Fox Business News apologizes after commentator calls Apple CEO Tim Cook a 'bigot'

1679111214

Comments

  • Reply 161 of 276
    polymniapolymnia Posts: 1,077member
    muppetry wrote: »

    So why are religious beliefs accorded more protection than sexual orientation? Religion is definitely a preference, whereas orientation is generally accepted as inherent.

    /begin sarcasm/

    I'll never forget the day I chose to be straight. It was a tough decision, but I did a lot of research and talked to all my closest friends and family before making the call. I'm sure everyone else remembers their choice as distinctly as I do mine.

    /end sarcasm/

    One more disclaimer: SARCASM ABOVE!
  • Reply 162 of 276
    boltsfan17boltsfan17 Posts: 2,294member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by foggyhill View Post

     

     

    Actually, it is only impressive on how they're massively tailored to their audience. This is more representative of how cohesive and easy to coral in one direction the post 1970 right has always been compared to the left, and the power of focus group to exploit this cohesiveness. Ironically, the core of the Reagan right (as I like to call it), are the Dixiecrats that left the party under Johnson and the neo-con. That led the GOP to power for 20 of the next 24 years. The fragmentation of the left, and the fact they vote less (the young and minorities tend to vote a lot less), is what kept it out of power from most of the 1968 to 1992 period.


    The same could be said about liberal media outlets such as MSNBC. I like to watch national/world news without the liberal bias other outlets have such as CNN. Obviously Fox News caters to the right with their talk shows, but I like watching Shepard Smith. Just basic news without the political bias. 

  • Reply 163 of 276
    chasmchasm Posts: 2,605member
    Tim Cook is not a citizen of Iran, Saudi Arabia, China, or anywhere other than the US. As a citizen of the US, he enjoys the freedom to voice his opinion on bad legislation (and it was bad -- if it wasn't, they wouldn't have needed to amend it to bring it more in line with the other RFA act the bigot-targeted Indiana version was very different from.

    Saying Apple shouldn't sell in countries where they don't treat women or minorities well ... um, have you Americans taken a really good look at your own country lately? "Marginally better than Iran, but getting more like the Taliban with each passing day," I think, is a fair assessment ...
  • Reply 164 of 276
    boltsfan17boltsfan17 Posts: 2,294member
    Quote:



    Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

     



    So why are religious beliefs accorded more protection than sexual orientation? Religion is definitely a preference, whereas orientation is generally accepted as inherent.


    Sexual orientation was never an issue before until now. Orientation between a man and a woman is accepted as inherent. In the eyes of many, homosexuality is not inherent. 

  • Reply 165 of 276
    aaronjaaronj Posts: 1,595member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Boltsfan17 View Post

     

    Sexual orientation was never an issue before until now. Orientation between a man and a woman is accepted as inherent. In the eyes of many, homosexuality is not inherent. 




    Who cares about "the eyes of many?"  Something like 25% of Americans believe that aliens have visited Earth.  More than half of Americans believed in a poll taken admittedly many years ago that the US fought AGAINST the Soviet Union in WWII.

     

    What people believe couldn't be less relevant.  The populace, in general, is ignorant and none to bright to begin with.  I forget where I saw it, and I can't find it right now, but a horrifyingly large percentage of Americans believe in ghosts.  I mean, come on!

     

    And homosexuality is as old as sexuality.  It's not "orientation" that's inherent -- whatever that is supposed to mean.  It's simply societal BS, like so many other "beliefs."

  • Reply 166 of 276
    diegogdiegog Posts: 134member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Boltsfan17 View Post

     

    I completely agree. People shouldn't be force to accept gay people, religions, etc. I can't stand people who push their religion upon others. I know many feel the Indiana law is wrong, but I think we are headed in a wrong direction forcing people to accept something their beliefs don't permit. Honestly, I think it would be awful for a gay couple to walk into a store and be denied services based on their sexual preference, but at the same time, I don't agree with forcing someone to go against their beliefs. Now the big question is, where do we draw the line or come to middle ground? 




    Because walking into a store is inherently a transaction.  Nothing more and nothing less.  This same argument has been made against serving blacks in the not so distant pass.  It's a business transaction. If you don't want to serve (insert group you hate here) then honestly, get into another business.  If gay people want to get married and have a cake or have photos of it, who is that hurting? What damages are being incurred? No one.  

