A privately owned store (versus a Best Buy, for example) can and should be able to serve, or not serve any person for any reason. The bad businesses don't last and the bigots and jerks get noticed pretty fast.
There is no such thing as a 'privately owned store' that is different from a Best Buy. Whether you are a hole-in-the-wall mom and pop operation or a Best Buy, when you open for business in these United States, the law of the land says that you have to serve everyone who steps up to your counter to patronize your business regardless of who they are, what they look like, where they came from an what kind of underwear they put on. That's one of the great things about this country. It ain't perfect but there are enough busybodies who care enough to try to achieve perfection.
So there is no bias on the side of the Apple Insider staff...which makes the following notable characterizations of Fiorina and the topic of Religious Freedom:
- "Ousted" CEO instead of former CEO. Even the original WSJ article characterized Fiorina as the "former CEO of Hewlett-Packard from 1999-2005."
- "So-called "religious freedom" laws". Um..why are they so called? They are literally referred to as Religious Freedom laws.
- And Fiorina "fancies" herself a presidential candidate. So dismissive.
- Fiorina had a "disastrous" run for the California Senate. Fiorina spent $5.5 million. Boxer, the long-time incumbent, spent north of $7 million, and she garnered 52% of the vote to 42% for Fiorina...hardly "disastrous".
Apple Insider is of course welcome to write anything they want, but when your slant is so obviously one-sided it's hard to read any article here hoping for some level of objectivity. If you want to write biased pieces like this, they should be an Op-Ed piece, and be credited to one particular writer; not the faceless 'Apple Insider Staff' credit.
All that having been said, I am not a republican, I am not a democrat. But I can see the is merit to Fiorina's claim that Cook and other CEOs denouncing the new law in Indiana, are acting hypocritically. These CEOs know that if they denounced the atrocities in China, their products would be banned...that's a lot of lost sales. And those CEOs would be out on their butts.
And also, Religious Freedom is just that, freedom of religion. Society as a whole can't dictate what a religion can believe or not believe. The word discriminate is not a bad word. If a business you like doesn't share the views you have, use your capitalist rights and don't shop there. Do you go to a church that doesn't same the same views as yourself and protest they are wrong?
The Federal government is restricted from a whole host of things laid out in the Constitution that individuals are not. Those powers not granted to the Federal government are left to the States and the People. The Constitution wasn't created to defend and protect groups, it was created to protect and defend individuals.
That's such a silly and so widely rejected theory of constitional law, it's hard to take it seriously. For the last 150 years (with the passing of the 14th Amendment) this interpretation of the 10th Amendment has been soundly rejected. But it never stops armchair lawyers from trotting it out.
There is no such thing as a 'privately owned store' that is different from a Best Buy. Whether you are a hole-in-the-wall mom and pop operation or a Best Buy, when you open for business in these United States, the law of the land says that you have to serve everyone who steps up to your counter to patronize your business regardless of who they are, what they look like, where they came from an what kind of underwear they put on. That's one of the great things about this country. It ain't perfect but there are enough busybodies who care enough to try to achieve perfection.
Such a perfect point. Businesses aren't "private". They are, by definition, quite the opposite. Don't want to serve gays, lesbians, blacks, Mexicans, whatever. Don't start a business. Done. Businesses aren't "private property", either. They are regulated artificial entities allowed for the sole purpose of benefiting society.
These threads, and the people making some of these comments are simply leading me back to two of my favorite quote by Rust in "True Detective."
Quote:
"I think human consciousness, is a tragic misstep in evolution. We became too self-aware, nature created an aspect of nature separate from itself, we are creatures that should not exist by natural law. We are things that labor under the illusion of having a self; an accretion of sensory, experience and feeling, programmed with total assurance that we are each somebody, when in fact everybody is nobody. Maybe the honorable thing for our species to do is deny our programming, stop reproducing, walk hand in hand into extinction, one last midnight - brothers and sisters opting out of a raw deal."
Quote:
"If the only thing keeping a person decent is the expectation of divine reward then, brother, that person is a piece of s***. And I’d like to get as many of them out in the open as possible. You gotta get together and tell yourself stories that violate every law of the universe just to get through the goddamn day? What’s that say about your reality?"
