Apple CEO Tim Cook celebrates Supreme Court decision on gay marriage with quote from Steve Jobs

2456715

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 291
    slurpyslurpy Posts: 5,382member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by TheWhiteFalcon View Post



    Shame on Cook for politicizing the Think Different campaign.

     

    If you understood anything about Tim, you would know that he deeply believes this issue has absolutely nothing to do with "politics", but human rights. But of course, you don't get that, and never will. Tim has cherished and expanded Tim's legacy, and understands, as you do not, that that Steve's philosophy on "think different" applied to much more than computers, painfully obvious from the 1984 ad. It's sad that you're utterly blind to this level of obviousness. 

     

    I'm a heterosexual, have no gay friends, and I've never, and will never march in gay pride parade. But unlike you, I'm happy to see others get the SAME rights as I have, without trying to restrict their actions by shoving my beliefs and morals down their throats. The legalization of gay marriage will positively affect many, and will not negatively affect me in the slightest. I think one has to be insanely selfish and mean-spirited to viciously fight against something like that. If anything, a big shame on you. Nothing that Tim Cook has said or done has ever harmed you, yet, you have no problem harming and restricting others based on your personal beliefs. 

  • Reply 22 of 291
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by MacHarry de View Post



    Oh dear. Is Apple for Tech or for Gay's?

    I do not understand the CEO communication.



    Ignoring the fact that Tim is gay, why is one who is for equality necessarily "for gays"? Lots of people who aren't LGTG are pro-equality and every adult human having the right to marry/join another adult human. This last part is head off all the people who are just waiting to ask, what about extending this to children, other species, etc?

     

    Btw, one can be "for" many things in one's life, not just one thing.

  • Reply 23 of 291
    rogifanrogifan Posts: 10,669member
    Shame on Cook for politicizing the Think Different campaign.

    And AI for deleting posts critical of it (this IS my last post in this thread).
  • Reply 24 of 291
    mdriftmeyermdriftmeyer Posts: 7,503member
    Steve wrote those words to reflect the Rainbow that was NeXT and is Apple to this day. Don't speak about Cook politicizing something you know nothing about.
  • Reply 25 of 291
    zoetmbzoetmb Posts: 2,654member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by prokip View Post



    All, (not some) developed civilisations in history (the Babylonians, Persian, Greeks, Romans etc etc) collapsed one sexual craziness became the norm.



    God save America!



    We have plenty of "sexual craziness" with or without gay marriage or even gays.   Heterosexual pornography is one of the largest industries in the U.S., and sex still sells tons of products.    The hetereosexual divorce rate in the U.S. is above 50% and a large percentage of those divorces are because of adultery.   lf civilizations do fall apart because of "sexual craziness" (which I don't happen to believe - it's war and economics that killed most nations), gay marriage rights have nothing to do with it.

  • Reply 26 of 291
    boozerboozer Posts: 19member
    Well done Supreme Court, it always take a long time but America eventually lives up to its promise. Please remember marriage is a legal arrangement between a couple and our government that is why we can get married at a city hall without a ceremony in a religious setting. If you are opposed to this ruling then I will tell you that this will not affect your life in any way. Try to be happy for those that only wanted what you had under the law.
  • Reply 27 of 291
    slurpyslurpy Posts: 5,382member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post





    And AI for deleting posts critical of it (this IS my last post in this thread).

     

    I laughed when I read your first post in this thread, because I knew you were lying, and planned to obsessively refresh this thread even after your statement of "this is my only post". How pathetic. No doubt, that one will not be your last either. 

     

    If AI deleted posts, and I assume they were so nasty they deserved to be deleted. They have a right to do so. 

  • Reply 28 of 291
    danielswdanielsw Posts: 906member

    It's futile to legislate morals, which are more the domain of religions, than legislatures or courts.

     

    One of the main problems of religion is relevance: How do the scriptures of a religion apply to every day life, etc.

     

    I'd say the Supreme Court's decision wiped away a lot of irrelevance and injustice from a legal standpoint.

     

    Mr. Cook, as a prominent gay individual, has demonstrated a high level of competence and leadership, and he must be quite relieved to have this arbitrary legal barrier lifted from the lives of countless fellow Americans.

  • Reply 29 of 291
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jungmark View Post



    I thought marriage was a states right?



    Regardless let's move on.

    Equal Protection (the argument the majority used) is not. It's a constitutional right, and states cannot take it away.

