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 human right 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 beliefs you will understand. Popular opinion, and laws do not make something morally correct, just ask the Jews in Nazi Germany.
Instead of reading the Bible, how about we burn it and every religious book therein? Problem solved. /s
Tim Cook is clear in his [I]Washington Post[/I] editorial: discrimination is bad for business, and Apple is opposed to this kind of legislation because Apple stands for inclusivity, openness and acceptance of everyone, as fundamental to the way it does business.
So this isn't a personal campaign of his, it is a statement of an official company position. You guys have to stop separating Tim from Apple on this. This is the company warning that the ~100 bills before various legislatures are bad for Apple's business prospects.
Why would this company more than say John Deere or Caterpillar feel so compelled to oppose gender discrimination? Think of the nature of Apple's products and the business it's in. They are selling instruments for personal empowerment, knowledge and consciousness expansion, social hooking up, communicating, recording, broadcasting—tools of enlightenment.
Tim Cook and Apple [I]must[/I] take a stand against those who would legislate a backward retreat into ignorance. They have how many stores in Indiana? How many employees? Might they need to put a factory or data center there in their long-range plans? What if Ohio and Illinois, Kentucky and Wisconsin catch this regressive disease? The Apple Effect, social, creative and intellectual progress, begins to shred in huge patches across the US, places where the company can't be happy to open new stores or other facilities.
The problem isn't religion [I]per se[/I], I don't think, regardless of the atheist view, it's the antique and obsolete patriarchal puritanism that still encrusts the book-based Abrahamic "faiths." The anti-gay stuff needs to die away just like the burning of witches died, or racial proscriptions, or book burning.
<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>
People who support gay relationships would likely condemn relationships like the following:
Those were consenting adults (and heterosexual). In those cases and other unions there is evidence for there being a victim of their actions. Their children were born with medical problems. This wouldn't be the case in homosexual relationships as they can't conceive so incestuous homosexual relationships could be permissible.
As long as there's no victim and no harmful outcome possible, isn't that where we draw the line on what society should tolerate? The idea that there's a fixed male/female template doesn't hold up when you see overlaps happen all by themselves during natural birth. It's the only method of conception but life is more than conception and people writing books millennia ago based on limited understanding of the human body doesn't dictate modern convention.
When people talk about a lifestyle, the implication is that their sexuality is either purposely suppressing their true sexuality, which would be impossible for millions of people to do and without any gain or more likely that it is seen as a deviant sexuality like incest, where although the feelings exist, those people are expected to suppress them.
The outcome of suppressing feelings is that those people lead unhappy lives and in cases where they'll cause harm to others then it's seen as being justified. Homosexuality has never been demonstrated to harm anyone outside of those relationships, talking strictly about the relationship itself and not having children via surrogacy etc. The gay fashion designers Dolce and Gabbana recently said they didn't agree with gay parenthood:
That was despite Gabbana considering using a surrogate to father a child himself. There are areas that are going to be complicated but there are pretty clear indicators on what relationships are harmful so those will never be permissible as a result of accepting gay relationships.
The irony in cases like this, as I'm sure has been pointed out, is that religion is a lifestyle choice where being gay is not and people feel outraged when that lifestyle choice is not respected.
This is all bs and everyone is skirting the real point, lacing arguments with fluff, nonsense and distraction.
We live in a society in which there is a war between The free and open expression of one's complete sexual identity and "straight" culture. The men that tap their feet to the tune of getting down with their fellow bros in silence, vehemently oppose our society moving towards one that embraces, celebrates and reifies the open expression of ones complete sexuality and sexual desires, especially as they concern sexual relationships between men. They're afraid for themselves, they're afraid for their children, and they're afraid that their way of life is being threatened.
Whether or not you agree with the merits of each perspective, that is the reason -- fear.
So, have fun with all your word mongering and empty lip service, and start talking about the real issues.
I'd like see Tim separate his personal agenda from Apple. I'm not comfortable with how he is using Apple this way
TC isn't using his position to promote his personal agenda, he's using it to promote Apple policy and prevent harm to the company that could be caused by regressive legislation in the name of 'religious freedom'.
Being gay is not a choice. Like the color of one's skin. Your analogy sucks.
What does that have to do with anything? And this is about gay marriage which is a choice. No one is being discriminated against just because they're gay.
TC isn't using his position to promote his personal agenda, he's using it to promote Apple policy and prevent harm to the company that could be caused by regressive legislation in the name of 'religious freedom'.
Tim Cook is clear in his Washington Post editorial: discrimination is bad for business, and Apple is opposed to this kind of legislation because Apple stands for inclusivity, openness and acceptance of everyone, as fundamental to the way it does business.
So this isn't a personal campaign of his, it is a statement of an official company position. You guys have to stop separating Tim from Apple on this. This is the company warning that the ~100 bills before various legislatures are bad for Apple's business prospects.
Why would this company more than say John Deere or Caterpillar feel so compelled to oppose gender discrimination? Think of the nature of Apple's products and the business it's in. They are selling instruments for personal empowerment, knowledge and consciousness expansion, social hooking up, communicating, recording, broadcasting—tools of enlightenment.