I knew that I understood him better than I've understood probably any character in fiction ever. And these threads have just proven to me why.
Private businesses benefit for govt tax write offs just like everyone else. If they're willing to forfeit all externalities of running their bigot.com then I'd agree with you.
We're talking about the owners of a privately-owned small business. A large corporate entity that is traded on a stock exchange is a different matter altogether.
That's such a silly and so widely rejected theory of constitional law, it's hard to take it seriously. For the last 150 years (with the passing of the 14th Amendment) this interpretation of the 10th Amendment has been soundly rejected. But it never stops armchair lawyers from trotting it out.
HP made a big mistake in hiring her and because of the short lived crowning we have to deal with her stupidity constantly. she feels that by attacking Cook it places her on an equal level but in reality she is far beneath him and will never be sppoken of in the same breath.
I have. Oddly enough, my opinion is unchanged - while your interpretation is one possible one, it is not the only possible interpretation and frankly your interpretation was shown to be unworkable. Basically, you want us to live under the Articles of Confederation even though the Constition was necessary but the Articles of Confederation proved to be incapable of handling even the small nation we were at the time (and would be disastrous in our current much larger and more populous nation). Furthermore, there is a mechanism involved to alter the constitution for either correction of mistakes in it or to clarify its intent (the Bill of Rights being the most famous clarification, I'd say that granting the vote another clarification). Weirdly, there's no support for an amendment along the lines you want it.
In the legal system of the United States in this early part of the 22nd century, your interpretation is not binding and is not the system we work under. If you wish it to be that system, of course you can work to make it so (and in the process discover how small a minority that view actually is) but without that work, wishing it were not so or saying "but it shouldn't be" is meaningless.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich
We're talking about the owners of a privately-owned small business. A large corporate entity that is traded on a stock exchange is a different matter altogether.
So only some people get to fulfill their bigotry. It's just a little discrimination, it's just a little violation of people's rights, so we should accept it, right?
I recall you mocking Carly in the past. What does it tell you about yourself, when you vomit out support and agreement with someone like Carly Fiorina, a failed human being and a failed CEO who helped drive her company into the ground, instead of someone like Tim Cook, by all accounts a fantastic human being and a fantastic CEO? What exactly do you mean by Go Carly! Beyond the intellectual bankruptcy of that cheerleading? How does her statement make any sense? When did Cook cease doing business in Indiana? How is her analogy in ANY way valid? Or did you not consider those questions in pursuit of your blind ideology and the sudden adulation of such a failure like Fiorina?
A privately owned store is expecting the secular bank system to process its checks and credit cards, have the secular police come and deal with any thefts or other disturbances, have the secular newpapers run its ads, regardless of what the people in those entities think about the beliefs of the owner of the store. The "able to serve any person, or not, for any reason whatsoever" ship sailed in 1963. And we are a better country because of it.
That's a complete load of crap! If he really had a responsibility to the shareholders, he wouldn't be speaking out about it anywhere. He's the CEO of Apple, Not a Politician. If he doesn't want to sound like a huge Hypocrite, Quite Apple and go out on a Guy Crusade!!! Speaking out around the world!!!! I'd respect he far more for doing that.
I don't give a crap that's GAY and the guy on top of Apple. it has zero bearing on running the Company. The other on the other hand does.
There's hardly a word in your post that's spelled correctly, or a statement that makes any sense. Maybe work on that, instead of spending time composing such nonsensical, hateful rants.
We're talking about the owners of a privately-owned small business. A large corporate entity that is traded on a stock exchange is a different matter altogether.
So you still think that "owners of a privately-owned small business" can put up a sign saying "we do not serve or sell to black people, non-Christians, or non-heterosexuals? Are you serious?
Newsflash, we already knew it wasn't a Christian nation. But it was at one point based on Christian principles because the founding fathers saw merit in them, whether they were Christian or not themselves.
This question can easily be turned towards the lgbt movement as well: what makes you think you deserve special treatment?
