U.S. Senate Approves Anti-Discrimination Bill Endorsed by Tim Cook

MacRumors · Nov 7, 2013

The United States Senate has approved the anti-discrimination bill that Apple CEO Tim Cook endorsed in an Op-Ed earlier this week.

In a 64-32 vote, the Senate voted to pass the Employment Nondiscrimation Act today, sending the legislation to the U.S. House of Representatives where its future is uncertain. The bill adds gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender individuals to the U.S.'s existing nondiscrimination law.

Tim Cook tweeted about the passing of the bill, saying:

Thanks to all Senators who supported ENDA! I encourage the House to follow suit and end discrimination.

From The New York Times:

"The time has come for Congress to pass a federal law that ensures all citizens, regardless of where they live, can go to work not afraid of who they are," Senator Harry Reid, the majority leader, said on Thursday, noting that a vast majority of Americans already think such a law is in place. "Well, it isn't already the law," he added. "Let's do what the American people think already exists."

Republicans who voted against the bill, known as the Employment Nondiscrimination Act, were muted in their opposition. The first senator to rise and speak against the bill on the floor all week was Dan Coats of Indiana, who said Thursday morning that religious freedoms were at risk, despite the bill's broad exemption for religious institutions.

Those exemptions, he said, did not go far enough.

In his op-ed, Tim Cook wrote that Apple has made it a point to create "a safe and welcoming workplace for all employees, regardless of their race, gender, nationality or sexual orientation", while also elaborating on employee rights to express identity in a working environment.

Note: Due to the potentially controversial nature of the discussion regarding this topic, the discussion thread is located in our Politics, Religion, Social Issues forum. All forum members and site visitors are welcome to read and follow the thread, but posting is limited to forum members with at least 100 posts.

Article Link: U.S. Senate Approves Anti-Discrimination Bill Endorsed by Tim Cook

JoEw · Nov 7, 2013

Sadly, the house is full of not so progressive folks right now. Maybe in 2014

AngerDanger · Nov 7, 2013

Step two: bring back the rainbow Apple logo.

FrizzleFryBen · Nov 7, 2013

While it's a step forward, there are still too many loopholes for 'religious' institutions like major hospitals. And I doubt the house will act.

Northgrove · Nov 7, 2013

It feels unusual to hear an Apple CEO be so outspoken about this, or even a CEO in the first place. In the past, they didn't even tweet about Apple products, much less politics. Not that I'm complaining. I think it's an important bill, and a single tweet by Tim Cook will surely give the issue a lot of welcome attention.

Demon Hunter · Nov 7, 2013

FrizzleFryBen said:
While it's a step forward, there are still too many loopholes for 'religious' institutions like major hospitals. And I doubt the house will act.

Not sure why you'd call these "loopholes"; religions aren't limited to the four church walls, you know ("the free exercise thereof" in the First Amendment).

yg17 · Nov 7, 2013

Unfortunately, because this bill does not also protect orange skinned people, Boehner will not be bringing it for a vote in the house.

ctdonath · Nov 7, 2013

"a safe and welcoming workplace for all employees, regardless of their race, gender, nationality or sexual orientation"

What about their religion? political persuasion?

joeshmo2010 · Nov 7, 2013

Sadly it isn't expected to pass in the house. Our two-party system is nothing but roadblocks.

rei101 · Nov 7, 2013

It would be very interesting to listen to the arguments of the other 32 who voted against.

Zepaw · Nov 7, 2013

So nice to hear something positive from congress, been a streak of **** this year. I'd like to not be fired for who I love.

Rogifan · Nov 7, 2013

yg17 said:
Unfortunately, because this bill does not also protect orange skinned people, Boehner will not be bringing it for a vote in the house.

I want a bill that protects fat people. No doubt they're discriminated against. Why does everyone pander to gays?

Hopefully this goes nowhere in the house.

phillipduran · Nov 7, 2013

FrizzleFryBen said:
While it's a step forward, there are still too many loopholes for 'religious' institutions like major hospitals. And I doubt the house will act.

