buried the truth instead of dealing with it.

    My theory is all the races who left sub-Saharan Africa evolved separately and slightly. It's the only thing that makes sense. It also explains sub-Saharan African's plight everywhere in the world throughout history. They are not just struggling in Africa or America.

    Think about it. The Bell Curves are obvious when you look at each race's achievement, social status, temperament, crime rates, wealth... every single demographic aligns with it.

    Sounds like you were born 75 years too late for your ideology.

    IQ tests are written by people and have inherent biases. This is why "whites" score 100 on IQ tests, they are western- centric IQ tests. You are also ignoring the fact that Jews scored very low on German designed IQ tests during WW2.

    Googling for African American geniuses will get you plenty of hits, including Ben Carson, the GOP presidential candidate who was failing in elementary school but went on to make history separating Siamese twins. You may recall that Einstein and Thomas Edison also failed traditional schools and IQ tests early in their lives.

    Also interesting is the fact that African Americans dominate almost all sports and are the most influential artists in history. Nearly all modern musical genres, including country music, were transformed by African American artists. The only pure western musical style is Classical or Opera. The ancient Egyptians created a vast culture and breathtaking architecture while white people were still living in caves. I guess it all depends what you call "genius', maybe those bloodletting cave dwellers were super smart by your standards :/

    I realize though that it's pointless to argue with someone who searches for evidence to justify his racism.
Sign In or Register to comment.