Tim Cook 'deeply disappointed' by new Indiana anti-gay law

1235728

Comments

  • Reply 81 of 551

    I am so glad I live in Canada and not subject to the religious wackos in the southern states. We have a charter of right and freedoms that protects our citizens from discrimination oh yeah and did I mentioned we have free health care becaure we did allow the insurance industry to corrupt our political system. 

  • Reply 82 of 551
    aaronjaaronj Posts: 1,595member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by sog35 View Post

     

     

    Yup. Chadbag has been exposed.  He is trying to hide his disgusting belief system behind the wall of Freedom




    What I find (almost) funny about this whole thing is that I'm about the straightest white guy -- who also isn't poor -- you could ever run into to.  And I'm stuck here defending the rights of everyone who ISN'T LIKE ME IN THE SLISGHTEST -- it's just ... bizarre.

  • Reply 83 of 551
    nolamacguynolamacguy Posts: 4,758member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by chadbag View Post

     



    Sorry, but I have a much better understanding of Freedom, the Constitution, and the situation than you do.

     

    A business person SHOULD be able to say to the Jew, no, I won't serve you.  He shouldn't, and we would all have the right to protest on public property outside his store or establishment (and I would be there too because I don't believe in that sort of behavior of refusing the service myself), but that business person should have the right.   That is true freedom.  To recognize people we disagree with and their rights.


     

    wrong. that isnt how our rights work in the US. in the US, our rights arent granted by governments or businesses -- they are inalienable, "god-given" rights (if you will), and we merely recognize them as such. we dont get to have an opinion on them as rights. businesses dont get to choose which rights they honor, because hey the free market will correct it. nope. the rights are guaranteed to us, and the businesses must recognize them.

     

    your idea of how it works is ignorant of this. thats how it works.

     

    if your factually incorrect world view were reality, then hospitals and doctors could refuse to treat a dying female, Jew, black, or homosexual for no other reason than that. this would violate our right to equal treatment.

  • Reply 84 of 551
    singularitysingularity Posts: 1,328member
    aaronj wrote: »
    <div class="quote-container" data-huddler-embed="/t/185449/tim-cook-deeply-disappointed-by-new-indiana-anti-gay-law/80#post_2699258" data-huddler-embed-placeholder="false">Quote:<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>sog35</strong> <a href="/t/185449/tim-cook-deeply-disappointed-by-new-indiana-anti-gay-law/80#post_2699258"><img alt="View Post" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" /></a><br /> <p> </p><p>Yup. Chadbag has been exposed.  He is trying to hide his disgusting belief system behind the wall of Freedom</p></div></div><p><br />What I find (almost) funny about this whole thing is that I'm about the straightest white guy -- who also isn't poor -- you could ever run into to.  And I'm stuck here defending the rights of everyone who ISN'T LIKE ME IN THE SLISGHTEST -- it's just ... bizarre.</p>
    Your sticking up for being a human being and having decency.
  • Reply 85 of 551

    Your point make no sense. If business have the right to refuse to serve anyone, why bother passing this disgusting law? They just want to advertise their bigotry. 

  • Reply 86 of 551
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by chadbag View Post

     

     

    Only proves I am a thinking man, and believe in true Freedom.  Not some slave to political correctness.

     

    I think it should be legal for a business owner to disallow anyone for any reason in his store.  I do not think it is "ok" or "right" to do so.  There is a big difference.




    I think you want to go back to the days of of Jim Crow Laws, with the ideal that discriminating others in a public business is really OK, and represents true Freedom for all; it is Freedom, but just for you.

  • Reply 87 of 551
    magic_almagic_al Posts: 325member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by AtlApple View Post

     

    It really doesn't matter if it's signed or not. It will be challenged in court and will be deemed unconstitutional.


    Unfortunately this is not a sure thing because LGBT persons are not among the "protected classes" listed in federal anti-discrimination law.

     

    The most obvious hypocrisy in these state "religious freedom" laws is that under federal law, businesses open to the public may not discriminate against employees or customers of different religions. The idea that people's "religious freedom" is violated by being forced to deal with gays is ludicrous when, for example, a business owner is already prohibited under federal law from discriminating against people who reject any or all of the business owner's religious beliefs.