Tim Cook and Apple must take a stand against those who would legislate a backward retreat into ignorance. They have how many stores in Indiana? How many employees? Might they need to put a factory or data center there in their long-range plans? What if Ohio and Illinois, Kentucky and Wisconsin catch this regressive disease? The Apple Effect, social, creative and intellectual progress, begins to shred in huge patches across the US, places where the company can't be happy to open new stores or other facilities.
The problem isn't religion per se, I don't think, regardless of the atheist view, it's the antique and obsolete patriarchal puritanism that still encrusts the book-based Abrahamic "faiths." The anti-gay stuff needs to die away just like the burning of witches died, or racial proscriptions, or book burning.
Good grief. Apple sells consumer electronics. Me thinks you've drank a bit too much kool-aid. What "tools of enlightenment" does Apple offer that no one else does?
Cook doesn't speak for Apple. I am an Apple shareholder and am deeply disappointed by Cook's attack on the values that America hold dear, above all, freedom.
I surmise that Cook can see that his end is near and is grooming his successor. These inglorious outbursts of twitterry are his last gasp of the politicisation of Apple in readiness for his new career as a politician when he shortly leaves Apple.
Apple Watch coming? Who cares? It's all about paranoia with Cook. His motto is: Let's keep shifting the topic away from Apple's products (because the ones coming are not our best) and focus on how much intolerance we can show our non-liberal neighbours.
Remember your Baptist teaching, Tim: Love thy neighbour.
What stops a store in a state with these laws from refusing to serve me? All they have to say is that they think I'm gay? The real reason could be because I was a Jew, or black, or Muslim, or a hippie, or any other bigoted excuse. It allows blatant discrimination against any person, even without any proof of supposed gay behavior.
By clicking on this box you agree to Apple inc terms and conditions and warrant that you will not use this product in connection with, or to in any way facilitate the conduct of a business which discriminates against anyone on the grounds of religious beliefs, race or sexual orientation. ?
Cook doesn't speak for Apple. I am an Apple shareholder and am deeply disappointed by Cook's attack on the values that America hold dear, above all, freedom.
Apple has always been a socially liberal company. Didn't you do your research before investing?
Cook doesn't speak for Apple. I am an Apple shareholder and am deeply disappointed by Cook's attack on the values that America hold dear, above all, freedom.
I surmise that Cook can see that his end is near and is grooming his successor. These inglorious outbursts of twitterry are his last gasp of the politicisation of Apple in readiness for his new career as a politician when he shortly leaves Apple.
Apple Watch coming? Who cares? It's all about paranoia with Cook. His motto is: Let's keep shifting the topic away from Apple's products (because the ones coming are not our best) and focus on how much intolerance we can show our non-liberal neighbours.
Remember your Baptist teaching, Tim: Love thy neighbour.
Your last sentence - a level of gobsmacking hypocrisy only reachable through religious belief.
Apple has always been a socially liberal company. Didn't you do your research before investing?
He wants the gay man to shut up and concentrate his efforts on making him richer so he can go around dragging his moral knuckles on the ground in financial comfort.
Comments
(And redneck on white trash sex, is clearly unnatural and should be made illegal.)
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 human right 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 beliefs you will understand. Popular opinion, and laws do not make something morally correct, just ask the Jews in Nazi Germany.
Instead of reading the Bible, how about we burn it and every religious book therein? Problem solved. /s
The iPhone is bigger than Jesus.
The iPhone is bigger than Jesus.
And Muhammed.
So this isn't a personal campaign of his, it is a statement of an official company position. You guys have to stop separating Tim from Apple on this. This is the company warning that the ~100 bills before various legislatures are bad for Apple's business prospects.
Why would this company more than say John Deere or Caterpillar feel so compelled to oppose gender discrimination? Think of the nature of Apple's products and the business it's in. They are selling instruments for personal empowerment, knowledge and consciousness expansion, social hooking up, communicating, recording, broadcasting—tools of enlightenment.
Tim Cook and Apple [I]must[/I] take a stand against those who would legislate a backward retreat into ignorance. They have how many stores in Indiana? How many employees? Might they need to put a factory or data center there in their long-range plans? What if Ohio and Illinois, Kentucky and Wisconsin catch this regressive disease? The Apple Effect, social, creative and intellectual progress, begins to shred in huge patches across the US, places where the company can't be happy to open new stores or other facilities.
The problem isn't religion [I]per se[/I], I don't think, regardless of the atheist view, it's the antique and obsolete patriarchal puritanism that still encrusts the book-based Abrahamic "faiths." The anti-gay stuff needs to die away just like the burning of witches died, or racial proscriptions, or book burning.
People who support gay relationships would likely condemn relationships like the following:
http://www.inquisitr.com/1958694/woman-jailed-on-incest-charges-after-having-two-children-with-her-biological-father/
Those were consenting adults (and heterosexual). In those cases and other unions there is evidence for there being a victim of their actions. Their children were born with medical problems. This wouldn't be the case in homosexual relationships as they can't conceive so incestuous homosexual relationships could be permissible.