  • Reply 30 of 291
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by TheWhiteFalcon View Post

     
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jungmark View Post



    I thought marriage was a states right?



    Regardless let's move on.



    LOL, a Constitutionalist. You radical you. <img class=" src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" />

     

    Yeah, it's dead now. We're in some other country today. Every part of government legislates these days.


    See above.

  • Reply 31 of 291
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Slurpy View Post

     Tim has cherished and expanded Tim's legacy

    Unintentionally accurate.

  • Reply 32 of 291
    newbeenewbee Posts: 2,055member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post





    I agree, except as a Libertarian I believe government involvement in any consensual agreement/arrangement is anti-freedom.



    It seems to me that making gay marriages legal is moving from the "involvement" stage to the "non involvement stage". What the government is now saying is if you want to get married, it's legal and if you don't want to get married, that's fine too.Your choice, not the governments. I would have thought that as a Libertarian, you would have agreed with this, no?

  • Reply 33 of 291
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

     

    Equal Protection (the argument the majority used) is not. It's a constitutional right, and states cannot take it away.




    Then why did the Chief Justice say this decision had nothing to do with the Constitution?

  • Reply 34 of 291
    mwhitecomwhiteco Posts: 112member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Slurpy View Post

     

     

    I laughed when I read your first post in this thread, because I knew you were lying, and planned to obsessively refresh this thread even after your statement of "this is my only post". How pathetic. No doubt, that one will not be your last either. 

     

    If AI deleted posts, and I assume they were so nasty they deserved to be deleted. They have a right to do so. 




    They have a right but when all I said to another poster to go back in the hole he came from and was deleted I think that was not deserved.

  • Reply 35 of 291
    zoetmbzoetmb Posts: 2,654member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by TheWhiteFalcon View Post



    Shame on Cook for politicizing the Think Different campaign.



    I don't consider civil rights to be political, even if some politicians try to make it so.    Cook celebrated a ruling by the Supreme Court that gives people more freedom.    It's no more political than ending legal segregation or supporting equality for women.   John Lennon & Yoko Ono were part of the original campaign.   Don't you think Lennon would have been in favor of gay rights?   

  • Reply 36 of 291
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by TheWhiteFalcon View Post

     
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

     

    Equal Protection (the argument the majority used) is not. It's a constitutional right, and states cannot take it away.




    Then why did the Chief Justice say this decision had nothing to do with the Constitution?


     

    I guess you must have missed the bit of news that said the CJ's argument was on the losing side....

     

    Whatever.

  • Reply 37 of 291
    zoetmbzoetmb Posts: 2,654member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by mwhiteco View Post

     



    They have a right but when all I said to another poster to go back in the hole he came from and was deleted I think that was not deserved.




    I disagree.   No post should take personal shots that don't add to the discussion.    You want to construct a logical argument for or against something, that's fine, but no decent forum should permit posters to make personal attacks, in spite of the fact that this has become common across the web. 

     

    Furthermore, when a post only contains a personal attack and not an argument (don't know if yours did or not, since it was deleted), it's a complete waste of my time to read it.    Personally, I'd prefer if most forums would curate more, not less, although that would probably cause riots.  

  • Reply 38 of 291
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

     

     

    I guess you must have missed the bit of news that said the CJ's argument was on the losing side....

     

    Whatever.




    The Supreme Court making a decision does not automatically mean the "winning" decision was correct. Remember Dred Scott?

  • Reply 39 of 291
    9secondko9secondko Posts: 929member
    And jobs' quote wasn't about who you sleep with.

    It was about people who Made real differences in the world where things were clearly wrong, like racism.

    And God doesn't "gift" people to be gay. Nor is He "for" it.

    He deeply loved the person and will save a repentant soul while also providing the grace to live a transformed life.

    But whatever.
  • Reply 40 of 291
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member
    newbee wrote: »

    It seems to me that making gay marriages legal is moving from the "involvement" stage to the "non involvement stage". What the government is now saying is if you want to get married, it's legal and if you don't want to get married, that's fine too.Your choice, not the governments. I would have thought that as a Libertarian, you would have agreed with this, no?

    I'm 100% on board with equal protection. I'm against governmental involvement with marriage and private consensual agreements. As I said, these arrangements (gay or straight) are private AND there should be no government extended benefits as a result of these presumably legally binding agreements.
Sign In or Register to comment.