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

17810121328

Comments

  • Reply 181 of 551
    atlappleatlapple Posts: 496member
    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.



    I am heavily invested in Apple long before Tim Cook was CEO. There are many that make Apple the company it is today, I don't have to believe in Tim Cook, I just have to believe in the products. Some things stand above profit? Funny I rarely if ever hear that on this forum. 

  • Reply 182 of 551
    czvetczvet Posts: 5member
    Hey Tim Cook, get your nose out of politics and social issues and stick to running Apple because you are doing more harm than good. Remember, your customers come from all demographics. Apple is getting way too weird under your leadership.
  • Reply 183 of 551
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by LMGS View Post



    The government has no right to tell any business who they have to do business with.. If you own a business, and don't want to do business with someone, for ANY reason, then that should be your right.. If enough people don't like it, you will go out of business.. That's what freedom, and America, is all about..



    I'm from Arkansas, and fully support the governor... I don't hate anyone, but I do love freedom...



    I agree. I think anyone who is so shortsighted as to deny services to someone based on skin color will probably not be in business very long. It's their right to believe what they want and they also cannot be forced to do something they don't want to do. Racism and collectivism both make me sad because they assign complex, thinking individuals to the role of unthinking, faceless mob.

  • Reply 184 of 551
    tmaytmay Posts: 5,811member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by chadbag View Post

     



    I am not avoiding it.  I have a real job I have to do and the replies are coming in MUCH FASTER than I can keep up with.  This is the first time I have seen your request.  Half the replies to this I have not seen yet.

     

    Yes, someone should be able to refuse to do business with someone if they are black (legally speaking).   No, I do not think that anyone SHOULD refuse to do business with someone who is black (I certainly wouldn't).  No, someone can't refuse to do business with someone based solely on their being black.  (And I am not agitating to change the law, even if I philosophically believe such a law is wrong -- the law itself, and not the outcome, as I don't think anyone SHOULD refuse to do business with someone based solely on the racial makeup of that person -- I do not advocate racism).

     

    If this position is hard to understand, I am sorry.  I also support legalization of drugs, even though I think drugs are stupid, should not be used, and I don't even drink alcohol at all, let alone ever have tried any drug myself.   I also think prostitution should be legal, even if I have no desire to visit a prostitute (and believe in abstinence before marriage and fidelity afterwards).   I believe in Freedom as long as it does not infringe on the rights of others in the exercise of it, and refusing do business does not violate the refused customer's rights.


    1964 called

     

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964

     

    Title II

     

    Outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion or national origin in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce; exempted private clubs without defining the term "private"

  • Reply 185 of 551
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by AaronJ View Post

     
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

     



    I like Cook, but at the risk of being the contrarian here I think he should keep the focus 100% on Apple and on the products. Anything unrelated to Apple is a distraction and not his job to fix. If he wants to be a political activist, he should make that his focus.




    See, I couldn't disagree more.

     

    I think that if the CEO of the LARGEST COMPANY IN THE WORLD has some ideas on stuff that's going on, he should probably say what those are.  I mean, I get what you're saying.  But Cook has lots of people to do those sorts of things.  He's the face of Apple, he IS Apple.  So when some backasswardass state does something idiotic, and the CEO of the LARGEST COMPANY IN THE WORLD has something to say about it, I'm all for it.

     

    Tim Cook doesn't need to design the internals of the new Watch or whatever.  But when he can make a point as CEO of Apple, I think that's important.  And I REALLY think that it's important to lots of gay and lesbian people in the US when someone who has come out, and is a CEO of massive corporation has things to say in support of gay rights.

     

    I mean, get what you're saying.  I do.  But I hope you get what I'm saying, too.


     

     

    I 'get' what you're saying.

     

    And you're wrong. Utterly wrong. It was a strength of Steve Jobs that he always kept the focus on Apple's business. Do you think there weren't countless times that he felt strongly about current affairs? Laurene said that he always had an opinion about something. But he kept those two worlds separate, and it translated into a stronger Apple as a result.

     

    This comment of Cook on current affairs is just one manifestation of the general lack of focus that has been a hallmark of Apple for the past three years.

     

    I understand what you're saying, and I hope you understand the truth in my words, too.

  • Reply 186 of 551
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by RichL View Post

     

    Businesses like Sales Force are pulling out of Indiana. The people have spoken and Indiana will wonder why employment is rocketing in a couple of years.


     

     

    Freudian slip.

  • Reply 187 of 551
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member
    Quote:



    Originally Posted by tmay View Post

     

    1964 called

     

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964

     

    Title II

     

    Outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion or national origin in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce; exempted private clubs without defining the term "private"

     

    GFYS


     

    You should keep in mind that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 could just as easily be overturned at some point, just like the Civil Rights Act of 1875.

     

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1875

     

    The Supreme Court of the United States in a nearly unanimous decision declared the act unconstitutional in the Civil Rights Cases (1883) with Justice John Marshall Harlan providing the lone dissent. The Court held the Equal Protection Clause within the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits discrimination by the state, but it does not give the federal government the power to prohibit discrimination by private individuals.[5] The Court also held that the Thirteenth Amendment was meant to eliminate "the badge of slavery," but not to prohibit racial discrimination in public accommodations. The Civil Rights Act of 1875 was the last civil rights bill to be signed into law in the United States until the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1957.


  • Reply 188 of 551
    Quote:



    Originally Posted by Smurfman View Post

     
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by TzTerri 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.

     

     

    Exactly.

  • Reply 189 of 551
    tmaytmay Posts: 5,811member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

     

     

    You should keep in mind that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 could just as easily be overturned at some point, just like the Civil Rights Act of 1875.

