Cook says discriminatory 'religious freedom' laws are dangerous, calls for action

2456725

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 492

    Are -you- honestly so naive as to believe that gay marriage will not lead to polygamy (as throughout the Middle East), incest, man-boy love (Allan Ginsburg) and so on?  

     

    Same- sex marriage supporters have denied for years that gay marriage is comparable to incest or polygamy – even though common sense tells the rest of us that same sex unions are the “gateway lifestyle” for legalizing other, more perverse unions.

    Polyamory (unions that include polygamists, multi couples, swingers, etc) has deep left-wing roots. Polyamorists based their lifestyle on tenets of “free love” - utopian, New Age, with deep roots to modern American feminist movement.

    Anita Wagner Illig of the Practical Polyamory website (who is a polyamorous-relationships advocate) wrote, “Legalizing same-sex marriage creates a legal precedent where there can be no valid legal premise for denying marriage to more than two people who wish to marry each other…”

    The problem is that marriage isn't for primarily for the married couple. Marriage in the normal sense, the historical sense, even the polygamist sense,  is to foster the best environment and to protect the interests of innocent children.  

    http://www.frc.org/issuebrief/new-study-on-homosexual-parents-tops-all-previous-research

  • Reply 22 of 492
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by photoshop59 View Post

     

    Are -you- honestly so naive as to believe that gay marriage will not lead to polygamy (as throughout the Middle East), incest, man-boy love (Allan Ginsburg) and so on?  

     

    Same- sex marriage supporters have denied for years that gay marriage is comparable to incest or polygamy – even though common sense tells the rest of us that same sex unions are the “gateway lifestyle” for legalizing other, more perverse unions.

    Polyamory (unions that include polygamists, multi couples, swingers, etc) has deep left-wing roots. Polyamorists based their lifestyle on tenets of “free love” - utopian, New Age, with deep roots to modern American feminist movement.

    Anita Wagner Illig of the Practical Polyamory website (who is a polyamorous-relationships advocate) wrote, “Legalizing same-sex marriage creates a legal precedent where there can be no valid legal premise for denying marriage to more than two people who wish to marry each other…”

    The problem is that marriage isn't for primarily for the married couple. Marriage in the normal sense, the historical sense, even the polygamist sense,  is to foster the best environment and to protect the interests of innocent children.  

    http://www.frc.org/issuebrief/new-study-on-homosexual-parents-tops-all-previous-research




    Oh, good Lord.  There really, really is no hope for you.  Quoting the Family Research Council is proof enough.  

     

    Go back into your cave.  It's less dangerous in there.  

  • Reply 23 of 492
    darkpawdarkpaw Posts: 212member

    Posting text and a link from the Family Research Council? Well, that can't possibly be biased...

  • Reply 24 of 492
    leeroyleeroy Posts: 27member
    This is a great thing for Tim Cook to stand up for, and he would do it wether he was gay or not. He is doing it because his company has the power to make a point known and be a positive leader against discrimination.

    Religious 'freedom' is not FREEDOM. Anyone supporting this law is backward and I am worried for your mental wellbeing. Religious Americans often amaze me with their scale of ignorance. Religion is a choice, sexuality is not. Wake up. If you chose to be Christian, it doesn't give you the right to discriminate against others.

    Allowing religious groups to discriminate based on religious grounds is abhorrent. Anyone who thinks this is ok has something seriously wrong with them. Religion is nothing but a virus, most easily affecting the lesser educated.

    I would like to ask those Christians supporting this law how they'd feel about allowing Sharia law ( or any other religious doctrine) being able to conduct their own "religious freedoms" in your city?
    Is it then ok for beheading or stoning because it's protected under a 'Freedom of religion' law?

    I'd think not.
  • Reply 25 of 492
    frankiefrankie Posts: 380member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by 9secondko View Post



    And here I thought Apple was about great computing products.



    But now someone of a fairly recent rise in capitalistic power wants to force his beliefs down the throats of Americans and urges the f feral government to break from one of the few things that keeps them in check by overriding a state matter?



    No tim. I respect your business acumen. And you seem to be a nice guy. But this is wrong. You are a gay man. I get it. But seriously, you have It backwards. Please stay out of politics.



    Tim is ok with people of a particular persuasion having their way OVER RELIGIOUS FREEDOM. one of the reasons Columbus set sail to begin with and I'm not ok ith that. And neither should any other American.



