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

12223242527

Comments

  • Reply 521 of 551
    flaneurflaneur Posts: 4,526member
    zoetmb wrote: »

    You're free to accept and believe anything you want and you're free to join any religion that believes the same things that you do, but that has absolutely nothing to do with civil law.   That's what separation of church and state is all about.   I can't impose my religious views on you and you can't impose yours on me.    

    The difference between us is that you think that my opposing views somehow restrict your ability to practice your religion but I don't think your opposing views restrict my ability to practice my religion.    You want your beliefs imposed on all of society.   That's the problem I have with conservative Christians in the U.S.    They want their beliefs imposed on all of U.S. society.  

    In case you haven't noticed, there is an effort underway not to quote or even acknowledge the spoor of this entity.
  • Reply 522 of 551
    flaneurflaneur Posts: 4,526member
    jfc1138 wrote: »
    Sorry, marriage existed close to two thousand years BEFORE then as codified in Babylon by Hammurabi.
    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hammurabi_Code

    If you feel the need to defend the Christian WORD for "marriage" as the literal word? Then you need to dig up what that relationship is in Aramaic since modern English did not exist when the Catholic/Christian Church was forming and most definitely wasn't spoken by the founders: that would have been Aramaic, Hebrew and Greek.

    And here as well, no matter how good the argument, the entity B. Frost is only encouraged to prolong its existence here by any sort of attention. We've all tried to deal with it as if it were a reasonable human, with no success.
  • Reply 523 of 551
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

     



    Just curious - where do you see this "McCarthyism"? In that there is a widespread view that it is wrong to discriminate against citizens because of their sexual orientation? We should all be equally outraged by that, I'm sure. In fact, you are just using the common tactic of fantasizing a future for which there are no indicators simply to bolster your argument, or rather make up for your lack of one. 




    McCarthy thought he was fighting a great evil, too. And, like you, he didn't care who he destroyed in the process.

  • Reply 524 of 551
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Flaneur View Post





    Nice try. Your lurid fantasy projected on Walt Kelly, one of the true heroes of the McCarthy witch hunts, is a disgrace to his memory. You have no idea of the depths of his contempt for the sort of moral gamesmanship that you are displaying here.



    An example of what happened in real life: after segregation and discrimination on the basis of race began to be ameliorated by legislation in the 1960s, there was never any effort to round up and blacklist the former perpetrators of segregation, now was there? George Wallace continued on as governor, Bull Conner kept his job, klansmen were never prosecuted, and so on.



    Reactionaries are paranoid.



    Your post is dripping with irony. Kelly was well aware that witch hunts are not limited to the far right. You are a perfect example of what Allan Bloom pointed out -- a society's greatest madness is invisible to itself.

     

    If you don't like witch hunts, stop hunting for witches. It is that simple.

  • Reply 525 of 551
    muppetrymuppetry Posts: 3,331member
    cjcampbell wrote: »
    muppetry wrote: »
     


    Just curious - where do you see this "McCarthyism"? In that there is a widespread view that it is wrong to discriminate against citizens because of their sexual orientation? We should all be equally outraged by that, I'm sure. In fact, you are just using the common tactic of fantasizing a future for which there are no indicators simply to bolster your argument, or rather make up for your lack of one. 


    McCarthy thought he was fighting a great evil, too. And, like you, he didn't care who he destroyed in the process.

    I didn't ask what he thought, and I'm not fighting any great evil. Should I take your deflection and lack of response to my question as tacit admission that I'm right?
  • Reply 526 of 551
    zoetmbzoetmb Posts: 2,654member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by cjcampbell View Post

     



    McCarthy thought he was fighting a great evil, too. And, like you, he didn't care who he destroyed in the process.




    No he didn't truly believe he was fighting a great evil.   He just found something to "appeal to the base" and put his face in front of everyone and he latched onto it.   And the proof of that is when he screamed, "I have the names!", and held up a piece of paper, it was blank.    Don't forget that it was the U.S. army who went after McCarthy in court, not the ACLU or another group like it.   

  • Reply 527 of 551
    zoetmbzoetmb Posts: 2,654member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Flaneur View Post





    In case you haven't noticed, there is an effort underway not to quote or even acknowledge the spoor of this entity.



    I've frequently thought about not responding to any post dealing with politics, race, civil rights, etc., because one is never going to change anyone else's opinion.   In fact, arguing with someone frequently hardens their position.

     

    But on the other hand, I also feel that if we don't respond to such a post, we're leaving the impression that we endorse that position - or at the very least that we don't object to that position or the validity of holding such an opinion.    So let's say he posted that "only Christian marriage is true marriage and nothing else should be called marriage" and no one responded.   Wouldn't that leave the impression that everyone else who read it agreed?   I have a hard time letting posts like that go.    

  • Reply 528 of 551
    ipenipen Posts: 410member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by AaronJ View Post

     



    Are you from the US?  Because if so, then your understanding of the constitutional reality of this country is seriously messed up.  Let's say you own a restaurant.  You don't want to "associate" with black people.  Do you really think that you can ban black people from your restaurant?

     

    The fact is, the 800 lb. elephant in the room is this: These proposals (and now laws, like in Indiana) talk about "religious" people not wanting to serve "sinners."  Well, guess what?  A basic tenet of Christianity is that EVERYONE is a sinner.  So, in other words, if these merchants really lived up to their "beliefs" then they would serve NO ONE.  Adulterer?  No way.  Alcoholic?  Nope.  Someone who says, "God damn!" Uh-uh.  Anyone who has a tattoo?  That's not going to happen.

     

    Go read Leviticus some day.  

