Tim Cook 'deeply disappointed' by new Indiana anti-gay law
Apple CEO Tim Cook on Friday stood in opposition to a new Indiana law that allows businesses in the state to legally discriminate against gays and lesbians, while calling on Arkansas governor Asa Hutchinson to veto a similar measure that is set to hit his desk.
"Apple is open for everyone," Cook wrote on Twitter. "We are deeply disappointed in Indiana's new law and calling on Arkansas Gov. to veto the similar #HB1228."
"Around the world, we strive to treat every customer the same -- regardless of where they come from, how they worship or who they love," he added in a subsequent tweet. Cook revealed that he was gay late last year.
Indiana's law, marketed as the "Religious Freedom Restoration Act," lets businesses use "religious beliefs" as a defense in discrimination suits. It was signed into law by Gov. Mike Pence earlier this week, sparking a flood of condemnation.
Cook is not the only Silicon Valley heavyweight to weigh in. Salesforce CEO Mark Benioff said on Thursday that his company would immediately cancel "all programs that require our customers/employees to travel to Indiana to face discrimination."
A similar measure has passed the Arkansas State Senate, and will be presented to Gov. Hutchinson for his signature or veto within the next few days. Hutchinson has previously indicated that he would sign it into law, saying that he believes " it's a bill that puts a high priority on religious freedom and recognizes that as a part of the balance."
"Apple is open for everyone," Cook wrote on Twitter. "We are deeply disappointed in Indiana's new law and calling on Arkansas Gov. to veto the similar #HB1228."
"Around the world, we strive to treat every customer the same -- regardless of where they come from, how they worship or who they love," he added in a subsequent tweet. Cook revealed that he was gay late last year.
Indiana's law, marketed as the "Religious Freedom Restoration Act," lets businesses use "religious beliefs" as a defense in discrimination suits. It was signed into law by Gov. Mike Pence earlier this week, sparking a flood of condemnation.
Cook is not the only Silicon Valley heavyweight to weigh in. Salesforce CEO Mark Benioff said on Thursday that his company would immediately cancel "all programs that require our customers/employees to travel to Indiana to face discrimination."
A similar measure has passed the Arkansas State Senate, and will be presented to Gov. Hutchinson for his signature or veto within the next few days. Hutchinson has previously indicated that he would sign it into law, saying that he believes " it's a bill that puts a high priority on religious freedom and recognizes that as a part of the balance."
Comments
It is a law for freedom of association. You cannot force people to associate with people they don't want to associate with.
It is not an anti-gay law. That is misinformation.
It is a law for freedom of association. You cannot force people to associate with people they don't want to associate with.
Are you from the US? Because if so, then your understanding of the constitutional reality of this country is seriously messed up. Let's say you own a restaurant. You don't want to "associate" with black people. Do you really think that you can ban black people from your restaurant?
The fact is, the 800 lb. elephant in the room is this: These proposals (and now laws, like in Indiana) talk about "religious" people not wanting to serve "sinners." Well, guess what? A basic tenet of Christianity is that EVERYONE is a sinner. So, in other words, if these merchants really lived up to their "beliefs" then they would serve NO ONE. Adulterer? No way. Alcoholic? Nope. Someone who says, "God damn!" Uh-uh. Anyone who has a tattoo? That's not going to happen.
Go read Leviticus some day.
Tim Cook is not only a good leader of Apple, he's a good man who believes in equality and, more importantly, people being decent to one and other. It's sad that you can't understand that.
He should read Indiana's state constitution, if he has a problem with it. I'm glad Indiana stood up for the rights of conscience, and is protecting business owner's rights.
your comment makes zero sense. If your business can refuse gay customers, that is discrimination. This law allows that.
Business owners rights? Like a white and black person water fountain in the store? Or no Black people allowed in the store? Some of you Americans have not evolved in the slightest.
This law empowers businesses to discriminate against others, pure and simple. Get a clue before you open your mouth next time. I'm not even a US citizen and I understand this better than you!
David Bowie "I'm afraid of Americans"
If they don't like it, they can go somewhere else. Businesses retain the right to refuse service to anyone. They don't have to sell anything to people they don't like.
If someone doesn't like that, they are more then welcome to create their own business or buy from another merchant.
Feel free to come to America and force a business owner to serve you.
We have the 2nd Amendment for a reason.
Anybody that believes that the Indiana law is good for this country is a fool, and deserves to be treated as such.
It really doesn't matter if it's signed or not. It will be challenged in court and will be deemed unconstitutional. This has been a fairly clear trend and I'm not even sure why state legislatures even waste their time attempting to pass laws like this one.
Also Tim Cook is right Apple treats everyone the same, they will take your 17,000 for an Apple Watch no matter who you are.
If they don't like it, they can go somewhere else. Businesses retain the right to refuse service to anyone. They don't have to sell anything to people they don't like.
If someone doesn't like that, they are more then welcome to create their own business or buy from another merchant.
Again, I have to ask if you are an American.
