Fox Business News apologizes after commentator calls Apple CEO Tim Cook a 'bigot'

145791014

Comments

  • Reply 121 of 276
    diegogdiegog Posts: 134member
    It is totally wrong to try to force people to accept something they don't beleive in. I'm glad we agree. Now if only all those so called Christians would stop doing that very thing and pushing their religion on everyone...
    boltsfan17 wrote: »

    How do religious beliefs, which have been around for thousands of years, make someone bigoted? It's more wrong to force someone to accept something they don't believe in. 
  • Reply 122 of 276
    muppetrymuppetry Posts: 3,331member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Boltsfan17 View Post

     
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AaronJ View Post

     



    I was attempting to explain that the majority of the population and the majority of states are two different things.  Anyways, it's irrelevant:

     




    Your quote is irrelevant. Only 3 states approved gay marriage by popular vote. 




    And your point is arguably disingenuous at best. Aside from the fact that counting state outcomes, especially when not all states put it to a popular vote, does not permit any conclusion on the national level of popular support, virtually all polls in recent years indicate clear popular support for gay marriage.

     

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_opinion_of_same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States

  • Reply 123 of 276
    diegogdiegog Posts: 134member
    Popular vote=/= Popular opinion.

    boltsfan17 wrote: »

    Hit it a little harder. The point I'm making is popular vote banned same sex marriage. Supreme Court rulings don't reflect the popular vote.
  • Reply 124 of 276
    muppetrymuppetry Posts: 3,331member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Boltsfan17 View Post

     
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

     



    Are you asking how it is being claimed that religious beliefs, per se, are bigoted? Because that's not what is being claimed at all. Beliefs, religious or otherwise, are not necessarily bigoted, and not necessarily not bigoted. In this case, the rights being asserted, under the umbrella of religious freedom, appear to permit bigotry. That is the issue.




    I think the liberal media is trying to make this law worse than it really is. Business owners have rights as well. If they don't want to serve a gay couple based on their religious beliefs, then so be it. Of course, many people will feel that is wrong but its just as wrong to force those business owners to accept something their beliefs don't. 




    Provided that you have no problem with busineses refusing to serve Christians, then your argument is, at least, consistent. But, under current law, that would be illegal, and hence so is refusing to serve other groups, whether religious or sex/gender based.

  • Reply 125 of 276
    aaronjaaronj Posts: 1,595member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Boltsfan17 View Post

     



    That makes no sense to what I said. Ratings mean everything to TV. If you don't like TV, that's a completely different issue. 




    Remember that a good deal of cable providers offer ONLY Fox News with the basic package.  I have two relatives who are in that situation.

  • Reply 126 of 276
    boltsfan17boltsfan17 Posts: 2,294member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by DiegoG View Post



    It is totally wrong to try to force people to accept something they don't beleive in. I'm glad we agree. Now if only all those so called Christians would stop doing that very thing and pushing their religion on everyone...

    I completely agree. People shouldn't be force to accept gay people, religions, etc. I can't stand people who push their religion upon others. I know many feel the Indiana law is wrong, but I think we are headed in a wrong direction forcing people to accept something their beliefs don't permit. Honestly, I think it would be awful for a gay couple to walk into a store and be denied services based on their sexual preference, but at the same time, I don't agree with forcing someone to go against their beliefs. Now the big question is, where do we draw the line or come to middle ground? 

  • Reply 127 of 276
    aaronjaaronj Posts: 1,595member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Boltsfan17 View Post

     

    I completely agree. People shouldn't be force to accept gay people, religions, etc. I can't stand people who push their religion upon others. I know many feel the Indiana law is wrong, but I think we are headed in a wrong direction forcing people to accept something their beliefs don't permit. Honestly, I think it would be awful for a gay couple to walk into a store and be denied services based on their sexual preference, but at the same time, I don't agree with forcing someone to go against their beliefs. Now the big question is, where do we draw the line or come to middle ground? 




    So, someone who won't serve Jews is just fine with you, then?

  • Reply 128 of 276
    boltsfan17boltsfan17 Posts: 2,294member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

     



    Provided that you have no problem with busineses refusing to serve Christians, then your argument is, at least, consistent. But, under current law, that would be illegal, and hence so is refusing to serve other groups, whether religious or sex/gender based.




    Actually, it isn't against federal law to refuse service based on sexual preference. 

  • Reply 129 of 276
    muppetrymuppetry Posts: 3,331member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Boltsfan17 View Post

     
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by DiegoG View Post



    It is totally wrong to try to force people to accept something they don't beleive in. I'm glad we agree. Now if only all those so called Christians would stop doing that very thing and pushing their religion on everyone...

    I completely agree. People shouldn't be force to accept gay people, religions, etc. I can't stand people who push their religion upon others. I know many feel the Indiana law is wrong, but I think we are headed in a wrong direction forcing people to accept something their beliefs don't permit. Honestly, I think it would be awful for a gay couple to walk into a store and be denied services based on their sexual preference, but at the same time, I don't agree with forcing someone to go against their beliefs. Now the big question is, where do we draw the line or come to middle ground? 




    That's the problem, in a nutshell. Legislative precedent says that we draw the line at businesses refusing to serve demographic classes. Arguing to move that line is fine, but may lead to the slippery slope back to widespread discrimination based on race, religion, gender or any number of other characteristics that the civil rights movement spent decades fighting.

