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

1131416181928

Comments

  • Reply 301 of 552
    Have you ever complained about compulsory auto insurance? If not you found a problem in a creative way that never was important to you. I suspect you logic is warped by your prejudice or self interest.
  • Reply 302 of 552
    It's the reverse of "freedom of association" because the person being discriminated against is being denied association. What it really is is an attempt to discriminate under the cover of religion. Christians have used that old argument against jews and moslems for centuries. This law is toast in modern America.

    On a broader view I hope the Indiana mess continues to fester and blow the "Party of Angry Old White Men's" little tin ship out of the water in 2016.

    You should check out the cool libertarian chick Julie Borowski. She's not angry, she's not old, and she's not a man.... But you can still discriminate against her for being white!

    You discriminate in exactly the same way as the people you're criticizing.
  • Reply 303 of 552
    I would love to see Apple and other good natured companies pull their business from these bigoted states and let them loose the tax money. I know it will never happen, but I am going to make sure anything I order online will not come from or be mfg in that state. I would rather do without than allow these hate mongers a penny of my money. This is America and I am disgusted that this is happening and I am very embarrassed to be forced into such a situation. They call this religious freedom, I just call it another step to more freedoms lost that Americans died for.
  • Reply 304 of 552

    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.

    I agree with everything you're wrtiting on this topic, and I think the answer is in your own words "[if it] will result in an additional quantifiable increase in sales". Being PC and supporting PC government intrusions is the in thing. Cook's stance won't be popular with a lot of people, but judging from this thread alone, a lot of people get off on this sort of thing.
  • Reply 305 of 552

    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.

    You're half right. Apple is not at all "unfocussed". But I completely agree that it's a cheap way to score PC points with the masses and Cook should avoid commenting on any politics or laws that don't directly impact Apple's business.
  • Reply 306 of 552
    solipsismysolipsismy Posts: 5,099member
    You're half right. Apple is not at all "unfocussed". But I completely agree that it's a cheap way to score PC points with the masses and Cook should avoid commenting on any politics or laws that don't directly impact Apple's business.

    So as an employee of Apple Tim Cook should forego everything about being a human being to focus solely on increasing Apple's profits? Does Tim Cook not get any free time to do as he pleases? Furthermore, standing up for the rights of others is not inherently political, nor is Tim Cook's desire for a more civility in the world done to curry favour with Washington or to sell more Apple products.
  • Reply 307 of 552
    richlrichl Posts: 2,213member
    To be fair, there's plenty of intolerance in opposing camps for either respecting or simply ignoring personal opinions.

    Maybe but Jesus taught to turn the other cheek. Why don't the Christian Right follow Jesus' teachings?
  • Reply 308 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.

    I've read this entire thread until your post here and I do not see a single example of a racist comment anywhere.

    It's very troll-like and leftist behaviour to make a sweeping statement about "those racist/psychopathic people" and asking the forum owner to ban the discussion, without providing any evidence to back up your assertion. Very intolerant, in fact, dripping with irony.
  • Reply 309 of 552

    Tim Cook is just one of the many approving of the sin of homosexuality. You may say there is no God, but the bible says otherwise(john 3:18-21; Romans 1:20-28, 9:18-22, etc). While Tim Cook maybe accepted here on earth right now, he will go to hell when he dies, because the bible is clear homos go to hell. Also remember tim cook says being gay is a gift from god? On the contray it is not, it is a reprobate mind which God has given him(romans 1:26-28)

  • Reply 310 of 552
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member
    You wave libertarian slogans but you don't take their positions.
    Why would you support more State "freedom to decide"? By that, you mean give the State freedom to make more State laws. A libertarian would<span style="line-height:1.4em;"> argue that there are too many laws, because laws (at any level of government) reduce individual freedom. (Libertarians would also say laws are not necessary to grant freedoms because freedom is a right you have in the absence of law, therefore laws can only take away freedom).</span>

    Libertarians (except anarcho-captialists) also do not oppose civil lawsuits to resolve private disputes between individuals.
    And if you really believe in "live and let live" as a principle, you wouldn't tell someone to "move to another state" because shouldn't they be able to live and let live in that state?

    BTW, I'm not advocating libertarianism here. Just pointing out what I think are broad philosophical inconsistencies in your rant.