How is it special treatment to be treated equally under the law in this country? As you yourself stated this not a theocracy.
You seem to be confused about the usage of the word 'discriminate'...let me help you:
dis·crim·i·nate
1. recognize a distinction; differentiate.
2.
make an unjust or prejudicial distinction in the treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, sex, or age.
You seem to be confused about the usage of the word 'discriminate'...let me help you:
dis·crim·i·nate
1. recognize a distinction; differentiate.
2.
make an unjust or prejudicial distinction in the treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, sex, or age.
Newsflash, we already knew it wasn't a Christian nation. But it was at one point based on Christian principles because the founding fathers saw merit in them, whether they were Christian or not themselves.
This question can easily be turned towards the lgbt movement as well: what makes you think you deserve special treatment?
I respectfully disagree with this statement: "But it was at one point based on Christian principles because the founding fathers saw merit in them, whether they were Christian or not themselves." It is inaccurate.
A more accurate statement would be something along these lines:
"It was based on principles of ethical conduct, some of which coincide with or are similar to practices advocated by various religions and/or other ethical societies of various kinds."
Neither Christianity nor any other religion or other ethical/non-religious society or group of individuals has an exclusive claim on the originality of these principles.
You seem to be confused about the usage of the word 'discriminate'...let me help you:
dis·crim·i·nate
1. recognize a distinction; differentiate.
2.
make an unjust or prejudicial distinction in the treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, sex, or age.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheWhiteFalcon
People discriminate daily. You discriminate when you choose not to associate with someone. You discriminate when you pick Chipotle over Chick-Fil-A. You discriminate in relationships-so what if the person you turned down was ugly, don't they have a RIGHT to have a relationship? How dare you discriminate like that!
But I suspect this will fall on deaf ears.
And the "wrong side of history" argument is just hilarious.
Comments
A privately owned store (versus a Best Buy, for example) can and should be able to serve, or not serve any person for any reason. The bad businesses don't last and the bigots and jerks get noticed pretty fast.
There is no such thing as a 'privately owned store' that is different from a Best Buy. Whether you are a hole-in-the-wall mom and pop operation or a Best Buy, when you open for business in these United States, the law of the land says that you have to serve everyone who steps up to your counter to patronize your business regardless of who they are, what they look like, where they came from an what kind of underwear they put on. That's one of the great things about this country. It ain't perfect but there are enough busybodies who care enough to try to achieve perfection.
- "Ousted" CEO instead of former CEO. Even the original WSJ article characterized Fiorina as the "former CEO of Hewlett-Packard from 1999-2005."
- "So-called "religious freedom" laws". Um..why are they so called? They are literally referred to as Religious Freedom laws.
- And Fiorina "fancies" herself a presidential candidate. So dismissive.
- Fiorina had a "disastrous" run for the California Senate. Fiorina spent $5.5 million. Boxer, the long-time incumbent, spent north of $7 million, and she garnered 52% of the vote to 42% for Fiorina...hardly "disastrous".
Apple Insider is of course welcome to write anything they want, but when your slant is so obviously one-sided it's hard to read any article here hoping for some level of objectivity. If you want to write biased pieces like this, they should be an Op-Ed piece, and be credited to one particular writer; not the faceless 'Apple Insider Staff' credit.
All that having been said, I am not a republican, I am not a democrat. But I can see the is merit to Fiorina's claim that Cook and other CEOs denouncing the new law in Indiana, are acting hypocritically. These CEOs know that if they denounced the atrocities in China, their products would be banned...that's a lot of lost sales. And those CEOs would be out on their butts.
And also, Religious Freedom is just that, freedom of religion. Society as a whole can't dictate what a religion can believe or not believe. The word discriminate is not a bad word. If a business you like doesn't share the views you have, use your capitalist rights and don't shop there. Do you go to a church that doesn't same the same views as yourself and protest they are wrong?
These threads, and the people making some of these comments are simply leading me back to two of my favorite quote by Rust in "True Detective."
I knew that I understood him better than I've understood probably any character in fiction ever. And these threads have just proven to me why.
We're talking about the owners of a privately-owned small business. A large corporate entity that is traded on a stock exchange is a different matter altogether.