  • Reply 88 of 551
    aaronjaaronj Posts: 1,595member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by singularity View Post





    Your sticking up for being a human being and having decency.



    Thank you.

     

    Ironically, earlier today, before this story was even posted and this whole "argument" even began, I wrote Tim Cook an email about how much I respected him.  And now, on AppleInsider sadly, THIS is taking place.  *sigh*

  • Reply 89 of 551
    paxmanpaxman Posts: 4,729member
    chadbag wrote: »
    Only proves I am a thinking man, and believe in true Freedom.  Not some slave to political correctness.

    I think it should be legal for a business owner to disallow anyone for any reason in his store.  I do not think it is "ok" or "right" to do so.  There is a big difference.
    I think you like the idea of such freedom but you are opening up a can of worms which you cannot control. Because it is hard for millions of people to live together we have guidelines and rules. I am very liberal and believe in freedom as long as it does not infringe on other people's rights but you stand a far better chance of infringing on fewer people's rights if you legislate properly. Not always easy but in this case its clear. If I am a dentist, that is my choice but I should not be allowed to refuse my services. That goes with the territory of being a dentist. I may infringe many people's rights to a fair and equal treatment if I am allowed to discriminate. I may cry foul and say my rights to be dentist have been discriminated against if I have to treat people I disapprove of, but on balance I am only one and my clients may be many.
  • Reply 90 of 551
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by chadbag View Post

     

    The fundamental piece here is that these people are being approached as potential business partners.  They are NOT going out and approaching the gays and trying to infringe on their rights.  They are not trying to stop the wedding.  They are just saying they do not want to be part of it.


     

    I've seen you invoke the Constitution in earlier posts, but it's really the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that settled this stupidity once and for all.  Any business engaged in interstate commerce - which is a SHITLOAD of businesses - cannot discriminate.  So this bumpkin argument about 'to each his own' was exposed as a mask for institutionalized bigotry and nullified many years ago.

     

    I don't enjoy seeing the same worn-out 'individual rights' arguments being rolled back out by the new generation of bigots, but since you don't grasp the implications of the Civil Rights Act, evidently we need to clarify the intention of that law by adding 'sexual orientation' to the language.

  • Reply 91 of 551
    chadbagchadbag Posts: 1,999member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by NolaMacGuy View Post

     

     

    wrong. that isnt how our rights work in the US. in the US, our rights arent granted by governments or businesses -- they are inalienable, "god-given" rights (if you will), and we merely recognize them as such. we dont get to have an opinion on them as rights. businesses dont get to choose which rights they honor, because hey the free market will correct it. nope. the rights are guaranteed to us, and the businesses must recognize them.

     

    your idea of how it works is ignorant of this. thats how it works.

     


     

     

    I agree that rights are inalienable that are not granted by government or business.  So, how is a business refusing to do business with someone (for whatever reason, being a Jew, black, Mormon, gay, straight (yes there are cases of gay owned business refusing to make cakes celebrating "traditional marriage", etc) infringing on these rights?  Just what right is being infringed, please?  (not which law, but which inalienable "God given" right)?

  • Reply 92 of 551
    paxmanpaxman Posts: 4,729member
    sog35 wrote: »
    As a Mormon you should know better.

    No one has true freedom.  Except The ONE.

    Keanu Reeves is the only one with true Freedom? Sonnuvabitch!
  • Reply 93 of 551
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by AaronJ View Post

     

    To him?  Absolutely.




    Yes! To us its all quite obvious, but to him, I am not so sure.

  • Reply 94 of 551
    masnickmasnick Posts: 22member

    Your religious belief has nothing whatsoever to do with this situation; religion is merely the shell wrapped around the principle.

     

    As a private citizen, who owns a private business (i.e., not publicly-funded), residing on private property, you have the right to limit your interactions with others, or not. Discrimination is legal. Bigotry is legal. It might not be widely accepted, but it's legal. If you don't want me to come into your local area and require you to converse with me, that's your right. I have no right to inflict myself upon you.

     

    Nor do you have a right to force my interaction with you. If I wish to keep you out of my business for any reason, or for no reason, that is my right. Because it's my business, not yours, and I can engage in commerce with anyone I wish.