    I think the poster was merely pointing out that moving to another state is an option. California is a beautiful state, yet it is overwhelmingly liberal and progressive when it comes to elections, the net effect has been that the climate has become so hostile to so many businesses that they have fled the state for other states with fewer onerous regulations and risks to their operations. A person seeking greater personal freedoms could conceivably leave their state and move to New Hampshire to join the Free State Project.

    https://freestateproject.org

    Quite honestly, most people are unconcerned about liberty and personal freedom because they are dependent on public money for any number of reasons. I see people as "smart animals" (myself included, of course). This means that if a system exists that is designed to support the weak and the poor, that system will be gamed and taken advantage of by those whom are more devious and lean toward exploitation of weaknesses. I'd get rid of all social safety nets and have private charities take these functions over instead because state and federal government programs are 999 times out of 1,000 corrupt and ineffective and a waste of taxes.
  • Reply 311 of 552
    jfc1138jfc1138 Posts: 3,090member
    That law seems a rather straightforward violation of The Constitutions requirement for equal protection as established in the 14th Amendment, and that verysame amendment gives Congress the responsibility to enforce equal protection i.e. non-discrimination. And make no mistake a state law that protects people from discrimination lawsuits when they discriminate on the basis of religious bigotry or any other basis is going to fail that test.

    Fourteenth Amendment.

    "Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.

    Note: Article I, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 2 of the 14th amendment.

    Section 1.
    All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

    http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_amendments_11-27.html

    "Section 5.
    The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article"
  • Reply 312 of 552
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member
    jfc1138 wrote: »
    That law seems a rather straightforward violation of The Constitutions requirement for equal protection as established in the 14th Amendment, and that verysame amendment gives Congress the responsibility to enforce equal protection i.e. non-discrimination. And make no mistake a state law that protects people from discrimination lawsuits when they discriminate on the basis of religious bigotry or any other basis is going to fail that test.

    Fourteenth Amendment.

    "Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.

    Note: Article I, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 2 of the 14th amendment.

    Section 1.
    All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

    http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_amendments_11-27.html

    "Section 5.
    The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article"

    I think it's more a violation of the Establishment Clause, due to favoring and establishing a particular religion.
  • Reply 313 of 552
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by AaronJ View Post

     

     

    Go read Leviticus some day.  

     


     

    That's just it. They don't read the bible which is why they're so ignorant of it.

  • Reply 314 of 552
    foggyhill wrote: »
    Maybe I'd even get put in jail for slapping that passive aggressive silliness out of you if you said it in my face.... Yeah, there is freedom of saying outrageous things on the Internet (sic).

    Live and let live lets the poor, the sick, minorities, uneducated, the elderly and any powerless live and are trapped in abject poverty and die young; its the ultimate sociopath's fantasy. At the state and fed level, policies are a select few with actual keep all their money, which quickly piles up from generation to generation (you know, trickle down will help others...) while the poor and most of the middle class cannot pay for an education, barely scrapes by and eventually become even poorer.  That's been tried before and there's a reason why most of the top countries don't work that way anymore.

    It removes redistribution of wealth and ironically needs state enforcement to keep civil rights of any kind down (because that gay/black/jew/poor person who is not being served, may not take it so well), or just unrest from the downtrodden masses who don't know their place, or whose "life" cannot find a place to "live" anywhere (sic)... Were have we seen that before?

    The Jim Crow south were poverty reigned supreme except for a small minority and many totalitarian states ruled by an elite that's more free to "live their lives" than the rest.

    As for being LBGT, I got more judgemental crap from gay man than even from straight men, who at least didn't think they could patronizingly understand. me because they were gay....
    Hint, I'm not a gay man...

    BTW, I'm a Canadian who lived in the US for many years.  I've seen you're so called liberty up front, including a sexual assault by southern bigots 30 years ago (I guess it is because I dared pass through that town with a butch cut, hey I'm "reformed" I no longer have that haircut...), so you can spare me the American dream speech.

    I'm a middle class Canadian too, and I think that the government is the absolute LAST entity that should be picking my pockets to allegedly "help the unfortunate". I work hard, take care of my two daughters, volunteer at the local food bank. Why in hell do I want the government raising my taxes - for what? They have proven they are in it for the power and the money and they do not spend it as wisely as I spend my own money. Everywhere I turn I am blitzed with taxes, fees and paperwork.

    We murder millions of trees to keep accountants and tax lawyers in business, but liberals like you tell me I should be happy about this, because someone was bigoted towards you in the southern US?? Milking the rich and middle class at the threat of gunpoint and jail are going to make Alabamans appreciate your butch haircut? There is a massive logical disconnect with liberal philosophy.

    I know a lot of poor people who are selfish and insular. And I know rich people who are beyond generous, volunteering huge piles of time and money to help the less fortunate. Tim Cook is one of those people, although as a small shareholder I do not think he should be pandering to the militant PC crowd (yep, talking to you Foggyhill). Yes he has the right to do so, just as I have the right to criticize him for doing so.
  • Reply 315 of 552

    I just knew when I read the title to this thread where it would go.  Have to love AI.  This is much better than Fox or The Sun.  Tolerance people, tolerance.  But don't let me stop you, I'll come back in 48 hours and see if you've got to 500.

