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

1101113151628

Comments

  • Reply 241 of 552
    splifsplif Posts: 603member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

     



    "Corporate beliefs"?




    Does Apple or any major corporation discriminate in hiring/sales practices on the basis of sexual orientation?

  • Reply 242 of 552
    tbelltbell Posts: 3,146member
    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.


     

     

    I agree with your view in principle. People should be allowed to do business with who they choose. That doesn't make electing to not do business with somebody right on grounds such as sexual preference, but that is the nature of freedom: making choices and living with the consequences of those choices. Freedom means protecting even the views you dislike. 

     

    With that said, this law is discriminatory because it holds religious beliefs above others. Why can a person only refuse to do business with another if that person has a strong religious belief that doing business with that person is against his religion? The problem is this law holds religious beliefs to a higher standard than other beliefs. For instance, what if I am an atheist and I just don't want to do business with somebody because I dislike the way he dresses? This law only protects me if I have a religious reason for not conducting business with a person.

     

    That is unconstitutional because the US Constitution does not allow religion to have special rights. Laws must be religious neutral. 

  • Reply 243 of 552
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Splif View Post

     



    Does Apple or any major corporation discriminate in hiring/sales practices on the basis of sexual orientation?




    I doubt it. They wouldn't want to invite lawsuits because profits are what matters to businesses however, corporations do not have "beliefs". They may have a mission, but beliefs are held by individuals, not companies.

  • Reply 244 of 552
    splifsplif Posts: 603member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

     



    I doubt it. They wouldn't want to invite lawsuits because profits are what matters to businesses however, corporations do not have "beliefs". They may have a mission, but beliefs are held by individuals, not companies.




    Google corporate beliefs. If beliefs were only held by individuals how do you explain organized religion?

  • Reply 245 of 552
    frugalityfrugality Posts: 410member

    We have to be able to discriminate between right and wrong.

     

    Where we differ is on what is 'right', and what is 'wrong.'

  • Reply 246 of 552
    atlappleatlapple Posts: 496member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AaronJ View Post

     



    Oh, believe me: I have some "logical" response to your post.

     

    I am just not interested in your racist crap.




    It's a poor attempt to stop a conversation by calling someone racist.. I grew up in the heart of NYC. I moved to Atlanta when I was 25 which has the 5th largest gay population per capita in the US. I work for a very large IT company that gives full benefits to same sex couples. Your posts are odd even delusional which explains why you deem me racist because I don't believe a CEO should be using the power of the company for activism. 

     

    My opinion is not based on Tim Cook being gay, it's based on him being the CEO of Apple.

  • Reply 247 of 552
    atlappleatlapple Posts: 496member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AaronJ View Post

     



    An item to damage another human being?  No.  That's not my "thing."  I don't really give a crap about babies, but the less that little children are hurt the better.  Someone wants to smack me in the face, I don't like it, but OK.  I'll take it.  A kid?  No.  Just No.  

     

    I've faced up some tough bastards.  Someone wants to smack me around?  I guess that goes with the territory.  Punch me, let's fight, whatever.  I'm not saying that I'm some "badass" or anything.  The world is different than that.  But I grew up in Detroit, and I will take anyone -- I may get my ass kicked BAD -- but I will take anyone ass on.




    You don't give a crap about babies. You're such a humanitarian.

  • Reply 248 of 552
    magman1979magman1979 Posts: 1,263member

    I think this site should consider NOT publishing ANY articles on this topic any further.

     

    The amount of racism, bigotry, discrimination, ignorance, stupidity, and blind religious arrogance being displayed in this discussion thread by MANY commentators is appalling to the highest degree. This is a site / forum about Apple, not a platform to let loose your psychopathic and racist views that should've been abolished decades ago; too bad natural selection isn't part of Human civilization anymore.

  • Reply 249 of 552
    I lived in Chicago when the Bulls won their six world championships. We all know Michael Jordan was the key to those championships. Jordan was criticized for not getting involved in the politics of the day. MJ stayed focused on basketball to the benefit of the Chicago Bulls.

