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

1568101128

Comments

  • Reply 141 of 552
    MarvinMarvin Posts: 14,622moderator
    aaronj wrote: »
     
    hypoluxa wrote: »
     
    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.

    Which is a situation I've actually been in.  And yes, that and the bartender taking your keys, for example, are perfect examples of refusing service for a very good reason.

    Or if you're being abusive to the staff.

    Or if you're dressed like a bum.

    Or if you're creating a public disturbance.

    Or if you're committing a crime of any other sort.

    Clubs freely turn customers away if they're not dressed correctly. That is also within their rights.

    There is a distinction between discriminating against what people are doing and who they are. Abusiveness, drunkenness, criminal activity are not immutable, those are actions that you have chosen to do.

    I suspect this hinges around the notion that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice and that those people can change and on changing be allowed service.

    Everybody is convinced that race is genetic and immutable but not so with sexuality, or at least anything that isn't heterosexuality. This law itself even implies this because it should also allow discriminating against heterosexuality, which is silly.

    There are deviant sexualities and there are cases where people have made obscene videos in hotels and a hotel owner would be right to deny service on those grounds but those cases are covered by the law already. Homosexuality needs to be recognised as an acceptable sexual attraction. A Christian UK hotel owner got into trouble for that by denying a homosexual couple a room:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/11/27/christian-bnb-gay-couple_n_4348385.html

    The court said:

    "Sexual orientation is a core component of a person's identity which requires fulfilment through relationships with others of the same orientation."
    Homosexuals "were long denied the possibility of fulfilling themselves through relationships with others", she said, adding: "This was an affront to their dignity as human beings which our law has now (some would say belatedly) recognised.
    "Homosexuals can enjoy the same freedom and the same relationships as any others. But we should not under-estimate the continuing legacy of those centuries of discrimination, persecution even, which is still going on in many parts of the world."

    As far as employment, there are cases where there might be a higher risk from a sexual orientation such as if someone is employed somewhere they deal with blood transfusion, being a male homosexual might pose a higher risk. Medical institutions block homosexual males from giving blood. They might be removed from that job position and technically would only be down to their sexual orientation but that's different from firing someone on moral grounds and beliefs.

    Tim Cook feels very strongly about matters of race, gender, sexuality and so on, which he talks about here:

    http://www.businessinsider.com.au/tim-cook-charlie-rose-interview-human-rights-2014-9

    He says that the way Apple treats the employees is an important part in its success. It makes sense that he'd want to ensure that is extended to other companies.
  • Reply 142 of 552
    nolamacguynolamacguy Posts: 4,758member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

     

    If the Federal government owns that hamburger shop, that would be a problem. You cannot dictate personal beliefs with laws. That's not how reality works.


     

    nobody is discussing beliefs -- shopkeepers are free to belief whatever they want to believe. we are discussing behavior. shopkeepers are not free to refuse equal protection based solely on a recognized protected attribute, such as race or religion. this is very old case law here in the real world. you may review these recognized attributes here:

     

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_class

     

  • Reply 143 of 552
    paxmanpaxman Posts: 4,678member
    atlapple wrote: »

    The fact that Tim Cook is the CEO of a company that does business around the world he should be careful. Being an vocal activist and a CEO isn't aways a good mix. While this may not hurt him or Apple in the US lets remember there are many countries or societies that have a really bad outlook on this topic. I believe there are 66-78 counties that consider being a gay a crime and about a dozen where you could be put to death for being gay. 

    Society also tends to swing over time. Just because gay rights and marriage is moving in a forward direction doesn't mean that is always going to be the case. Movements go backwards sometimes. What Cook does in his private life isn't anyones business but his number one priority is being the CEO of Apple and not doing anything that could hurt the company or it's shareholders. 

    I'm not a fan of someone using the power of a company to push their personal agenda. With all that being said I also agree that I will never understand why we "a general term" as humans hate people because they are different. The color of someones skin, they believe in another God or what they do in the privacy of their own home. As far as this bill is concerned it's just another good example why we need to decrease the size of government in this country. 

    Holy crap - where to start. I don't think this would classify as a 'personal agenda' and the day that Apple does not stand up for what it believes in because a potential client base considers that as being a crime is the day Apple dies. It seems to me that everything Tim Cook stands up for is, as he says, 'embedded in Apple's DNA'. Apple is open for anyone and speaking out against institutionalized intolerance is hardly a personal agenda. Some things stand above profit and if you don't like that aspect of Apple, don't invest.
  • Reply 144 of 552
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,408member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by NolaMacGuy View Post

     

     

    nope. "protected classes" are by definition constitutional, because we've defined them IN the constitution. read up:

     

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_class

     

    ....if a hamburger shop tries to deny equal treatment (service) based solely on one of those enumerables, they are doing so at odds w/ our very constitution.