  • Reply 316 of 552
    muppetry wrote: »

    The free-market argument fails catastrophically anyway, by the simple observation that slavery and segregation thrived in a free-market USA before they were outlawed. Segregation was not ended by blacks taking their business elsewhere. 

    Actually it was. It's a common fallacy, but laws actually FOLLOW the social mood, and REFLECT the social mood, they do not create it. Check out Socionomics:

    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socioeconomics

    The Civil War was instigated on economic factors, not just racial... Race and slavery happened to define the differences between the economies of the North and South, but civil wars and revolutions happen for all kinds of secondary reasons AFTER economics.

    Studies show that blacks were gaining in employment and managerial positions both before and after the Civil Rights Act of 1964. There is scant evidence that the government actually helps people, or if it does it is always at the expense of other people. Civil Rights Act of 1964 is in my opinion a good law, but it's not the reason some blacks are doing better economically than they were before. It is an effect, and an encapsulation of the dominant social mood of the day, and not a cause.
  • Reply 317 of 552
    aaronjaaronj Posts: 1,595member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by allmypeople View Post

     

     

    That's just it. They don't read the bible which is why they're so ignorant of it.




    Truthiness.

  • Reply 318 of 552
    Have you ever complained about compulsory auto insurance? If not you found a problem in a creative way that never was important to you. I suspect you logic is warped by your prejudice or self interest.

    Are you kidding me? I complain about insurance because it's a racket and I have never been in an accident. Except for one time someone hit my unattended car which I left in a parking lot. I paid for the repairs myself, because the insurance companies SAY they won't raise your rates for something like that but they always find ways to raise the rates on everyone, good and bad drivers alike. They don't build their glass office towers in Toronto for free or by paying out in claims anything approaching the premiums they take in.
  • Reply 319 of 552
    solipsismy wrote: »
    So as an employee of Apple Tim Cook should forego everything about being a human being to focus solely on increasing Apple's profits? Does Tim Cook not get any free time to do as he pleases? Furthermore, standing up for the rights of others is not inherently political, nor is Tim Cook's desire for a more civility in the world done to curry favour with Washington or to sell more Apple products.

    No, I'm not taking it that far. I certainly respect his right to do as he pleases with his own spare time. But since I am his employer in a tiny way, as a tiny owner of the company, it's not my preference that he jumps on that particular bandwagon. I have no power over this except to express my displeasure.

    Why do I dislike it? Because he appears to on the side of government creep and more regulations, at least on this issue. EDIT: any time someone powerful says the government ought to do this or that to "help people" it's automatically suspect. Tim Cook can hire gays and promote them; he cannot and should not be trying to guilt bigots into doing the same or having the government force them to.

    I think discrimination against sexual orientation, race, religion or anything like those is abhorrent, but I do NOT believe the government should be meddling. Civil Rights Act 1964 - correct me if I'm wrong, but this was in reaction to LAWS that were AGAINST having blacks sharing the public accommodations as whites. In other words, there were LAWS prohibiting blacks from riding in the front of the bus, it wasn't just some people's opinion. So the previous laws were even more disgusting but again, the previous laws were yet another government intrusion that the majority of people eventually did not want (hence the laws were changed).

    According to Socionomics theory, the government is the ultimate follower and the ultimate crowd. All of this is white noise and chatter. Cook is scoring political points with almost everyone who isn't a hardcore conservative - not what I want my CEO doing - but again that's just one man's opinion.
  • Reply 320 of 552
    splifsplif Posts: 603member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by joseph_went_south View Post





    I'm a middle class Canadian too, and I think that the government is the absolute LAST entity that should be picking my pockets to allegedly "help the unfortunate". I work hard, take care of my two daughters, volunteer at the local food bank. Why in hell do I want the government raising my taxes - for what? They have proven they are in it for the power and the money and they do not spend it as wisely as I spend my own money. Everywhere I turn I am blitzed with taxes, fees and paperwork.



    We murder millions of trees to keep accountants and tax lawyers in business, but liberals like you tell me I should be happy about this, because someone was bigoted towards you in the southern US?? Milking the rich and middle class at the threat of gunpoint and jail are going to make Alabamans appreciate your butch haircut? There is a massive logical disconnect with liberal philosophy.



    I know a lot of poor people who are selfish and insular. And I know rich people who are beyond generous, volunteering huge piles of time and money to help the less fortunate. Tim Cook is one of those people, although as a small shareholder I do not think he should be pandering to the militant PC crowd (yep, talking to you Foggyhill). Yes he has the right to do so, just as I have the right to criticize him for doing so.

    http://www.nationofchange.org/utah-ending-homelessness-giving-people-homes-1390056183

Sign In or Register to comment.