Perhaps you should re-read the Constitution.
Perhaps you should re-read the Constitution.
I have. Oddly enough, my opinion is unchanged - while your interpretation is one possible one, it is not the only possible interpretation and frankly your interpretation was shown to be unworkable. Basically, you want us to live under the Articles of Confederation even though the Constition was necessary but the Articles of Confederation proved to be incapable of handling even the small nation we were at the time (and would be disastrous in our current much larger and more populous nation). Furthermore, there is a mechanism involved to alter the constitution for either correction of mistakes in it or to clarify its intent (the Bill of Rights being the most famous clarification, I'd say that granting the vote another clarification). Weirdly, there's no support for an amendment along the lines you want it.
In the legal system of the United States in this early part of the 22nd century, your interpretation is not binding and is not the system we work under. If you wish it to be that system, of course you can work to make it so (and in the process discover how small a minority that view actually is) but without that work, wishing it were not so or saying "but it shouldn't be" is meaningless.
We're talking about the owners of a privately-owned small business. A large corporate entity that is traded on a stock exchange is a different matter altogether.
So only some people get to fulfill their bigotry. It's just a little discrimination, it's just a little violation of people's rights, so we should accept it, right?
Wrong.
I recall you mocking Carly in the past. What does it tell you about yourself, when you vomit out support and agreement with someone like Carly Fiorina, a failed human being and a failed CEO who helped drive her company into the ground, instead of someone like Tim Cook, by all accounts a fantastic human being and a fantastic CEO? What exactly do you mean by Go Carly! Beyond the intellectual bankruptcy of that cheerleading? How does her statement make any sense? When did Cook cease doing business in Indiana? How is her analogy in ANY way valid? Or did you not consider those questions in pursuit of your blind ideology and the sudden adulation of such a failure like Fiorina?
Took 8 pages of comments to get here. Thank you!
There's hardly a word in your post that's spelled correctly, or a statement that makes any sense. Maybe work on that, instead of spending time composing such nonsensical, hateful rants.
We're talking about the owners of a privately-owned small business. A large corporate entity that is traded on a stock exchange is a different matter altogether.
So you still think that "owners of a privately-owned small business" can put up a sign saying "we do not serve or sell to black people, non-Christians, or non-heterosexuals? Are you serious?
Newsflash, we already knew it wasn't a Christian nation. But it was at one point based on Christian principles because the founding fathers saw merit in them, whether they were Christian or not themselves.
This question can easily be turned towards the lgbt movement as well: what makes you think you deserve special treatment?
How is it special treatment to be treated equally under the law in this country? As you yourself stated this not a theocracy.
You seem to be confused about the usage of the word 'discriminate'...let me help you:
You seem to be confused about the usage of the word 'discriminate'...let me help you:
Who are you talking to?
Newsflash, we already knew it wasn't a Christian nation. But it was at one point based on Christian principles because the founding fathers saw merit in them, whether they were Christian or not themselves.
This question can easily be turned towards the lgbt movement as well: what makes you think you deserve special treatment?
I respectfully disagree with this statement: "But it was at one point based on Christian principles because the founding fathers saw merit in them, whether they were Christian or not themselves." It is inaccurate.
A more accurate statement would be something along these lines:
"It was based on principles of ethical conduct, some of which coincide with or are similar to practices advocated by various religions and/or other ethical societies of various kinds."
Neither Christianity nor any other religion or other ethical/non-religious society or group of individuals has an exclusive claim on the originality of these principles.
You seem to be confused about the usage of the word 'discriminate'...let me help you:
Quote:
People discriminate daily. You discriminate when you choose not to associate with someone. You discriminate when you pick Chipotle over Chick-Fil-A. You discriminate in relationships-so what if the person you turned down was ugly, don't they have a RIGHT to have a relationship? How dare you discriminate like that!
But I suspect this will fall on deaf ears.
And the "wrong side of history" argument is just hilarious.
Who are you talking to?
To White Falcon (Blue Falcon may be more apropos...) for some reason the quite didn't make it through the first time. I've requited down the forum.