My opinion and shared by many, possibly Tim Cook too because he is a professional, we're not interested in a side show or something becoming bigger than it should. Sexual orientation has no place in the pride of being good at what you do. If you make it an issue when it should not be, you are simply inviting hatred. I don't think Tim Cook minds the occasional speculation of his sexual orientation as long as it leans towards the homosexual verdict... It's enough outing that those in the closet can feel more comfortable about themselves. Nobody should pressure someone to explicitly out themselves since it is most often counter-productive to the task at hand.
How is Cook's sexual orientation relevant to anything other than his personal life which none of anyone's business unless Cook chooses to discuss it in public? What a waste.
Cook is neither in nor out of the closet. It's been generally known that he's gay for some time, but like most people he sees no need to discuss his private life. Good for him — it's none of anyone else's business.
I'm confused. We all knew that. It's not an outing then and not only there is nothing wrong with this, there is also nothing wrong with talking about it.
Agreed. IMO the only ones finding it to be a big deal are those that think it should be a big deal. We have a Gay Pride weekend going on in St Pete (FL) this weekend with a big over-the-top (and sometimes suggestive) parade, accompanied by all the trimmings like specialty vendor booths, official presentations and parties. They've made it a big deal.
I suppose I don't really understand why your sexual-orientation should be cause for either celebration or ridicule. It is what it is. Then again the Irish do parade in Boston.
Tim Cook is a badass. Nothing else matters. He can bang goats and sheep for all I care as long as he continues to kick ass.
And if he continues to kick ass, and wants to bang goats and sheep, then the board better perk him a farm.
First you compliment Tim Cook; but then you turnaround and conflate homosexuality with banging animals. Even if it was unintentional or an attempt at clever humor, using a bestiality reference is what many bigots like to do. I can give you many examples; a recent prominent one being Dr. Ben Carson, a so called presidential contender. I'm not suggesting you are a bigot at all, just sayin it is bad form to combine the two even tho I think you meant well. (And I agree Tim is badass)
I believe the reason for Tim Cook's reticence has little to do with the cultural climate within corporations. Certainly, his sexual preference makes no difference to the thousands of employees at Apple. Rather, he keeps himself in the closet out of fear that disclosure of his being gay would unfavorably affect the Company's image with that portion of the buying public that holds bigoted views. I suspect that this is the primary reason most CEOs who are gay remain in the closet.
I disagree. Straight or gay, I think for Tim Cook it simply comes down to his personal life having no barring on his ability to run Apple so it's not worth discussing as well being, well, personal.
Also, if one is gay, you can be open (as in not "closeted") and still not discuss your love life. In fact I find it so odd that it would ever come up. I guess it's considered obvious if you have a wife and kids, but history has shown us that means nothing.
It seems that not being married mean you must be gay as even on this thread plenty of people are saying they don't care that he's gay while saying that they know he's gay without any evidence to support this position.
WTF??? Tim Cook was known as the first openly gay CxO of a Fortune 500 company BEFORE he joined Apple in 1998. (So I think it's great that people look past that to such a degree that they actually forget!)
I agree with most of the posts in this thread, and who gives a crap if a CEO is gay?
I also think that CNBC is a crappy channel.
However, I don't agree with a few posts in this thread, like a couple that seem to accept bestiality. No, that's not cool at all, and you belong behind bars if you are a sick and perverted, mentally ill, sadistic, animal abuser. Those kind of people can F.ck off.
You realize that America is still vastly more progressive than the majority of the world- right? How about being murdered for being gay. There's your serious problems...
As far a Tim Cook is concerned, who cares? Even if you HATE gays, which is a problem in itself, that's like not watching a movie with an actor, director, or producer that supports homosexuality. Good luck!
Now if Cook decided he wants to be a woman and starts wearing female clothes and schedules a gender change, then I'll worry. Until then, he should continue to be one of the Top CEOs of the best company in the world. I hear Ballmer is straight, maybe we should get him! /s
I think you missed ksec's point completely. 1) he doesn't care if cook's gay. Good that. 2) The US might be tolerant or understanding of homosexuality but many countries are horrifically ignorant in that regard. The consequences to a multinational corporation would be considerable.
You realize that America is still vastly more progressive than the majority of the world- right? How about being murdered for being gay. There's your serious problems...
Yep, that is true, just read the news. There are a ton of primitive countries and certain barbaric religious countries in the world that will cause big problems for a person if they're gay, or accused of being gay, even if they're not.
Discussion of Tim Cook's personal life is warranted if it is impacting his performance as CEO. That's not the case -- CNBC needs to apologize for broadcasting speculation.
I don't understand what this obsession is with whether someone famous is gay or not. And why is it only a question when it pertains to potentially gay people and not to potentially heterosexual people?