     

    The bottom line is that every company has a business license and are required to abide by laws that govern businesses. While I agree with limited exceptions (clergy, church, or the like), random pizza shop #423 in podunk, BFE does not have that option.  It's not the belief anyone is challenging. It's the 'going out of their way to discriminate against (insert current hated group here). Everyone has a right to their beliefs, but a business license requires a certain level of regulation. Conducting a transaction is not going against your belief.

  • Reply 167 of 276
    boltsfan17boltsfan17 Posts: 2,294member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by AaronJ View Post

     



    Who cares about "the eyes of many?"  Something like 25% of Americans believe that aliens have visited Earth.  More than half of Americans believed in a poll taken admittedly many years ago that the US fought AGAINST the Soviet Union in WWII.

     

    What people believe couldn't be less relevant.  The populace, in general, is ignorant and none to bright to begin with.  I forget where I saw it, and I can't find it right now, but a horrifyingly large percentage of Americans believe in ghosts.  I mean, come on!

     

    And homosexuality is as old as sexuality.  It's not "orientation" that's inherent -- whatever that is supposed to mean.  It's simply societal BS, like so many other "beliefs."




    25%? I don't believe that at all. If they polled over 150 million, I could believe that, but no way more than half of Americans believed we fought against the Soviet Union in WWII in some old poll. I can maybe see a small percentage, but more than half the country? Impossible. Now ghosts, I can see maybe 20% of people believing that.

     

    I realize there is history of homosexuality, but why has it become such a heated debate now? Where was gay marriage 15, 20, 50, 100, 1000 years ago? Homosexuality was hardly accepted in history.

  • Reply 168 of 276
    boltsfan17boltsfan17 Posts: 2,294member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by DiegoG View Post

     



    Because walking into a store is inherently a transaction.  Nothing more and nothing less.  This same argument has been made against serving blacks in the not so distant pass.  It's a business transaction. If you don't want to serve (insert group you hate here) then honestly, get into another business.  If gay people want to get married and have a cake or have photos of it, who is that hurting? What damages are being incurred? No one.  

     

    The bottom line is that every company has a business license and are required to abide by laws that govern businesses. While I agree with limited exceptions (clergy, church, or the like), random pizza shop #423 in podunk, BFE does not have that option.  It's not the belief anyone is challenging. It's the 'going out of their way to discriminate against (insert current hated group here). Everyone has a right to their beliefs, but a business license requires a certain level of regulation. Conducting a transaction is not going against your belief.




    Limited exceptions wouldn't be fair. So a church bookstore can refuse to sell books to a gay couple, but a book store owned by a Christian couple can't refuse to sell books? You can't just randomly insert some group. What religion is against a certain race or other religion? Federal law doesn't recognize sexual preference when it comes to businesses and their right to refuse service based on that. I do know that a few states have changed their laws to include sexual preference, but many don't. Even if this law in Indiana was never in existence, it was always legal in Indiana to refuse service to someone based on sexual preference. 

  • Reply 169 of 276
    mytdavemytdave Posts: 447member
    Why apologize for making an accurate statement? It was a bit harsh, yes, and if it were me I would have omitted the "bigot" part of the the statement, but hipocracy is certainly true. If Tim were truly concerned about diversity he would be respectful of others' religious rights as well as all other human rights.

    It is also indisputable that Apple does business in countries that murder anyone in the LGBT camp. Where's the outrage from the left for the actual abuses of human rights in these places? I don't condem Apple for doing business in countries all over the globe, but the hipocracy on display is thick.
  • Reply 170 of 276
    aaronjaaronj Posts: 1,595member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Boltsfan17 View Post

     



    25%? I don't believe that at all. If they polled over 150 million, I could believe that, but no way more than half of Americans believed we fought against the Soviet Union in WWII in some old poll. I can maybe see a small percentage, but more than half the country? Impossible. Now ghosts, I can see maybe 20% of people believing that.

     

    I realize there is history of homosexuality, but why has it become such a heated debate now? Where was gay marriage 15, 20, 50, 100, 1000 years ago? Homosexuality was hardly accepted in history.




    I don't know if you have ever studied mathematics of any kind, let alone statistics, but you don't have to poll 150M people to get an accurate result.  That simply is not how statistics works.  And I can't find the poll concerning the Soviet Union right now, but I can assure you that what I stated is true.  I wrote a paper on it, in fact.