  • Reply 130 of 276
    boltsfan17boltsfan17 Posts: 2,294member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by AaronJ View Post

     



    So, someone who won't serve Jews is just fine with you, then?




    I see your point with that question, but where do we draw the line? A religious defense wouldn't apply to denying service to Jews. 

  • Reply 131 of 276
    muppetrymuppetry Posts: 3,331member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Boltsfan17 View Post

     
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

     



    Provided that you have no problem with busineses refusing to serve Christians, then your argument is, at least, consistent. But, under current law, that would be illegal, and hence so is refusing to serve other groups, whether religious or sex/gender based.




    Actually, it isn't against federal law to refuse service based on sexual preference. 




    That's correct. Do you think it should be OK to refuse based on sexual preference, but not on religious preference?

  • Reply 132 of 276
    boltsfan17boltsfan17 Posts: 2,294member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by AaronJ View Post

     



    Remember that a good deal of cable providers offer ONLY Fox News with the basic package.  I have two relatives who are in that situation.




    I thought most offer CNN in basic packages as well. 

  • Reply 133 of 276
    aaronjaaronj Posts: 1,595member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Boltsfan17 View Post

     



    Actually, it isn't against federal law to refuse service based on sexual preference. 




    While that is true, it is against Federal executive orders and many regulations to deny LGBT rights in various situations.  So, it's more complicated than you're making it out to be.

  • Reply 134 of 276
    polymniapolymnia Posts: 1,077member
    boltsfan17 wrote: »

    I think the liberal media is trying to make this law worse than it really is. Business owners have rights as well. If they don't want to serve a gay couple based on their religious beliefs, then so be it. Of course, many people will feel that is wrong but its just as wrong to force those business owners to accept something their beliefs don't. 

    A couple generations ago some religions took a dim view of interracial marriage. For all I know, some fringe religions still do today. I think most modern Americans would agree that a 'no interracial couples' signs outside a restaraunt is NOT COOL.

    It's a slippery slope to permit discrimination based on religious belief to be expressed in the non-religious public space.

    Like you point out, both forcing uncomfortable interactions and manifesting bigotry are wrong. I feel it is less an injustice to grin and bear serving a customer you disagree with than to turn away a customer with all the social stigma that goes along with that. Who is going to be brought to tears as an outcome of these conflicts? At the end of the day, if there are two potentially harmed parties, I would choose to protect the party who stands to be harmed more. I have a hard time believing that a business owner being made uncomfortable dealing with a customer would be more harmed than the customer refused service because of who they are. But that is just the way I approach this issue.
  • Reply 135 of 276
    aaronjaaronj Posts: 1,595member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Boltsfan17 View Post

     



    I see your point with that question, but where do we draw the line? A religious defense wouldn't apply to denying service to Jews. 


     

    I draw the line where it obviously should be drawn.  I don't see how anyone (a sane person, anyways) could think that it's OK to discriminate against people based on sexual identity but not on religious grounds, or on race, or because of gender, etc.

     

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Boltsfan17 View Post

     



    I thought most offer CNN in basic packages as well. 




    Many don't.  I'll find the article later.

  • Reply 136 of 276
    jessijessi Posts: 302member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

     

    Having said that, it seems to me that the original law passed by Bill Clinton was also wrong at the time. Any establishment of or favor toward a particular religion is a violation of the Establishment Clause and it doesn't matter if one is in favor or against these things...they're all still unconstitutional and yet more dangerous precedent is set.


     

    I wish you-- and everyone else-- would actually read this law.

     

    It agrees with your position stated above.  It limits governments ability to violate the rights of religious people, by requiring the government to show a compelling need.   This is consistent iwht the first amendment and protects religion, it doesn't establish religion or favor religion. 

  • Reply 137 of 276
    swiftswift Posts: 436member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post



    Oh and by the way, in just 2 days over $800K has been raised by over 28,000 people in support of Memories Pizza. Tim Cook's viewpoint is NOT the majority viewpoint by a long shot. It's only a majority view point in the media, pop culture and tech echo chamber,

    No, it actually is the majority, which accepts gay marriage whether they like it or not. 

     

    I think the public looks at what yu guys are doing, and they say, "Cool it. They're just asking for a cake or flowers, this is what you make for everybody else. Make it for everybody." 

  • Reply 138 of 276
    boltsfan17boltsfan17 Posts: 2,294member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by AaronJ View Post

     



    While that is true, it is against Federal executive orders and many regulations to deny LGBT rights in various situations.  So, it's more complicated than you're making it out to be.




    I know federal law doesn't say sexual preference, but many states do include sexual preference. 

  • Reply 139 of 276
    peteopeteo Posts: 402member
    boltsfan17 wrote: »

    How do religious beliefs, which have been around for thousands of years, make someone bigoted? It's more wrong to force someone to accept something they don't believe in. 

    No one said you have to accept something you don't belive. Discrimination laws say you can't turn down service to people based on the persons race or orientation. This new law allows you to do that. As far as being a bigot, you are a bigot when you discriminate or think it's ok to discriminate because a persons race or orientation.
    There are allot of fairytales that have been around for throusands of years, I don't think I want to be forced the belive them.
  • Reply 140 of 276
    diegogdiegog Posts: 134member
    Correction: majority of voters voted...not majority of population.

    boltsfan17 wrote: »

    Why would I care what Jindal says? Bottom line, the majority of the population voted to ban same sex marriage. 
Sign In or Register to comment.