    As a Apple shareholder who respects and appreciates Tim Cook I wish he would take the same approach. His job is to continue to "win championships" for Apple, not to get distracted by the politics of the day. This Indiana law will not have any impact on Apple unless Cook wants it to do so. Tim, please focus on driving the sale of Apple products and leave the politics to the politicians.
  • Reply 250 of 552
    magman1979 wrote: »
    I think this site should consider NOT publishing ANY articles on this topic any further.

    The amount of racism, bigotry, discrimination, ignorance, stupidity, and blind religious arrogance being displayed in this discussion thread by MANY commentators is appalling to the highest degree. This is a site / forum about Apple, not a platform to let loose your psychopathic and racist views that should've been abolished decades ago; too bad natural selection isn't part of Human civilization anymore.

    The truth hurts, huh.
  • Reply 251 of 552
    kibitzerkibitzer Posts: 1,114member

     

    Here is Indiana Governor Mike Pence signing the "Religious Freedom" bill, surrounded by a whole bunch of freedom-loving Indiana business people ...

     

    For business people, they sure dress kinda funny in Indiana.

     

    But practically speaking, here's what's going to happen next.

     

    The law takes effect on July 1 and almost immediately will be ruled unconstitutional in a test case by a federal district court judge. When it reaches the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals within a few weeks, expect Judge Richard Posner to ream a new orifice in the Indiana Solicitor General during oral arguments. I can hardly wait. Read what Posner had to say last-year on Indiana's act prohibiting same-sex marriage:

     

    http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2014/D09-04/C:14-2526:J:Posner:aut:T:fnOp:N:1412339:S:0

     

    Posner's questions during oral arguments are legendary and well worth a listen:

     

    http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014/08/27/listen_to_judge_richard_posner_destroy_arguments_against_gay_marriage.html

     

    And yes ... it's the same Judge Posner who had to deal with the seemingly endless patent fracas between Apple and Motorola.

  • Reply 252 of 552
    jfc1138jfc1138 Posts: 3,090member
    chadbag wrote: »


    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.
    Actualy they don't such discrimination is a violation of the law. You provide a public service and you serve ALL the public, not just the ones your superstition tells you are "blessed". Federal laws speak to this as do many state and city civil rights laws.

    You want to religiously discriminate you go start a church And then you get to pick and choose who gets to participate in the ritual cannibalism or worship of people who don't work on the sabbath or whatnot. , not a bakery open to the general public.

    "Association" is not conducting public business, it's painting each other blue in the privacy off your own grove. Or drinking your god's blood in celebration of a special day.
  • Reply 253 of 552
    aaronjaaronj Posts: 1,595member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by AtlApple View Post

     



    You don't give a crap about babies. You're such a humanitarian. I think maybe you have been smacked around too much and that little brain knocked against your skull too often. 




    Excuse me?

  • Reply 254 of 552
    jfc1138 wrote: »
    chadbag wrote: »


    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.
    Actualy they don't such discrimination is a violation of the law. You provide a public service and you serve ALL the public, not just the ones your superstition tells you are "blessed". Federal laws speak to this as do many state and city civil rights laws.

    You want to religiously discriminate you go start a church And then you get to pick and choose who gets to participate in the ritual cannibalism or worship of people who don't work on the sabbath or whatnot. , not a bakery open to the general public.

    "Association" is not conducting public business, it's painting each other blue in the privacy off your own grove. Or drinking your god's blood in celebration of a special day.

    Come back when you've grown up.
  • Reply 255 of 552

    The Quakers, BECAUSE OF RELIGIOUS BELIEF are exempt from fighting in the military.  To those who believe that religions are a joke, please refer to the founding fathers.  Religious beliefs have long been respected in this country.  If a religion believes that homosexuality is akin to alcoholism, or other genetically induced, but CONTROLLABLE behavior, then that, to those of that religious belief system, is not the same as disrespecting a black person due to their skin color - something that can not be altered.  Indiana is right on this one, Cook is biased to support his own belief system which I understand but do not have to accept any more than I accept alcoholism, pedophilia, necrophilia, polygamy, etc as acceptable behaviors, no matter how 'driven' on is toward them.