     

    i believe you have confused your desired world view with reality. one exists in your mind...the other exists in Real Life. im here to discuss what exists in real life, not what exists in your mind.




    And we've seen exactly what has happened as a result of these unconstitutional acts. Individuals are lumped into special groups (white, black, straight, gay, etc.) all seeking special privilege and protections, all of which is "unequal treatment", all of which amounts to one thing... bigger, more powerful government.

  • Reply 145 of 552
    aaronjaaronj Posts: 1,595member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by AtlApple View Post

     



    The fact that Tim Cook is the CEO of a company that does business around the world he should be careful. Being an vocal activist and a CEO isn't aways a good mix. While this may not hurt him or Apple in the US lets remember there are many countries or societies that have a really bad outlook on this topic. I believe there are 66-78 counties that consider being a gay a crime and about a dozen where you could be put to death for being gay. 

     

    Society also tends to swing over time. Just because gay rights and marriage is moving in a forward direction doesn't mean that is always going to be the case. Movements go backwards sometimes. What Cook does in his private life isn't anyones business but his number one priority is being the CEO of Apple and not doing anything that could hurt the company or it's shareholders. 

     

    I'm not a fan of someone using the power of a company to push their personal agenda. With all that being said I also agree that I will never understand why we "a general term" as humans hate people because they are different. The color of someones skin, they believe in another God or what they do in the privacy of their own home. As far as this bill is concerned it's just another good example why we need to decrease the size of government in this country. 




    I believe in everything Mr. Cook says and does in these issues.

  • Reply 146 of 552
    nolamacguynolamacguy Posts: 4,758member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

     

    And we've seen exactly what has happened as a result of these unconstitutional acts. Individuals are lumped into special groups (white, black, straight, gay, etc.) all seeking special privilege and protections, all of which is "unequal treatment", all of which amounts to one thing... bigger, more powerful government.


     

    holy shit you just arent getting it. having your inalienable right to equal protected based on race is NOT a special privilege. its merely the recognition of the natural law we were born with, and prohibits the refusal to honor the right. its not special -- it exists in everybody.

     

    as for "bigger, more powerful government", thats just your own personal fears and is completely off topic when it comes to what inalienable rights are and mean.

     

    anyway i can only deal w/ so much tea party crazy in one day. adios.... and good luck opening your own version of our country where inalienable rights dont have to be honored via behavior!

  • Reply 147 of 552
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,408member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by AaronJ View Post

     



    Tim Cook offered part of his very rare blood type liver to Steve.  Steve turned it down.  

     

    Do you have any idea what that takes?  You're saying, basically, "I might not get a transplant in the future, but I care about you so much that I will offer this to you."

     

    And Steve turned it down.  Because why?  Because he believed in Tim.  Just as the rest of us do.

     

    That was seriously badass.  And as far as shareholders go, I first bought Apple stock when it was at $13, then it split, then it split 7 times.  I have thousands of shares at over $123 per share.  I could sell everything I own tomorrow and be a millionaire.  Neither Steve nor Tim have screwed me over as a shareholder.  Trust me.  Somehow, I'm rich.  I never planned on any of this.

     

    Tim Cook and Steve Jobs were good people.  Perfect?  Nope.  But decent human beings?  Yep.




    Steve and Tim were friends, not just business associates. Regardless, when I see news stories that take the focus off of Apple and Apple's products I'd rather the focus stayed on the story of the products.

  • Reply 148 of 552
    aaronjaaronj Posts: 1,595member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

     



    Steve and Tim were friends, not just business associates. Regardless, when I see news stories that take the focus off of Apple and Apple's products I'd rather the focus stayed on the story of the products.




    Yes, they were friends.  But for one man to offer up his life (potentially) for another man is pretty intense.

     

    How many times have you offered your life for someone else?

  • Reply 149 of 552
    smurfmansmurfman Posts: 119member
    tzterri wrote: »

    NOT the same thing! I praise Indiana's governor. This will help good people defend themselves from militant homosexuals.

    These people/businesses serve gays unless it is aiding/supporting something that goes against what God has instituted. Homosexual MARRIAGE is such a thing.

    It's NOT an anti-gay law but protects against religious discrimination.
  • Reply 150 of 552
    Quote:

    aaronj

     

    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.

     



     

     

     

    I think this law is misrepresented and this headline is inflammatory.  The crux of this issue is that Christians don't embrace gay marriage and they don't want to be forced to support a ceremony they don't believe in.