    If you want to be gay, fine. It's not illegal. But don't use politics to violate religion by forcing your way into a church job "or else." Or taking your same sex partner to a bed and breakfast operated by a religious owner.



    Glad for these laws. If not for them, religious freedom in this country (one of the only places it exists in the world) would soon be a thing of the past. A few powerful people thinking their personal lifestyles should be given the favoritism to trample on others even stronger religious values is as selfish and draconian as can be.



    Your religious freedom doesn't trump others' freedoms and rights.  Period. 



    My BS religion says I won't sell my products to idiot backwards religious nutjobs.  You cool with that?

  • Reply 26 of 492
    rogifanrogifan Posts: 10,669member
    We wouldn't have these laws if it wasn't for the militant gays forcing gay marriage down everyone's throats. This all came about in Indiana because owners of a bakery that have a moral objection to gay marriage politely refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple. It was well knowing that this bakery was owned by a very religious couple. This gay couple was steered to this bakery by the local LGBT community. And when the bakery politely refused to bake them a wedding cake the LGBT community started a smear campaign against the bakery which then decided to close.

    Here's a question I have for Tim Cook: say you're a graphc designer and one of your services is logo designs for businesses. Let's also say you're a vegan. OK now let's say a butcher contacts you to design a logo for his new butcher shop. He has no idea you're a vegan. He just knows via word of mouth or the Internet that you do a good job for a fair price. Should you be forced to design the logo for this butcher shop or should you have the right to politely decline citing your moral objections to meat eating and butcher shops? In Tim Cook's world you would be required to perform the service because not doing so would be discriminating against the butcher. How in the world does that make any sense?
  • Reply 27 of 492
    rogifanrogifan Posts: 10,669member
    Once the bigots and ideologues join in, this thread will quickly go in pointless circles.

    They're already here. Liberals are the most ideological and intolerant people I know.
  • Reply 28 of 492
    moreckmoreck Posts: 187member
    [SIZE=14px]Are -you- honestly so naive as to believe that gay marriage will not lead to polygamy (as throughout the Middle East), incest, man-boy love (Allan Ginsburg) and so on?  [/SIZE]

    <p style="clear:none;color:rgb(0,0,0);margin-bottom:11px;">[SIZE=14px]<span style="line-height:1.4em;">Same- sex marriage supporters have denied for years that gay marriage is comparable to incest or polygamy – even though common sense tells the rest of us that same sex unions are the “gateway lifestyle” for legalizing other, more perverse unions.</span>
    [/SIZE]</p>

    <p style="clear:none;color:rgb(0,0,0);margin-bottom:11px;">[SIZE=14px]Polyamory (unions that include polygamists, multi couples, swingers, etc) has deep left-wing roots. Polyamorists based their lifestyle on tenets of “free love” - utopian, New Age, with deep roots to modern American feminist movement.[/SIZE]</p>

    <p style="clear:none;color:rgb(0,0,0);margin-bottom:11px;">[SIZE=14px]Anita Wagner Illig of the Practical Polyamory website (who is a polyamorous-relationships advocate) wrote, “<strong style="font-size:16px;font-style:normal;line-height:1.4em;">Legalizing same-sex marriage creates a legal precedent where there can be no valid legal premise for denying marriage to more than two people who wish to marry each other…”</strong>
    [/SIZE]</p>

    <p style="clear:none;color:rgb(0,0,0);margin-bottom:11px;">[SIZE=14px]The problem is that marriage isn't for primarily for the married couple. Marriage in the normal sense, the historical sense, even the polygamist sense,  is to foster the best environment and to protect the interests of innocent children.  [/SIZE]</p>

    <p style="clear:none;color:rgb(0,0,0);margin-bottom:11px;">[SIZE=14px]http://www.frc.org/issuebrief/new-study-on-homosexual-parents-tops-all-previous-research[/SIZE]</p>

    Excellent job trolling! For a brief moment, I thought it was an earnest post, and not the satire it so obviously is.
  • Reply 29 of 492
    koopkoop Posts: 337member
    Good lord. It's the ol slippery slope argument. I'm going to bang my head against the wall.

    I'm pleading with Tim Cook to get so active about this issue that every bigot leaves apple.
  • Reply 30 of 492
    ecatsecats Posts: 272member

    There seems to be some confusion in this thread about what the US constitution(1st&14th Amendments) and what 'religious freedom' allows for.

     

    Boiled down it means you can worship the god of your choosing without interference from the government.