     

    Here's a nice one that is fairly On-Topic:

     

    Quote:


    In the election of 2004, one of the hot issues was gay marriage. But gauging public opinion on the subject was difficult. Asked in one national poll whether they supported a constitutional amendment allowing only marriages between a man and a woman, a majority said yes. But three questions later a majority also agreed that "defining marriage was not an important enough issue to be worth changing the Constitution." The New York Times wryly summed up the results: Americans clearly favor amending the Constitution but not changing it.


     

    You just have to love the public.

  • Reply 171 of 276
    9secondko9secondko Posts: 929member
    elroth wrote: »

    Latest polls: 54% in favor of legalizing gay marriage, 36% against, 10% undecided. I'd say the majority is on Mr. Cook's side, and history is on his side as well (among younger people, support is even higher - around 65%). Ten years from now even you will be saying gay marriage is no big deal - just like the many racists of the 1950s who convieniently "forgot" they were racists twenty years later.

    lol.

    Being born any ethnicity is not the same as choosing a same sex partner.

    And people who actually know why they believe this is wrong will likely not change their minds.

    The "it goes against my grain," "it's gross," etc types will likely alter their beliefs just to get along with the majority.
  • Reply 172 of 276
    aaronjaaronj Posts: 1,595member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by 9secondko View Post





    lol.



    Being born any ethnicity is not the same as choosing a same sex partner.



    And people who actually know why they believe this is wrong will likely not change their minds.



    The "it goes against my grain," "it's gross," etc types will likely alter their beliefs just to get along with the majority.



    So, straight people CHOOSE to be straight?

     

    Because I sure as hell never made that choice.

  • Reply 173 of 276
    boltsfan17boltsfan17 Posts: 2,294member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AaronJ View Post

     



    I don't know if you have ever studied mathematics of any kind, let alone statistics, but you don't have to poll 150M people to get an accurate result.  That simply is not how statistics works.  And I can't find the poll concerning the Soviet Union right now, but I can assure you that what I stated is true.  I wrote a paper on it, in fact.

     

    Here's a nice one that is fairly On-Topic:

     

     

    You just have to love the public.




    I know how statistics work. That's why I believe you can't judge an entire country based on one poll. To say one poll can accurately prove something is ridiculous. There are just too many variables and statistics aren't raw data. Polling 2,000 people for example doesn't reflect an entire nation. Statistics are easily manipulated to come out in favor of the answer you want. So you ask 5,000 people the WWII question about the Soviets. Just say 60% answered we fought the Soviets in WWII. How does that reflect on a population of over 300 million? Statistics are all based on probability and theory. They can't accurately represent an entire population. Here is a quote for you:

     

    Do not put your faith in what statistics say until you have carefully considered what they do not say.  ~William W. Watt

  • Reply 174 of 276
    aaronjaaronj Posts: 1,595member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Boltsfan17 View Post

     



    I know how statistics work. That's why I believe you can't judge an entire country based on one poll. To say one poll can accurately prove something is ridiculous. There are just too many variables and statistics aren't raw data. Polling 2,000 people for example doesn't reflect an entire nation. Statistics are easily manipulated to come out in favor of the answer you want. So you ask 5,000 people the WWII question about the Soviets. Just say 60% answered we fought the Soviets in WWII. How does that reflect on a population of over 300 million? Statistics are all based on probability and theory. They can't accurately represent an entire population. Here is a quote for you:

     

    Do not put your faith in what statistics say until you have carefully considered what they do not say.  ~William W. Watt




    I'm sorry but it's clear that you have absolutely NO idea what you're talking about.  Here, this Kindle e-textbook is totally free:

     

    http://www.amazon.com/CK-12-Probability-Statistics-Advanced-Second-ebook/dp/B007W4K3V8/ref=sr_1_14?ie=UTF8&qid=1428135052&sr=8-14&keywords=statistics

  • Reply 175 of 276
    boltsfan17boltsfan17 Posts: 2,294member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AaronJ View Post

     



    I'm sorry but it's clear that you have absolutely NO idea what you're talking about.  Here, this Kindle e-textbook is totally free:

     

    http://www.amazon.com/CK-12-Probability-Statistics-Advanced-Second-ebook/dp/B007W4K3V8/ref=sr_1_14?ie=UTF8&qid=1428135052&sr=8-14&keywords=statistics


     

    I don't need to read a book to know that a poll can't prove the opinion of an entire nation with 100% accuracy. I have yet to see a poll that says the findings are certain. I know how the math works to get the percentages in polls. Having said that, polls like the history questions and ghosts are never scientific, therefore not accurate. To do a good poll, it costs a ton of money. Most of the polls you see now and from before are done by cheap methods. Those methods are proven inaccurate. Even an expensive poll will never be 100% accurate. 

