How can Apple support a government who murders and tortures people who believe what Tim Cook believes?
Interesting that you consider having a different sexual orientation a "belief".
It is legitimately argued to be a "belief" insofar as "sex ACTS" are concerned because you either "consent" to have those acts or you don't. Attraction is not the same thing as engaging in sex, even though some wish to fold in "attraction" into the "orientation" topic. The reason that's important is because the people most opposed to the "belief" that "SEXUAL orientation" is a "choice" are those who are religious in their "beliefs" and they tend to consider there to be a huge difference from being "attracted to another sexually" versus "acting" (in the form of sex acts) on the said attraction.
For example, in the Christian world, a heterosexual married man may be attracted to a woman who is not his wife, and while Jesus himself condemned people for such attractions that took place only in the secret of their hearts, the fact is that other human beings cannot know about or otherwise act on situations that do not actually occur. The woman Jesus saved from being stoned was about to be stoned because they said she was caught "in the very ACT" (not in "the very THOUGHT). Meaning, if you are married but attracted to another and you do not ACT on those feelings, then in the human world, you are in fact, not committing adultery because it cannot be proven and physically there are no repercussions.
People in the SEXUAL orientation debate "believe" it is okay to ACT on those feelings, in addition to thinking about them. So it is the ACT that people have varying "beliefs" about. And since babies don't ACT on SEXUAL feelings, it is more than a challenge to argue people are "born that way." And without firm evidence to scientifically support that people are born that way, it is in fact a BELIEF that people are born that way.
And there you have it.
Of course, that has nothing whatsoever to do with this article, but I thought it best to set the record straight so there is no more frivolous talk about this matter.
Fact is, the fired employee quite obviously had STRONG BELIEFS which ultimate led to all this trouble because that employee ACTED on those beliefs in a very noticeable outward way. That speaks to all of us, asking what we thing quietly in our hearts versus what we ACT on and do physically with our bodies.
Comments
For example, in the Christian world, a heterosexual married man may be attracted to a woman who is not his wife, and while Jesus himself condemned people for such attractions that took place only in the secret of their hearts, the fact is that other human beings cannot know about or otherwise act on situations that do not actually occur. The woman Jesus saved from being stoned was about to be stoned because they said she was caught "in the very ACT" (not in "the very THOUGHT). Meaning, if you are married but attracted to another and you do not ACT on those feelings, then in the human world, you are in fact, not committing adultery because it cannot be proven and physically there are no repercussions.
People in the SEXUAL orientation debate "believe" it is okay to ACT on those feelings, in addition to thinking about them. So it is the ACT that people have varying "beliefs" about. And since babies don't ACT on SEXUAL feelings, it is more than a challenge to argue people are "born that way." And without firm evidence to scientifically support that people are born that way, it is in fact a BELIEF that people are born that way.
And there you have it.
Of course, that has nothing whatsoever to do with this article, but I thought it best to set the record straight so there is no more frivolous talk about this matter.
Fact is, the fired employee quite obviously had STRONG BELIEFS which ultimate led to all this trouble because that employee ACTED on those beliefs in a very noticeable outward way. That speaks to all of us, asking what we thing quietly in our hearts versus what we ACT on and do physically with our bodies.