The law doesn't -- in ANY way -- allow business to refuse service to anyone, if "anyone" is always women, or blacks, or Jews, or gays, or any other group. This was SETTLED DECADES AGO! It's not even close to being something to discuss as if it is up for debate.
I was watching something last night about legendary North Carolina basketball coach Dean Smith. He worked to undo segregation in NC restaurants in the late 50's. When Feinstein asked him about it, Smith said, "You should never be proud of doing the right thing. You should just do the right thing."
That was HOW MANY FUCKING YEARS AGO?! And idiots on the InterWebs are still spouting this shit?
WTF is wrong with you?
Are you from the US? Because if so, then your understanding of the constitutional reality of this country is seriously messed up. Let's say you own a restaurant. You don't want to "associate" with black people. Do you really think that you can ban black people from your restaurant? Honestly, how old are you?
The fact is, the 800 lb. elephant in the room is this: These proposals (and now laws, like in Indiana) talk about "religious" people not wanting to serve "sinners." Well, guess what? A basic tenet of Christianity is that EVERYONE is a sinner. So, in other words, if these merchants really lived up to their "beliefs" then they would serve NO ONE. Adulterer? No way. Alcoholic? Nope. Someone who says, "God damn!" Uh-uh. Anyone who has a tattoo? That's not going to happen.
Go read Leviticus some day.
Tim Cook is not only a good leader of Apple, he's a good man who believes in equality and, more importantly, people being decent to one and other. It's sad that you can't understand that.
Yes, I am from the US, and I am close to 50, and have a very good idea of what the US constitution says.
You cannot go to people and force them to associate with people they don't want to associate with. It works both ways. Religious people cannot go to the gay baker and force him to make a cake celebrating "traditional marriage." And a baker has the right to deny a request to make a Nazi-themed cake for a party of skinheads.
Businesses have the right to refuse business for any reason. The courts have limited this to a small extent (such as race) but in general true freedom means we have to allow people to discriminate when they are asked to perform services.
Legally it can't but it should be for any reason including race, orientation, or anything. It is wrong to discriminate for those reasons, but a business should be able to refuse to do business with anyone they want.
I certainly would not refuse to do business with black people, brown people, white people, purple people, gay people, straight people, etc. myself. I look at the person and if they are a trustworthy business partner I do business. When I was in business for myself, I dealt with everybody who could legally enter into business relationships. But we cannot discriminate against people's belief system by forcing them to do business with people they would rather not associate with. 2 wrongs don't make a right.
There is no comparison between Homosexuals and Black people. This is a popular misapplication. One is a behavior the other is a racial group. I know folks who are no longer gay and those who have chosen to be so later in life. I know of no one that is no longer Black.
Dr Mel
Anyone who believes the Indiana law is wrong for the country does not understand freedom or the Constitution and why this country came to be. I am not advocating discrimination in either case, but those who oppose the Indiana law are discriminating just as much as those who want to refuse to do business under the Indiana law.
You have to err on the side of those who are approached about doing the business, i.e., the business owner. They are not going out and forcing people they disagree with to change. They are being approached and being asked to perform a service. They have the right to say no.
As a fellow mid-westerner (Ohio originally) but living in Portland OR. now, this sickens me. Blatant discrimination. Who the f*&% in their right mind could not see this for what it is? Indy's governor should be asked to resign. What a jackass. All anybody has to do is replace 'gay' with 'black' to get the point.
Yes, I am from the US, and I am close to 50, and have a very good idea of what the US constitution says.
You cannot go to people and force them to associate with people they don't want to associate with. It works both ways. Religious people cannot go to the gay baker and force him to make a cake celebrating "traditional marriage." And a baker has the right to deny a request to make a Nazi-themed cake for a party of skinheads.
Businesses have the right to refuse business for any reason. The courts have limited this to a small extent (such as race) but in general true freedom means we have to allow people to discriminate when they are asked to perform services.
Legally it can't but it should be for any reason including race, orientation, or anything. It is wrong to discriminate for those reasons, but a business should be able to refuse to do business with anyone they want.
I certainly would not refuse to do business with black people, brown people, white people, purple people, gay people, straight people, etc. myself. I look at the person and if they are a trustworthy business partner I do business. When I was in business for myself, I dealt with everybody who could legally enter into business relationships. But we cannot discriminate against people's belief system by forcing them to do business with people they would rather not associate with. 2 wrongs don't make a right.
You don't have the slightest understanding of how the Constitution works in this country.
Just because you don't like, for example Jews, doesn't mean that you can say to some guy who walks in with a yamulke, "No I won't serve you."
True freedom is recognizing and allow those with whom you disagree to live by their belief system, even if you disagree with it, as long as their system does not infringe on your rights.
A gay person asking a religious person to photograph their wedding and the religious person refusing does not infringe on the rights of the gay person, because the gay person can go to another photographer for the service. The refusal does not limit or restrict the gay person's ability to have the wedding or have it photographed. It only means they have to use someone else for business.