     

    FOR EXAMPLE:  I live in Colorado and I spoke with the baker who refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple.  His opposition was not to serving gay people.  His opposition was to the wedding cake for a ceremony he didn't believe in.  He offered to make them other products, such as cupcakes, cookies, etc., but they were set on the wedding cake.  He DOES NOT REFUSE SERVICE TO GAYS BECAUSE THEY'RE GAY.  He refuses to make a wedding cake for a gay marriage because he doesn't believe in gay marriage.  And just so you understand that he's not singling out the gays, he also refuses to make bakery products for Halloween as well because he doesn't believe in that celebration either.  So do you think the law should force him to support Halloween?

     

    To put the shoe on the other foot.  Do you think that an atheist baker should be required by law to make a cake commemorating Easter or some other Christian holiday, if he or she doesn't agree with it?  Personally I don't and I don't imagine someone in that situation would have a very hard time finding another bakery that would fill such an order.  IMO this was a setup by gay activists to force the issue by law.  I'm sure there were plenty of other bakers who would have filled their request.  If the gay lobby is going to use the law to try and force people who don't agree with them to accept their views then they shouldn't be surprised when the law is used by the opposition to push back.

  • Reply 151 of 552
    aaronjaaronj Posts: 1,595member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Smurfman View Post





    NOT the same thing! I praise Indiana's governor. This will help good people defend themselves from militant homosexuals.



    These people/businesses serve gays unless it is aiding/supporting something that goes against what God has instituted. Homosexual MARRIAGE is such a thing.



    It's NOT an anti-gay law but protects against religious discrimination.



    So you believe against kicking out EVERYONE who has EVER sinned.

     

    Good to know.

  • Reply 152 of 552
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Smurfman View Post





    NOT the same thing! I praise Indiana's governor. This will help good people defend themselves from militant homosexuals.



    These people/businesses serve gays unless it is aiding/supporting something that goes against what God has instituted. Homosexual MARRIAGE is such a thing.



    It's NOT an anti-gay law but protects against religious discrimination.



    I hope this is satire, militant homosexuals?   I have not seen this gay militia yet, where do they reside?  One thing for sure, I bet their uniforms are fabulous.  

  • Reply 152 of 552
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by chadbag View Post

    I believe in Freedom as long as it does not infringe on the rights of others in the exercise of it.

     

    Then you do not believe in freedom. your statement is contradicting because you are putting a rule to what a person can do thus preventing them from having freedom to do what they want.

  • Reply 154 of 552
    aaronjaaronj Posts: 1,595member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by rickwil61 View Post

     

     

    To put the shoe on the other foot.  Do you think that an atheist baker should be required by law to make a cake commemorating Easter or some other Christian holiday, if he or she doesn't agree with it?  Personally I don't and I don't imagine someone in that situation would have a very hard time finding another bakery that would fill such an order.  IMO this was a setup by gay activists to force the issue by law.  I'm sure there were plenty of other bakers who would have filled their request.  If the gay lobby is going to use the law to try and force people who don't agree with them to accept their views then they shouldn't be surprised when the law is used by the opposition to push back.


     

    I'm an atheist, and if someone asked me to make an Easter cake with a cross on it to something, I'd do it in a heartbeat.  Why?  Because I believe in treated everyone equally.  If a Jew came in an asked in something for some Jewish holiday, I would also do it.  Same for a Muslim. Same for a Buddhist.  Same for a Hindu.

     

    Treating people equally is what it's all about.

     

    And I think religion is ridiculous.  But that wouldn't stop me.

  • Reply 155 of 552
    redefilerredefiler Posts: 323member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Splif View Post

     

    What a total nonsensical statement. Stop may have been the wrong word. How do you enforce what the constitution states without laws? Also, the constitution is a living document which is the reason it can be amended & cases go to the Supreme Court (different interpretations). You're arguments make absolutely no sense in the real world.




    Incorrect.  The idea that the Constitution is a 'living document' is merely an opinion made by relatively recent authors.  The document itself is specifically clear in which areas are flexible and which are not.  It's sole purpose and reason for existence was to form a 'limited' government.  Not a 'living government' that could grow as much as it wanted or could grab whatever rights it felt like governing.

     

    There's an amendment mechanism built in, but there's also very clear section detailing what 'Congress shall make no law' about.  According to the Constitution, these things cannot be changed.  It's very convenient that people ignore that part, but not the Amendment part when they are trying to force their way onto others.  