     

    This doesn't mean that you can impact others with your religious views. This law has nothing to do with who you worship. Secondly the bible's teachings (as we're really talking about christianity here) put forth numerous examples of embracing others. One needn't search for long to find examples of Jesus embracing prostitutes, the poor and lepers/the sick. Thus following Christianity would really have one embracing others, not discriminating against them.

     

    Indeed this law relies on people having never read anything of the bible, and instead embracing an entirely make-believe version of Christianity.

    Plus there are so many ways that this law can be abused beyond the GLBT community that it's exceptional that anyone would sign it into law.

  • Reply 31 of 492
    koopkoop Posts: 337member
    rogifan wrote: »
    We wouldn't have these laws if it wasn't for the militant gays forcing gay marriage down everyone's throats. This all came about in Indiana because owners of a bakery that have a moral objection to gay marriage politely refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple. It was well knowing that this bakery was owned by a very religious couple. This gay couple was steered to this bakery by the local LGBT community. And when the bakery politely refused to bake them a wedding cake the LGBT community started a smear campaign against the bakery which then decided to close.

    Here's a question I have for Tim Cook: say you're a graphc designer and one of your services is logo designs for businesses. Let's also say you're a vegan. OK now let's say a butcher contacts you to design a logo for his new butcher shop. He has no idea you're a vegan. He just knows via word of mouth or the Internet that you do a good job for a fair price. Should you be forced to design the logo for this butcher shop or should you have the right to politely decline citing your moral objections to meat eating and butcher shops? In Tim Cook's world you would be required to perform the service because not doing so would be discriminating against the butcher. How in the world does that make any sense?

    Being gay is not a choice. Like the color of one's skin. Your analogy sucks.
  • Reply 32 of 492
    robin huberrobin huber Posts: 3,585member
    Freedom of religion gives you the right to believe any damn fool thing you want. It doesn't give you the right to impose those beliefs on the rest of us. If you want to act on your beliefs, do it in a place and in a way that doesn't take rights away from others. A cloister might be a good place to practice spiritual purity, if you want to be a part of the larger society you must modify your practice to accomodate others.
  • Reply 33 of 492
    quadra 610quadra 610 Posts: 6,756member
  • Reply 34 of 492
    singularitysingularity Posts: 1,328member
    It's nice to see people still insist on the right to discriminate against others in the guise of "freedom".

    At least topics like this brings out the bigots and those who can't even read the book they profess structures and rules there lives.
  • Reply 35 of 492
    charelcharel Posts: 93member

    But now someone of a fairly recent rise in capitalistic power wants to force his beliefs down the throats of Americans and urges the federal government to break from one of the few things that keeps them in check by overriding a state matter?

     

     

    The only ones to force something down the throats of Americans are those claiming religious exception. They are those that hide behind state rights to force their beliefs on others. Have you ever heard of the part of the constitution where religion and state are separated? It means that the state can legislate anything irrespective of the religious beliefs of those that belong to the myriad of religions in the country.

     

    Tim Cook was right to warn the country of the danger it faces by giving in to the small mindedness of those states that enshrine discrimination under the religious beliefs of a portion of the inhabitants.

  • Reply 36 of 492
    richlrichl Posts: 2,213member

    Tim has the right to free speech, just like all Americans. Don't like it? Take your money elsewhere.

  • Reply 37 of 492
    clemynxclemynx Posts: 1,517member
    Cook would tell Quakers that they need to pick up an M-16 and go and kill people, denying their historical rights around the world , their right to conscientious objection.

    The idea of religion based conscientious objection has existed since the incorporation of forced military service but was not officially recognized until the twentieth century, when it was gradually recognized as a fundamental <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_right" style="background-image:none;color:rgb(11,0,128);" target="_blank" title="Human right">human right</a>
     as a part of the freedom of conscience.

    ?Sorry Tim, a lot of people love you but we don't sanction that you can every be 'married' since man on man, man on boy, men on dogs, one man and 10 women, are just something that a lot of us do not feel is normal human behavior, and as such, should not be encouraged, read your bible, and accept the wisdom therein. Tim, do you believe the idea that just because you 'love' ten people you could marry all of them?

    When you are forced to do something against your <span style="line-height:22.399999618530273px;">beliefs you will understand.  Popular opinion, and laws do not make something morally correct, just ask the Jews in Nazi Germany.</span>

    Your comparison of man to man marriage with mariage with a dog is disturbing. You should also learn the definition of the word "normal". Finally, mariage isn't natural, or show me an animal that marries.
  • Reply 38 of 492
    kryptokrypto Posts: 1member

    Tim has the right like any other American to speak his views. I mean, if you disagree with him, why don't you pen your own Op Ed piece and submit it for publication.

