Now that we have that cleared up, these bigots have every right to choose not to buy Apple products because of their intolerant beliefs, but they are
So you see no distinction between civil rights, and using your religion as a justification to back up your hate speech? So you support a religions that persecute Jews, refer to "the blacks" as inferior, and think so little of women that female circumcision is an acceptable practice.
And yet you're arguing against Tim Cook's right to freedom of speech.
So it appears that you are intolerant towards those (religious people that exclude) holding different opinions (want to exclude others) than you... does that make you a bigot now? /I'm with you btw
Actually, I support their right to be bigots. Freedom of speech, which I consider the superset of freedom of spiritual belief, means they can have opinions which I think are stupid and harmful to society.
This goes for everyone, including the people that have abandoned a 2yo child whom was decreed a witch. If one thinks homosexuals or this poor 2yo are evil incarnate, then I believe one is an idiot, but I don't deny one that right; nor do I exclude one from joining me on a plane of reason and logic.
This is the problem with Apple being associated with political or religious statements. They design and sell products for everyone and when divisive issues become more important than the products, they need to take a hard look and refocus on what's important to the company. Apple has been culturally and socially impactful because of what they make and sell. Other than the very important issues of security and privacy, Tim needs to stay on target or go into politics...and I'm not agreeing with Sog.
These folks are as bad as patent trolls. They are people who discriminate against others, and then claim their religious freedoms are being trampled upon. Enough to already! It reminds me of a full page advertisement a conservative Jewish group placed in the NY Times several months ago. To paraphrase that advertisement, it said that many middle eastern countries killed gay people, so why is everyone getting so upset if Israel kills a few innocent Palestinians. That was really, really, offensive on many levels. This group seems to be taking the same dishonest approach.
Now that we have that cleared up, these bigots have every right to choose not to buy Apple products because of their intolerant beliefs, but they are
So you see no distinction between civil rights, and using your religion as a justification to back up your hate speech? So you support a religions that persecute Jews, refer to "the blacks" as an inferior sub-species, and think so little of women that female circumcision is an acceptable practice.
And yet you're arguing against Tim Cook's right to freedom of speech.
Don't forget, that goes both ways. Funny how those that espouse "tolerance" of other opinions are so intolerant of those who do not conform to their opinions.
I don't think so. You are conflating the right to hold and express opinions with the right to take actions that negatively affect others. It's fine to disapprove of gays, ethnicities, races, or any other group of people, but it's not fine to discriminate against them by denying them services or rights that are afforded to others of whom you do not disapprove. And suggesting that someone, or some group, religious or otherwise, cease discriminating is not the same as discriminating against them. This argument is so fatuous that it's hard to believe that it keeps being raised.
I'm really tired of the blanket use of the descriptor "conservative".
There are social conservatives and fiscal conservatives, just as there are social liberals and fiscal liberals. Social and fiscal positions are not the same thing, far from it. The overwhelming majority of the US are social liberals AND fiscal conservatives.
A more accurate descriptor of the National Center for Public Policy Research is that of a social conservative. Even that descriptor isn't really accurate as its social agenda bears strong resemblance to the religious mores prevalent in the countries cited. Their big problem with the mores of those countries is that, while agreeing with them, they aren't "Christian" (another descriptor that is over used and used incorrectly).
I'm really tired of the blanket use of the descriptor "conservative".
There are social conservatives and fiscal conservatives, just as there are social liberals and fiscal liberals. Social and fiscal positions are not the same thing, far from it. The overwhelming majority of the US are social liberals AND fiscal conservatives.
A more accurate descriptor of the National Center for Public Policy Research is that of a social conservative. Even that descriptor isn't really accurate as its social agenda bears strong resemblance to the religious mores prevalent in the countries cited. Their big problem with the mores of those countries is that, while agreeing with them, they aren't "Christian" (another descriptor that is over used and used incorrectly).
Good point. The distinction often gets lost since there are not four separate political parties, and since, by and large, social and fiscal views are often reasonably well aligned.
First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; "
Also, Article Six: "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."
It means exactly what it says. No matter what your religious beliefs or practices, you cannot be denied the right to vote, hold office, own property, engage in commerce, hold a job, publish a newspaper, say what you think, meet with others, petition the government, campaign for others who are running for office, etc.
You cannot be forced to pay a tax in order to worship.
You may refuse, as a conscientious objector, to refuse to perform any government service or private employment.
All of these principles have long been upheld by the Supreme Court.
Now, some people seem to think that 'separation of church and state' means that if they don't like your religion (or any religion) then you have no right to participate in affairs of state. This is the opposite of the express wording of the Constitution. The state cannot tell you how to worship. It cannot prevent you from worshipping. And it cannot take away your right to vote or support whatever candidate you wish. To do so would be to curtail your rights to freedom of expression, privacy, and worship.
"For example our CEO bashed state-level religious freedom laws as anti-homosexual bigotry saying, 'Apple is open. Open to everyone, regardless of where they come from, what they look like, how they worship or who they love. Regardless of what the law might allow in Indiana or Arkansas, we will never tolerate discrimination,'" the group says. "Yet, according to the Washington Post, Apple has a presence in 17 countries where homosexual acts are illegal. In four of those nations, homosexual acts are punishable by death. These company operations are inconsistent with Apple's values as extolled by our CEO."
And? Apple is open to everyone in those countries, too. Has Apple stated or made any move to not sell to bigots in US, but will sell to bigots in those other countries? Of course not.
True, but it is hypocrisy to say "we will never tolerate discrimination", and denounce it in the US, but not saying peep about the discrimination that goes on in other countries. In some countries homosexuals are put to death quite horribly. That's a big difference from not being able to buy a wedding cake.
And? Apple is open to everyone in those countries, too. Has Apple stated or made any move to not sell to bigots in US, but will sell to bigots in those other countries? Of course not.