  • Reply 156 of 552
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,408member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by NolaMacGuy View Post

     

     

    nobody is discussing beliefs -- shopkeepers are free to belief whatever they want to believe. we are discussing behavior. shopkeepers are not free to refuse equal protection based solely on a recognized protected attribute, such as race or religion. this is very old case law here in the real world. you may review these recognized attributes here:

     

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_class

     


     

    I suppose you meant "shopkeepers are not free to refuse service" rather than "equal protection".

     

    Regarding the Civil Rights Act:  http://tomwoods.com/blog/the-civil-rights-act-of-1964-which-only-wicked-oppressors-could-oppose-and-for-no-good-reason/

     

    Regarding "discrimination":  http://tomwoods.com/blog/restaurant-bans-kids-under-6-is-this-discrimination/

  • Reply 157 of 552
    pembrokepembroke Posts: 228member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by boeyc15 View Post

     

     

    . IMO- No one has the right to do what ever they want in public. If society says serve 'the public', or else;  if  a business owner doesn't like it, they have the 'freedom' to not go into business in order to not associate with 'their kind'--, quit and do something else, be a monk. Stupid rhetorical argument -yes, but no less so than the right to refuse anyone they please.

    IMO--If a business puts it self out 'in public' with customers... then they serve 'the public', it is not a hard concept. If business owner want to open a  'restricted private club' to avoid 'those people'---fine, just don't use any public money to do so.


     

    This.



    An implied presumption in setting up a business is that you enter into an exchange with ANYONE (who is of legal age to exchange for the items/service and who is not a wanted criminal) who offers you the stated price.  This means that you have to be prepared to serve someone who is perhaps openly Republican, or with openly Nazi sympathies, or women, or Gingers, or men, or Irish, or Trekkies, or Canadians, or your mother-in-law, or members of the Osama bin Laden fan club, or even a crazed Christian of the Westboro Baptist Church ilk - even if your loved-one's funeral was protested by the WBC screaming that your loved-one was a filthy god-forsaken soul who deserved it. Yes, there's no law protecting you from being offended or sickened by anyone. Go right-ahead and be sickened; but if you open a business to the public, you cannot restrict who you can exchange with as long as they are a legal entity not wanted by the police force.



    You can invite who you want and stop whoever you want coming to your house or rented accommodation, but open a business with a licence to trade and any claimed-right to restrict who buys from you is non-existent, or it should be. The alternative would quickly descend into absurdity after absurdity. 



    Also, as an owner of a cake shop, no one has the right to demand that you supply them with a cake design of THEIR choice. But any cake you do make for general purchase should be available to anyone to buy. 

  • Reply 158 of 552
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,408member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by paxman View Post





    Holy crap - where to start. I don't think this would classify as a 'personal agenda' and the day that Apple does not stand up for what it believes in because a potential client base considers that as being a crime is the day Apple dies. It seems to me that everything Tim Cook stands up for is, as he says, 'embedded in Apple's DNA'. Apple is open for anyone and speaking out against institutionalized intolerance is hardly a personal agenda. Some things stand above profit and if you don't like that aspect of Apple, don't invest.



    If this is really core to Apple's DNA, then they should immediately stop selling Apple products to all of Indiana state, shut down any and all Apple Stores and cut off iTunes services... right? Anything less would undermine the core principles of Apple...

  • Reply 159 of 552
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by sog35 View Post

     

     

    You are correct.

     

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_people_and_early_Mormonism

     

    The first reference in Latter Day Saint writings describing dark skin as a curse and mark from God refers to Lamanites. The Book of Mormon, published in the late 1820s, states the following about a group of people who rebelled against God:

    And [God] had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people, the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them. And thus saith the Lord God; I will cause that they shall be loathsome unto thy people, save they shall repent of their iniquities." (2 Nephi 5:21)

     




    To clarify, there is a marked difference in Mormon theology between Lamanites and persons of African descent. Specifically, Lamanites were never denied the priesthood, while individuals with African ancestors were, for a time:

     

    "...[F]or much of its history—from the mid-1800s until 1978—the Church did not ordain men of black African descent to its priesthood or allow black men or women to participate in temple endowment or sealing ordinances."

     

    and

     

    "Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects unrighteous actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else. Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form.24"

     

    https://www.lds.org/topics/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng

  • Reply 160 of 552
    mstonemstone Posts: 11,510member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

     



    If this is really core to Apple's DNA, then they should immediately stop selling Apple products to all of Indiana state, shut down any and all Apple Stores and cut off iTunes services... right? Anything less would undermine the core principles of Apple...




    No because Apple does not discriminate against anyone, even bigots.

Sign In or Register to comment.