     

    That is why I cannot force an employer to hire me -- they have a right to refuse employment to me. Not because I'm white, or male, or straight, or old, but because they don't like they way I fit into their culture. And if they extend an offer of employment to me (despite my race, gender, sexual disposition or age), I have a right to refuse that offer and seek employment elsewhere. It is why I cannot force a customer to buy from me, and I can't force a business to sell to me.

     

    That is the freedom we enjoy as U.S. citizens. 

  • Reply 95 of 551
    nolamacguynolamacguy Posts: 4,758member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by chadbag View Post

     

    Yes, someone should be able to refuse to do business with someone if they are black (legally speaking).   


     

    no, legally speaking. your race is a protected class, and you have the right to equality of treatment based on race as a protected class. it is an inalienable right, which simply & must exist -- it is not open for consideration, it is a human right that is simply *recognized* by our government. thus a business cannot refuse equal treatment based on race because that right isnt open for debate -- it is inalienable. that means it's a "natural law" and cannot be taken away, as you propose, by the shop keeper.

     

    if you dont understand, like, or promote this idea, you are the one at odds w/ our nation. you need to live in another nation, one where rights are granted to you and honored at will. 

  • Reply 96 of 551
    foggyhillfoggyhill Posts: 4,767member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by hypoluxa View Post

     

    The only scenario that would imply refusing to serve someone that is legal I can think of, is at a bar where the bartender refused to serve someone if they are visibly drunk.


     

    I think can refuse selling something even if its a product you sell, if :

    - That makes you liable for their actions. Like serving them drinks if you know they'll drive, selling them a gun, poison or a pick axe if they told you (or have a good suspicion) that they want to murder people with them....

    - Something that applies to everyone (no shirt, no shoes, no service)

  • Reply 97 of 551
    chadbagchadbag Posts: 1,999member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by manfrommars View Post

     

     

    I've seen you invoke the Constitution in earlier posts, but it's really the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that settled this stupidity once and for all.  Any business engaged in interstate commerce - which is a SHITLOAD of businesses - cannot discriminate.  So this bumpkin argument about 'to each his own' was exposed as a mask for institutionalized bigotry and nullified many years ago.

     

    I don't enjoy seeing the same worn-out 'individual rights' arguments being rolled back out by the new generation of bigots, but since you don't grasp the implications of the Civil Rights Act, evidently we need to clarify the intention of that law by adding 'sexual orientation' to the language.


     

    Well, a local photographer is NOT in interstate commerce, and the civil rights act I believe disallows discrimination against "protected" classes.   I don't see how it is relevant in this discussion.  The Constitution, which is older and of higher precedence, than the civil rights act of 1964, disallows discrimination due to religious beliefs.

  • Reply 98 of 551
    chadbagchadbag Posts: 1,999member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by NolaMacGuy View Post

     

     

    no, legally speaking. your race is a protected class, and you have the right to equality of treatment based on race as a protected class. it is an inalienable right, which simply & must exist -- it is not open for consideration, it is a human right that is simply *recognized* by our government. thus a business cannot refuse equal treatment based on race because that right isnt open for debate -- it is inalienable. that means it's a "natural law" and cannot be taken away, as you propose, by the shop keeper.

     

    if you dont understand, like, or promote this idea, you are the one at odds w/ our nation. you need to live in another nation, one where rights are granted to you and honored at will. 




    You creatively snipped my post.

     

    I gave the philosophical answer, I then have my personal belief in the matter of how people should actually behave, and then I gave the current legal answer.   You only quoted the philosophical answer.

  • Reply 98 of 551
    aaronjaaronj Posts: 1,595member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by PBRSTREETG View Post

     



    Yes! To us its all quite obvious, but to him, I am not so sure.


     

     

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by sog35 View Post

     



    Correct.

     

    This is why I don't mind the guys on StormFront so much.  They absolutely admit what the $^#% they are.  I mean, at least stand up for what you think, and don't shrink away from it.  Those guys are scum, sure.  And most of them are idiots.  But at least they admit to what they are.  

     

    Here, you see way too many people who pretend they are standing up for "freedom" or "rights" and are just bigots who are revel in racism, sexism, homophobia, etc.  It's almost WORSE!

  • Reply 100 of 551
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by paxman View Post



    Keanu Reeves is the only one with true Freedom? Sonnuvabitch!



    I disagree sir, it would have to be William Wallace.

Sign In or Register to comment.