     

    Tim Cook is not only a good leader of Apple, he's a good man who believes in equality and, more importantly, people being decent to one and other.  It's sad that you can't understand that.


     

    People don't go around advertise that they're adulterers or alcoholics.  Do they?  

  • Reply 529 of 551
    ipenipen Posts: 410member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by AtlApple View Post

     

    It really doesn't matter if it's signed or not. It will be challenged in court and will be deemed unconstitutional. This has been a fairly clear trend and I'm not even sure why state legislatures even waste their time attempting to pass laws like this one. 

     

    Also Tim Cook is right Apple treats everyone the same, they will take your 17,000 for an Apple Watch no matter who you are. 


    Not treating the same to the poors.  Apple is discriminating those who can't come up with the dough and the homeless people too.  I saw a homeless person (by the look of him, shabby wardrobe, poor personal hygiene) trying to get into the Apple store but refused at the door.

  • Reply 530 of 551
    solipsismysolipsismy Posts: 5,099member
    ipen wrote: »
    People don't go around advertise that they're adulterers or alcoholics.  Do they?  

    Maybe they aren't overly proud of it but they do advertise. Alcoholics displaying public drunkenness are advertising and those looking for extra marital affairs are advertising. There is even an entire dating site for married people looking to have an affair.


    Oops, that' Ashley Magdalene, where you can find god's other match for you. Here's the right link…

  • Reply 531 of 551
    solipsismysolipsismy Posts: 5,099member
    ipen wrote: »
    Not treating the same to the poors.  Apple is discriminating those who can't come up with the dough and the homeless people too.  I saw a homeless person (by the look of him, shabby wardrobe, poor personal hygiene) trying to get into the Apple store but refused at the door.

    Just just stupid.
  • Reply 532 of 551
    solipsismy wrote: »
    ipen wrote: »
    Not treating the same to the poors.  Apple is discriminating those who can't come up with the dough and the homeless people too.  I saw a homeless person (by the look of him, shabby wardrobe, poor personal hygiene) trying to get into the Apple store but refused at the door.

    Just just stupid.

    I don't think it's stupid, but if you've got a problem with Apple turning away entry to their stores, just write to Cook. He wants to make it impossible to turn away the homeless from his stores, so maybe your letter will prompt him to act. Cook certainly doesn't seem to like bakers turning away custom, so he presumably doesn't like Apple turning away custom, either.
  • Reply 533 of 551
    aaronjaaronj Posts: 1,595member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ipen View Post

     

     

    People don't go around advertise that they're adulterers or alcoholics.  Do they?  




    Have you left your house in ... oh ... a decade or so?  Ever?

     

    Let me tell you a few things:

     

    -- Most people you encounter on a daily basis who are gay, you will never know it.  Heck, some people NEVER come out.  Gay people don't walk around wearing a sign reading, "I'm gay!"  Well, ok, occasionally.  Like if you are in a gay bar, there's a good chance that the guy next to you is  gay.  But in general?  No.

     

    -- As someone who is not only straight but drinks too much, far too often, I can tell you that I've "advertised" my drinking issues WAY more than my sexuality.  WAY, WAY more.

     

    -- Gay people don't hurt people (any more or less than the general population).  Alcoholics do, in myriad ways.  Do I really need to list them?

  • Reply 534 of 551
    aaronjaaronj Posts: 1,595member

    Oh, and so far (3:43 ET), AAPL is up 2.41%, or nearly $3.

     

    Damn, that Tim Cook!  

  • Reply 535 of 551
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by AaronJ View Post

     

    Oh, and so far (3:43 ET), AAPL is up 2.41%, or nearly $3.

     

    Damn, that Tim Cook!  




    I'd love to see it hit $140 by end of year.

  • Reply 536 of 551
    hmmhmm Posts: 3,405member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Benjamin Frost View Post





    I'm not trying to impose anything on anyone.



    I'm saying that marriage is unique to the Church and as such can only be regarded as marriage in the eyes of God. Therefore, there should be no such thing as civil marriage. If a man and woman wish to enter into some kind of legally binding partnership outside the Church, then that is up to them, but it isn't marriage.



    The term marriage should only be used to refer to Christian marriage.

     

    If you're going to troll these things, you should do better fact checking. Marriage predates churches and Christianity. In fact it held secular roots in many cultures.

  • Reply 537 of 551
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by muppetry View Post





    I didn't ask what he thought, and I'm not fighting any great evil. Should I take your deflection and lack of response to my question as tacit admission that I'm right?



    No you may not. However, I will take your non-response and refusal to acknowledge my answer as an admission that I am right.

  • Reply 538 of 551
    muppetrymuppetry Posts: 3,331member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by cjcampbell View Post

     
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by muppetry View Post





    I didn't ask what he thought, and I'm not fighting any great evil. Should I take your deflection and lack of response to my question as tacit admission that I'm right?



    No you may not. However, I will take your non-response and refusal to acknowledge my answer as an admission that I am right.




    My non-response to what? And, since you clearly didn't answer my question, what was there for me to acknowledge? You do realize, I assume, that there is an expectation that what you write should make at least some sense.

  • Reply 539 of 551
    aaronjaaronj Posts: 1,595member

    This is like bridge club with a bunch of old ladies.

     

    -- You didn't answer my question.

     

    -- Well you didn' answer mine first!

     

    -- What question?

     

    -- Are you going to bid or pass Martha?!

     

    -- I ... I ... I don't know!  I have to use the facilities.  Where's my walker?

     

    -- I thought Ralph took it!

     

     

    I mean, really?

  • Reply 540 of 551
    solipsismysolipsismy Posts: 5,099member
    [SIZE=7][I]Mahjong! [/I][/SIZE]
Sign In or Register to comment.