  • Reply 256 of 552
    wizard69 wrote: »
    Not in the least. The point is we are talking about deviant behavior here. That is sexual drives that are not the norm. So you must ask yourself how far are you willing to go with your demand that business should be required to serve all comers?
    Im still right because the point here is the freedom to do business with those that you are willing to associate with.

    Look at it this way, say you own a hotel and a motor cycle gang comes into town and wants to stay at you hotel. Should you be required to lodge them? What if you are a member of a rival gang? If you say no then why? If you say no would you also refuse a conference for a bunch of child molesters? If you would then why all of a sudden must you do business with gays?

    On a side note many of the child molesters out there are indeed gay, so from that perspective the two are somewhat related.

    Sexual deviation between gay and straight is not the same as between child molester and gay. Gay people consent the same as straight couples. Child molesters are child rapists, they do not and cannot have consent from the child. Also, most child molesters are heterosexual males. You are clearly ancient and bought into the insane propaganda of your day.
  • Reply 257 of 552
    solipsismysolipsismy Posts: 5,099member
    wizard69 wrote: »
    Not in the least. The point is we are talking about deviant behavior here. That is sexual drives that are not the norm. So you must ask yourself how far are you willing to go with your demand that business should be required to serve all comers?

    That's like saying that because left-handedness or blue eyes are not most common that these people are exhibiting deviant behaviour.
    Im still right because the point here is the freedom to do business with those that you are willing to associate with.

    Only in the sense that you feel you have a right not to do business with blacks, Jews, Mexicans, or whatever bigoted viewpoints over the inferiority of other people you may have.
    Look at it this way, say you own a hotel and a motor cycle gang comes into town and wants to stay at you hotel. Should you be required to lodge them? What if you are a member of a rival gang? If you say no then why? If you say no would you also refuse a conference for a bunch of child molesters? If you would then why all of a sudden must you do business with gays?

    1) Why would you think that people that ride motorcycles are in a gang, have no money, or are violent/destructive?

    2) I guess if you're in a "rival gang" you're already making stupid decisions so being a stupid bigot probably isn't difficult, but that doesn't justify being a bigot.

    3) A "conference for a bunch of child molesters," which, in your scenario means they are having a conference about child molestation, isn't the same as someone who has been convicted with a sex crime needing a room for the night. Have you ever been asked about your feelings toward diddling children when booking a room? Now, if this " "conference for a bunch of child molesters" was specifically to bring awareness to child molestation as something that needs to be prevented for a healthy society I don't think this would be an issue, but I would think these are done in anonymous meetings like AA, CA, et al.
    On a side note many of the child molesters out there are indeed gay, so from that perspective the two are somewhat related.

    And there are those that commit sex crimes that are not-gay, so that means all "straight people" are in the same boat as rapists? Of course you don't think that, you're just looking to malign homosexuals.
  • Reply 258 of 552
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

     



    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.


     

    Tim's viewpoint here is the popular viewpoint. That you feel the stance detracts from Apple and its products is subjective. Certainly they'll lose some people, but if you haven't seen alignment (over the decades) between Apple and the liberal side of society, you haven't been paying attention. Seriously, they cater to artists -- intentionally and successfully. 

  • Reply 259 of 552
    splifsplif Posts: 603member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by photoshop59 View Post

     

    The Quakers, BECAUSE OF RELIGIOUS BELIEF are exempt from fighting in the military.  To those who believe that religions are a joke, please refer to the founding fathers.  Religious beliefs have long been respected in this country.  If a religion believes that homosexuality is akin to alcoholism, or other genetically induced, but CONTROLLABLE behavior, then that, to those of that religious belief system, is not the same as disrespecting a black person due to their skin color - something that can not be altered.  Indiana is right on this one, Cook is biased to support his own belief system which I understand but do not have to accept any more than I accept alcoholism, pedophilia, necrophilia, polygamy, etc as acceptable behaviors, no matter how 'driven' on is toward them.


    So don't sleep with someone from the same sex.

  • Reply 260 of 552
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post





    Homosexuality, just like child molestation {amongst other practices}, is deviant sexuality. 

     

    You're seriously going to compare this to rape? 

     

    Good troll dude.

Sign In or Register to comment.