True, but it is hypocrisy to say "we will never tolerate discrimination", and denounce it in the US, but not saying peep about the discrimination that goes on in other countries. In some countries homosexuals are put to death quite horribly. That's a big difference from not being able to buy a wedding cake.
It's still intolerance, either way, and it's not hypocritical to follow a nation's laws. I'm pretty sure there is more than one passage about that in the Abrahamic religions. You can hate gays in the any country and Apple will still sell you an iPhone. That is the opposite of hypocrisy.
True, but it is hypocrisy to say "we will never tolerate discrimination", and denounce it in the US, but not saying peep about the discrimination that goes on in other countries. In some countries homosexuals are put to death quite horribly. That's a big difference from not being able to buy a wedding cake.
It's still intolerance, either way, and it's not hypocritical to follow a nation's laws. I'm pretty sure there is more than one passage about that in the Abrahamic religions. You can hate gays in the any country and Apple will still sell you an iPhone. That is the opposite of hypocrisy.
You know better than just because something is the law it doesn't make it just. I also don't know why you're so focused on sales being the defining point. If laws against homosexuality is wrong in one place it should be wrong in all places.
It's still intolerance, either way, and it's not hypocritical to follow a nation's laws. I'm pretty sure there is more than one passage about that in the Abrahamic religions. You can hate gays in the any country and Apple will still sell you an iPhone. That is the opposite of hypocrisy.
You know better than just because something is the law it doesn't make it just. I also don't know why you're so focused on sales being the defining point. If laws against homosexuality is wrong in one place it should be wrong in all places.
I'm not sure what your point is. Are you saying that if Michigan passes a law that says, let's say not sodomy, that Apple would stop selling their products in Michigan, even though they still sell them in countries with anti-sodomy laws? Well guess what, Michigan did just that, and Apple is still selling products there. Don't conflate business with a a desire of enlightened men wanting the world be less frightened of shadows on a cave wall. You can hate homosexuals and still buy a Mac… because Apple is tolerance of those people's rights to rally against the gays, who then go home to angrily beat off to gay porn.
You know better than just because something is the law it doesn't make it just. I also don't know why you're so focused on sales being the defining point. If laws against homosexuality is wrong in one place it should be wrong in all places.
I'm not sure what your point is. Are you saying that if Michigan passes a law that says, let's say not sodomy, that Apple would stop selling their products in Michigan, even though they still sell them in countries with anti-sodomy laws? Well guess what, Michigan did just that, and Apple is still selling products there. Don't conflate business with a a desire of enlightened men wanting the world be less frightened of shadows on a cave wall. You can hate homosexuals and still buy a Mac… because Apple is tolerance of those people's rights to rally against the gays, who then go home to angrily beat off to gay porn.
All I'm saying is that if you're going to be politically vocal against anti-gay law/legislation you shouldn't do it only when it's convenient, and safe to do so.
I'm no one that can suggest where can, and cannot/should not do business. I personally would not do business in a country in which homosexuality is illegal, and mobs brutally, and horrifically murder/maim gays in the street whilst the government does nothing. Those people can keep their money.
Here in America if you're in the business to serve the public you SERVE THE PUBLIC, that Indiana law was a free pass to bigots to target people they were told were "deviates". And it was wrong. Don't want to serve Americans? Move out of the country.
I seem to recall from a couple of years ago that Tim Cook already noted that other countries' laws are not Apple's business, but those of the US very much are.
Imagine if Xiaomi began publicly questioning US directions with democracy! Ahahahahahaaa!!
So many stupid people pushing Apple to alter fundamental values of other cultures and religions. I am flabbergasted!
Comments
This goes for everyone, including the people that have abandoned a 2yo child whom was decreed a witch. If one thinks homosexuals or this poor 2yo are evil incarnate, then I believe one is an idiot, but I don't deny one that right; nor do I exclude one from joining me on a plane of reason and logic.
Being born into a religion should stop being a factor once a person reaches adulthood, at least it was in my experience.
There are social conservatives and fiscal conservatives, just as there are social liberals and fiscal liberals. Social and fiscal positions are not the same thing, far from it. The overwhelming majority of the US are social liberals AND fiscal conservatives.
A more accurate descriptor of the National Center for Public Policy Research is that of a social conservative. Even that descriptor isn't really accurate as its social agenda bears strong resemblance to the religious mores prevalent in the countries cited. Their big problem with the mores of those countries is that, while agreeing with them, they aren't "Christian" (another descriptor that is over used and used incorrectly).
Also, Article Six: "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."
It means exactly what it says. No matter what your religious beliefs or practices, you cannot be denied the right to vote, hold office, own property, engage in commerce, hold a job, publish a newspaper, say what you think, meet with others, petition the government, campaign for others who are running for office, etc.
You cannot be forced to pay a tax in order to worship.
You may refuse, as a conscientious objector, to refuse to perform any government service or private employment.
All of these principles have long been upheld by the Supreme Court.
Now, some people seem to think that 'separation of church and state' means that if they don't like your religion (or any religion) then you have no right to participate in affairs of state. This is the opposite of the express wording of the Constitution. The state cannot tell you how to worship. It cannot prevent you from worshipping. And it cannot take away your right to vote or support whatever candidate you wish. To do so would be to curtail your rights to freedom of expression, privacy, and worship.
I'm no one that can suggest where can, and cannot/should not do business. I personally would not do business in a country in which homosexuality is illegal, and mobs brutally, and horrifically murder/maim gays in the street whilst the government does nothing. Those people can keep their money.
Imagine if Xiaomi began publicly questioning US directions with democracy! Ahahahahahaaa!!
So many stupid people pushing Apple to alter fundamental values of other cultures and religions.
I am flabbergasted!