     

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1875


    Easily?

     

    Not likely.

     

    The Supreme Court is likely to rule in favor of Marriage Equality this spring. Even many Republicans are publicly supporting it. 

  • Reply 190 of 551
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by chadbag View Post

     

     

    But it is not discrimination to force a religious person to perform an act they are opposed to due to their belief system? 


     

    Well, no, because the product or service they are providing is exactly the same regardless of whether the customer is gay, black, female or clingon.  The provider of the product or service isn't being forced to do anything against their belief system.  If selling hamburgers is against their belief system, perhaps they shouldn't have got into the hamburger business?

  • Reply 191 of 551
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by rickwil61 View Post

     
    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.


     

     

    Exactly.

     

    There is an incredibly moralistic and militant homosexual lobby that seeks to create a new quasi-religious order of intolerance by forcing people to acquiesce to others of a different belief.

     

    So much emotion. Not enough thinking.

  • Reply 192 of 551
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tmay View Post

     

    Easily?

     

    Not likely.

     

    The Supreme Court is likely to rule in favor of Marriage Equality this spring. Even many Republicans are publicly supporting it. 




    Yes, politicians say a lot of things to gain votes and increase their donor lists. In fact, I daresay few of them really care what the Constitution says or how the Federal government's powers are supposed to be restrained, so long as they can gain and maintain their power.

  • Reply 193 of 551
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by AaronJ View Post

     
    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.


     

     

    So you would make a knife for a Satanic ritual to be used for the slaughter of a baby in the interests of treating people equally?

     

    Got it.

  • Reply 194 of 551
    swiftswift Posts: 436member

    A gay person coming to your store for a coca-cola is a matter for self-defense? Calm down, sestewart.

  • Reply 195 of 551
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

     
    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...


     

     

    Quite.

  • Reply 196 of 551
    amurryamurry Posts: 1member
    being gay, black, asian, female these things one can not change

    religion is not something someone is born to. freedom of religion is important but does not trump everything else

    laws like these are discrimination plain and simple

    states that enact them deserve to be boycotted

    i hope we can evolve beyond this soon in america
  • Reply 197 of 551
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by 9secondko View Post



    Its
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by AaronJ View Post





    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.


     

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by TzTerri View Post





    not about discriminating against "poor hungry people at a restaurant." It's about protecting the right to morality for say... A church board who is protected from HAVING to hire a "pastor" who practices something completely against the tenets he is supposed to proclaim and uphold.



    And that's a mistske concerning what the Bible teaches about people. It's actually; Everyone is a sinner until born again through faith in Jesus Christ. Then the Bible says you are a new creation. Having Jesus' tightsousnes credited to you before God and having the ability to live a life pleasing to God instead of contrary.



    And Jesus met with prostitutes, tax collectors, lawyers, thieves, etc. Because He loved them and wanted to see them saved and having the life God intended. While he certainly fed them, taught them, and healed them, he didn't have them put into positions of authority in His church until they were born again.



    People like to have knee jerk reactions when Christians stand up for righteousness. And coming lately miss the point. People don't care about what's really right. They care about what they want. That's why Jesus was rejected and crucified then. It's the same now.



    This law isn't discriminatory. It's protection from those who hold high moral values from being forced to see their convictions trampled on. And glad to see it happen in this day and age where good is called evil and evil is called good. But I expect some nefarious tampering and high level unconstitutional pressure will see it overturned. As Obama so cleverly forced Christians to fund abortion eith "Obamacare." Enough is enough.



    People with morals. Especially biblical values are sick of being railroaded.

     

     

    Excellent post. I agree with everything you say.

  • Reply 198 of 551
    tmaytmay Posts: 5,811member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

     



    Yes, politicians say a lot of things to gain votes and increase their donor lists. In fact, I daresay few of them really care what the Constitution says or how the Federal government's powers are supposed to be restrained, so long as they can gain and maintain their power.


    You mean the Constitution that was written a very long time ago by a bunch of landed White Men?

     

    Who could possibly imagine that it would need to evolve over centuries.

  • Reply 199 of 551
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

     
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by waterrockets View Post

     

     

    Show me a CEO who doesn't play politics with the position.




    Show me all of the CEOs who have done the same as Cook has done here. Of course he is taking a political stance. My point is that this stance detracts from Apple and Apple's products...unless this particular stance has been 'workshopped' and will result in an additional quantifiable increase in sales? Tim has previously stated that he does things because they are right and he ignores the ROI. Well, that simply makes no sense. He can AFFORD to ignore the ROI because they are so profitable. Were they not so profitable, I guarantee the company would remain laser-focused on sales.


     

     

    Indeed.

     

    It is only thanks to the genius of Jobs that Apple got to such a profitable position, albeit helped with the managerial nous of Cook.

     

    Cook is effectively taking advantage of Apple's huge cash cushion to launch a political campaign completely unrelated to Apple or anything they do, just because he can.

  • Reply 200 of 551
    swiftswift Posts: 436member

    Taking a knife to a baby in "a Satanic ritual" is murder, and that's the law, and it's also proof that "religious rituals" do have some limitations. Is operating your business part of your religion? Weird. If you want to work in a church, even as janitor, the priest or minister has every right to take your religion into account. The head of a business does not.

     

    Remember the first amendment. Religions have every right to forbid this or that conduct for its members. They have no business telling other religions what to do. If so, okay, my former religion says your religion is leading to damnation, and we will wage a holy war against you until you all convert.

     

    Bzzt! Against the establishment of religion.

     

    No-one has the right to force you to engage in homosexual acts. So if a customer in a store makes an unwanted pass, you can toss him out. But you have to sell him lumber or food or anything else.

Sign In or Register to comment.