    Secondly, from a religious perspective, just about all deities ask their followers to accept all as they are. I have a christian upbringing and last time I checked the Messiah hang out with some very shifty characters. But that did not ruin his beliefs and it certainly endeared these folks to his doctrine. Step back and smell the coffee, these people you discriminate could be your kids, sons in law, daughters in law and your doctor before you know it. What will happen when the fireman refuses to rescue you because you were a bigot, or the EMT refuses to resuscitate you because you are a racist.. 

     

    Love everybody because if you want your religion to grow, you are better of using love instead of hate!

  • Reply 39 of 492
    clemynxclemynx Posts: 1,517member
    9secondko wrote: »
    And here I thought Apple was about great computing products.

    But now someone of a fairly recent rise in capitalistic power wants to force his beliefs down the throats of Americans and urges the f feral government to break from one of the few things that keeps them in check by overriding a state matter?

    No tim. I respect your business acumen. And you seem to be a nice guy. But this is wrong. You are a gay man. I get it. But seriously, you have It backwards. Please stay out of politics.

    Tim is ok with people of a particular persuasion having their way OVER RELIGIOUS FREEDOM. one of the reasons Columbus set sail to begin with and I'm not ok ith that. And neither should any other American.

    If you want to be gay, fine. It's not illegal. But don't use politics to violate religion by forcing your way into a church job "or else." Or taking your same sex partner to a bed and breakfast operated by a religious owner.

    Glad for these laws. If not for them, religious freedom in this country (one of the only places it exists in the world) would soon be a thing of the past. A few powerful people thinking their personal lifestyles should be given the favoritism to trample on others even stronger religious values is as selfish and draconian as can be.

    Religious freedom doesnt exist. By following a religion you abandon your own freedom, pretending that you need more is contradictory. Religions are for the ignorants and the State should stop pretending that they are something to be defended. Religions have always hindered progress. Believers are just that, they believe something just because, that may be the definition of delusion. Freedom is the liberty to say to someone that what they preach is idiotic and that they can apply their arbitrary rules in their homes, but certainly not in public places.
  • Reply 40 of 492
    clemynxclemynx Posts: 1,517member
    [SIZE=14px]Are -you- honestly so naive as to believe that gay marriage will not lead to polygamy (as throughout the Middle East), incest, man-boy love (Allan Ginsburg) and so on?  [/SIZE]

    <p style="clear:none;color:rgb(0,0,0);margin-bottom:11px;">[SIZE=14px]<span style="line-height:1.4em;">Same- sex marriage supporters have denied for years that gay marriage is comparable to incest or polygamy – even though common sense tells the rest of us that same sex unions are the “gateway lifestyle” for legalizing other, more perverse unions.</span>
    [/SIZE]</p>

    <p style="clear:none;color:rgb(0,0,0);margin-bottom:11px;">[SIZE=14px]Polyamory (unions that include polygamists, multi couples, swingers, etc) has deep left-wing roots. Polyamorists based their lifestyle on tenets of “free love” - utopian, New Age, with deep roots to modern American feminist movement.[/SIZE]</p>

    <p style="clear:none;color:rgb(0,0,0);margin-bottom:11px;">[SIZE=14px]Anita Wagner Illig of the Practical Polyamory website (who is a polyamorous-relationships advocate) wrote, “<strong style="font-size:16px;font-style:normal;line-height:1.4em;">Legalizing same-sex marriage creates a legal precedent where there can be no valid legal premise for denying marriage to more than two people who wish to marry each other…”</strong>
    [/SIZE]</p>

    <p style="clear:none;color:rgb(0,0,0);margin-bottom:11px;">[SIZE=14px]The problem is that marriage isn't for primarily for the married couple. Marriage in the normal sense, the historical sense, even the polygamist sense,  is to foster the best environment and to protect the interests of innocent children.  [/SIZE]</p>

    <p style="clear:none;color:rgb(0,0,0);margin-bottom:11px;">[SIZE=14px]http://www.frc.org/issuebrief/new-study-on-homosexual-parents-tops-all-previous-research[/SIZE]</p>

    I don't see why gay marriage is promoting incest mariages more than, you know, mariage.
Sign In or Register to comment.