As long as there's no victim and no harmful outcome possible, isn't that where we draw the line on what society should tolerate? The idea that there's a fixed male/female template doesn't hold up when you see overlaps happen all by themselves during natural birth. It's the only method of conception but life is more than conception and people writing books millennia ago based on limited understanding of the human body doesn't dictate modern convention.
When people talk about a lifestyle, the implication is that their sexuality is either purposely suppressing their true sexuality, which would be impossible for millions of people to do and without any gain or more likely that it is seen as a deviant sexuality like incest, where although the feelings exist, those people are expected to suppress them.
The outcome of suppressing feelings is that those people lead unhappy lives and in cases where they'll cause harm to others then it's seen as being justified. Homosexuality has never been demonstrated to harm anyone outside of those relationships, talking strictly about the relationship itself and not having children via surrogacy etc. The gay fashion designers Dolce and Gabbana recently said they didn't agree with gay parenthood:
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/mar/15/elton-john-leading-lgbt-groups-dolce-gabbana-boycott
That was despite Gabbana considering using a surrogate to father a child himself. There are areas that are going to be complicated but there are pretty clear indicators on what relationships are harmful so those will never be permissible as a result of accepting gay relationships.
The irony in cases like this, as I'm sure has been pointed out, is that religion is a lifestyle choice where being gay is not and people feel outraged when that lifestyle choice is not respected.
We live in a society in which there is a war between The free and open expression of one's complete sexual identity and "straight" culture. The men that tap their feet to the tune of getting down with their fellow bros in silence, vehemently oppose our society moving towards one that embraces, celebrates and reifies the open expression of ones complete sexuality and sexual desires, especially as they concern sexual relationships between men. They're afraid for themselves, they're afraid for their children, and they're afraid that their way of life is being threatened.
Whether or not you agree with the merits of each perspective, that is the reason -- fear.
So, have fun with all your word mongering and empty lip service, and start talking about the real issues.
What about religious freedom? What if people truly believe marriage us between a man and wife?
I'd like see Tim separate his personal agenda from Apple. I'm not comfortable with how he is using Apple this way
TC isn't using his position to promote his personal agenda, he's using it to promote Apple policy and prevent harm to the company that could be caused by regressive legislation in the name of 'religious freedom'.
https://www.apple.com/diversity/
What does that have to do with anything? And this is about gay marriage which is a choice. No one is being discriminated against just because they're gay.
What harm comes to Apple because a bakery doesn't have to bake a wedding cake for two lesbians? It's ridiculous.
Good grief. Apple sells consumer electronics. Me thinks you've drank a bit too much kool-aid. What "tools of enlightenment" does Apple offer that no one else does?
What harm comes to Apple because a bakery doesn't have to bake a wedding cake for two lesbians? It's ridiculous.
Don't be so simplistic.
This law will cause discrimination against Apple customers and harm Apple's ability to attract and retain employees.
To think there will be no harm to business as a result of this law is naive to the extreme.
Cook doesn't speak for Apple. I am an Apple shareholder and am deeply disappointed by Cook's attack on the values that America hold dear, above all, freedom.
I surmise that Cook can see that his end is near and is grooming his successor. These inglorious outbursts of twitterry are his last gasp of the politicisation of Apple in readiness for his new career as a politician when he shortly leaves Apple.
Apple Watch coming? Who cares? It's all about paranoia with Cook. His motto is: Let's keep shifting the topic away from Apple's products (because the ones coming are not our best) and focus on how much intolerance we can show our non-liberal neighbours.
Remember your Baptist teaching, Tim: Love thy neighbour.
By clicking on this box you agree to Apple inc terms and conditions and warrant that you will not use this product in connection with, or to in any way facilitate the conduct of a business which discriminates against anyone on the grounds of religious beliefs, race or sexual orientation. ?
Cook doesn't speak for Apple. I am an Apple shareholder and am deeply disappointed by Cook's attack on the values that America hold dear, above all, freedom.
Apple has always been a socially liberal company. Didn't you do your research before investing?
Here we go again. ????
Cook doesn't speak for Apple. I am an Apple shareholder and am deeply disappointed by Cook's attack on the values that America hold dear, above all, freedom.
I surmise that Cook can see that his end is near and is grooming his successor. These inglorious outbursts of twitterry are his last gasp of the politicisation of Apple in readiness for his new career as a politician when he shortly leaves Apple.
Apple Watch coming? Who cares? It's all about paranoia with Cook. His motto is: Let's keep shifting the topic away from Apple's products (because the ones coming are not our best) and focus on how much intolerance we can show our non-liberal neighbours.
Remember your Baptist teaching, Tim: Love thy neighbour.
Your last sentence - a level of gobsmacking hypocrisy only reachable through religious belief.
Apple has always been a socially liberal company. Didn't you do your research before investing?
He wants the gay man to shut up and concentrate his efforts on making him richer so he can go around dragging his moral knuckles on the ground in financial comfort.