macky the macky wrote: »
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.
SpamSandwich wrote: »
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.
benjamin frost wrote: »
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.
joseph_went_south wrote: »
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.
SpamSandwich wrote: »
To be fair, there's plenty of intolerance in opposing camps for either respecting or simply ignoring personal opinions.
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.
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)
suddenly newton wrote: »
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.
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.
"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.
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."
The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article"
Go read Leviticus some day.
That's just it. They don't read the bible which is why they're so ignorant of it.
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 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.
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.
macnewsjunkie wrote: »
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.
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.