Although people I work with know that I was once married and have a child, they don't really know much of what goes on in my private life and the question is never really raised other than "what'd you do this weekend?" It shouldn't be raised with Cook either. Raising the issue of whether he's gay makes about as much sense as guessing whether he cleans between his toes when he bathes.
Any exec's private life (and even a politician's private life) should be just that - their private life. Unless they're doing something illegal in that private life, it's really none of our business. I think one of the reasons why we're stuck with such lousy politicians in both parties is because no one in their right mind wants to be bothered with that kind of scrutiny, especially for the relatively lousy pay (as compared with a senior executive).
As soon as a reporter or commentator raises the question of whether someone is gay, there's an implication that there's something wrong with being gay. It's almost like asking, "have you stopped beating your wife lately?
Comments
I'm so not interesseted if some has sex with a man, a woman, a dog, or all three of them!
Can we now go back to whether there will be a 4" iPhone 6 too, when the 5.5" model will arive and what Apple did to make the A8 faster than the A7?
Cook is neither in nor out of the closet. It's been generally known that he's gay for some time, but like most people he sees no need to discuss his private life. Good for him — it's none of anyone else's business.
Agreed. IMO the only ones finding it to be a big deal are those that think it should be a big deal. We have a Gay Pride weekend going on in St Pete (FL) this weekend with a big over-the-top (and sometimes suggestive) parade, accompanied by all the trimmings like specialty vendor booths, official presentations and parties. They've made it a big deal.
I suppose I don't really understand why your sexual-orientation should be cause for either celebration or ridicule. It is what it is. Then again the Irish do parade in Boston.
First you compliment Tim Cook; but then you turnaround and conflate homosexuality with banging animals. Even if it was unintentional or an attempt at clever humor, using a bestiality reference is what many bigots like to do. I can give you many examples; a recent prominent one being Dr. Ben Carson, a so called presidential contender. I'm not suggesting you are a bigot at all, just sayin it is bad form to combine the two even tho I think you meant well. (And I agree Tim is badass)
I disagree. Straight or gay, I think for Tim Cook it simply comes down to his personal life having no barring on his ability to run Apple so it's not worth discussing as well being, well, personal.
Also, if one is gay, you can be open (as in not "closeted") and still not discuss your love life. In fact I find it so odd that it would ever come up. I guess it's considered obvious if you have a wife and kids, but history has shown us that means nothing.
It seems that not being married mean you must be gay as even on this thread plenty of people are saying they don't care that he's gay while saying that they know he's gay without any evidence to support this position.
Until Tim states it not we don't KNOW it
It certainly should not matter. Although apparently it does to many people otherwise it wouldn't keep coming up.
to paraphrase... Gay GOOD, Outing BAD...
I agree with most of the posts in this thread, and who gives a crap if a CEO is gay?
I also think that CNBC is a crappy channel.
However, I don't agree with a few posts in this thread, like a couple that seem to accept bestiality. No, that's not cool at all, and you belong behind bars if you are a sick and perverted, mentally ill, sadistic, animal abuser. Those kind of people can F.ck off.
I think you missed ksec's point completely. 1) he doesn't care if cook's gay. Good that. 2) The US might be tolerant or understanding of homosexuality but many countries are horrifically ignorant in that regard. The consequences to a multinational corporation would be considerable.
You realize that America is still vastly more progressive than the majority of the world- right? How about being murdered for being gay. There's your serious problems...
Yep, that is true, just read the news. There are a ton of primitive countries and certain barbaric religious countries in the world that will cause big problems for a person if they're gay, or accused of being gay, even if they're not.
The consequences to a multinational corporation would be considerable.
I think that it would be hilarious if a few shitty countries in the world were to ban Apple products, because of a gay CEO.
I think that those kind of knuckledraggers should be provoked. F.ck 'em.
I don't understand what this obsession is with whether someone famous is gay or not. And why is it only a question when it pertains to potentially gay people and not to potentially heterosexual people?
Although people I work with know that I was once married and have a child, they don't really know much of what goes on in my private life and the question is never really raised other than "what'd you do this weekend?" It shouldn't be raised with Cook either. Raising the issue of whether he's gay makes about as much sense as guessing whether he cleans between his toes when he bathes.
Any exec's private life (and even a politician's private life) should be just that - their private life. Unless they're doing something illegal in that private life, it's really none of our business. I think one of the reasons why we're stuck with such lousy politicians in both parties is because no one in their right mind wants to be bothered with that kind of scrutiny, especially for the relatively lousy pay (as compared with a senior executive).
As soon as a reporter or commentator raises the question of whether someone is gay, there's an implication that there's something wrong with being gay. It's almost like asking, "have you stopped beating your wife lately?