  • Reply 176 of 276
    jinx59jinx59 Posts: 7member
    As much as I agree with Tim Cook's stance, he needs to be careful about wandering into the political quagmire - even though his outburst seems to have nudged the cursor forward in the right direction, I hope he takes heed of the vitriol and step back from the minefield he is walking on.

    Because his naysayers have a point. Apple is a global player, so his remarks resonate globally.

    He is a business man first and not a politician. His duty is therefore first to his customers, employees and shareholders. If he has deep felt convictions about how minorities get treated in society, and if he has decided to use his influence for political gain, then he needs to be consistent across the globe. He has after all improved worker conditions in China that is having a ripple effect across the region.

    The problem is he is never going to change the lot of the LGBT communities in the Middle East. I suppose this is why his outburst is not directed there - for fear of creating a diplomatic incident.

    The calls to be consistent in my view are fair.

    Better to stick to business. Unless Apple's values are to vanquish injustice in society.

    Politics is an uneven, messy and viscious business far away from the values of Apple.
  • Reply 177 of 276
    wovelwovel Posts: 956member
    hzc wrote: »
    Did Tim Cook state that Apple would no longer do business with the state of Indiana?

    No...
  • Reply 178 of 276
    wovelwovel Posts: 956member
    aaronj wrote: »

    The majority of people in the US live in a tiny minority of states.

    To put it in simple terms, there are 538 electoral votes (435 Reps + 100 Sens + 3 for DC).  CA, NY, FL, PA and TX account for 171 of those 538, or  about 32%.  So, out of 50 states and the District, 5 states account for nearly a third of the Electoral College.  

    CA alone is 55.  The smallest 15 states combined add up to 56 -- and they are each getting 2 for the Senate.  Based solely on population (House), CA has 53 and those smallest 15 states have 26.  So, CA has more than TWICE the population of the smallest 15 states COMBINED.

    What "most" states have done is irrelevant.

    I actually disagreed with his comment because of the 26 states passing bans, 18 have been ruled unconstitutional. However, CA, FL, and TX all passed bans. All three were ruled unconstitutional by either a state or federal court and are currently pending appeal.
  • Reply 179 of 276
    wovelwovel Posts: 956member
    boltsfan17 wrote: »
    I don't need to read a book to know that a poll can't prove the opinion of an entire nation with 100% accuracy. I have yet to see a poll that says the findings are certain. I know how the math works to get the percentages in polls. Having said that, polls like the history questions and ghosts are never scientific, therefore not accurate. To do a good poll, it costs a ton of money. Most of the polls you see now and from before are done by cheap methods. Those methods are proven inaccurate. Even an expensive poll will never be 100% accurate. 

    You are correct. It will only be 94 to 95 percent accurate.....
    mytdave wrote: »
    Why apologize for making an accurate statement? It was a bit harsh, yes, and if it were me I would have omitted the "bigot" part of the the statement, but hipocracy is certainly true. If Tim were truly concerned about diversity he would be respectful of others' religious rights as well as all other human rights.

    It is also indisputable that Apple does business in countries that murder anyone in the LGBT camp. Where's the outrage from the left for the actual abuses of human rights in these places? I don't condem Apple for doing business in countries all over the globe, but the hipocracy on display is thick.

    If you believe that words mean things, you can't say it was accurate. It wasn't accurate. None of the adjectives he used to describe Cook were correct
    boltsfan17 wrote: »

    25%? I don't believe that at all. If they polled over 150 million, I could believe that, but no way more than half of Americans believed we fought against the Soviet Union in WWII in some old poll. I can maybe see a small percentage, but more than half the country? Impossible. Now ghosts, I can see maybe 20% of people believing that.

    I realize there is history of homosexuality, but why has it become such a heated debate now? Where was gay marriage 15, 20, 50, 100, 1000 years ago? Homosexuality was hardly accepted in history.

    You should stop comment on polls and statistics, you look silly. I am not saying his 25% number is in any way accurate. However, believing you need a sample size of 50% before you can reasonably apply a statistic to a population is just silly.
    .
  • Reply 180 of 276
    waltgwaltg Posts: 90member
    Pretty much on par for Foxnet crapola........
Sign In or Register to comment.