Loopholes or is it respect for the fact that we all don't think alike?

Let the business owners decide what they want to do. If the public is so outraged over these differences, they can take their business to the companies that are in step with their views.

I would oppose laws that say you can't open a business based on your race or sex. I also oppose a government telling a business who they can or cant employ.

Rogifan · Nov 7, 2013

phillipduran said:
Loopholes or is it respect for the fact that we all don't think alike?

Let the business owners decide what they want to do. If the public is so outraged over these differences, they can take their business to the companies that are in step with their views.

I would oppose laws that say you can't open a business based on your race or sex. I also oppose a government telling a business who they can or cant employ.

Whatever happened to freedom of association?

calvin2006 · Nov 7, 2013

joeshmo2010 said:
Sadly it isn't expected to pass in the house. Our two-party system is nothing but roadblocks.

You do realize that the founding fathers intentionally created roadblocks in our constitutional system of government, right? The other option is tyranny. Tyrannical leaders who share your opinions are still tyrants.

dwman · Nov 7, 2013

rei101 said:
It would be very interesting to listen to the arguments of the other 32 who voted against.

I don't really think it would be that interesting. Their reasons are strictly moral and for the most part obstructionist.

Aragornii · Nov 7, 2013

Now that Obamacare has proven to be an ongoing disaster I guess it's time to throw out a highly-charged partisan wedge issue to try to change the subject.

mono1980 · Nov 7, 2013

phillipduran said:
Loopholes or is it respect for the fact that we all don't think alike?

Let the business owners decide what they want to do. If the public is so outraged over these differences, they can take their business to the companies that are in step with their views.

I would oppose laws that say you can't open a business based on your race or sex. I also oppose a government telling a business who they can or cant employ.

So innocent people should suffer and lose their livelihood while we wait for the general public to give a crap?

calvin2006 · Nov 7, 2013

dwman said:
I don't really think it would be that interesting. Their reasons are strictly moral and for the most part obstructionist.

Are you saying you find reasoning based on morality uninteresting? If your reasoning is not based on some form of morality, what is it based on?

Plutonius · Nov 7, 2013

I'm not saying this shouldn't be done but shouldn't congress be focusing instead on the budget and debt ceiling which are coming due in January / February ?

Note - People will say that congress can work on multiple issues but history shows us thats probably not true

. The debt / debt ceiling issues are the most important issues right now that need to be resolved now. I would put all other issues on hold until after Jan / Feb and make the budget / debt ceiling the only priority.

Rogifan · Nov 7, 2013

Aragornii said:
Now that Obamacare has proven to be an ongoing disaster I guess it's time to throw out a highly-charged partisan wedge issue to try to change the subject.

Pretty much. Amnesty will be next.

yg17 · Nov 7, 2013

Rogifan said:
I want a bill that protects fat people. No doubt they're discriminated against. Why does everyone pander to gays?

Hopefully this goes nowhere in the house.

Because gay people don't choose their sexuality, and no one should be discriminated against because of something they have no control over.

phillipduran · Nov 7, 2013

rei101 said:
It would be very interesting to listen to the arguments of the other 32 who voted against.

Those 32 are holding the line against societal degradation. It's homosexuality today. It will be pedophilia tomorrow. Sexual liberation for 13 year olds and up. Transgender, sexual identification are already being pushed into our schools now. It has no place there, but there it is. Pick the bathroom you want to use in middle school. Encourage kids to "figure out" what their sexual identity is. This is a historical calling card of the collapse of society. History backs this up.

rdowns · Nov 7, 2013

Rogifan said:
I want a bill that protects fat people. No doubt they're discriminated against. Why does everyone pander to gays?

Hopefully this goes nowhere in the house.

Amazing how one can see a civil rights issue as pandering.

yg17 · Nov 7, 2013

phillipduran said:
Those 32 are holding the line against societal degradation. It's homosexuality today. It will be pedophilia tomorrow. Sexual liberation for 13 year olds and up. Transgender, sexual identification are already being pushed into our schools now. It has no place there, but there it is. Pick the bathroom you want to use in middle school. Encourage kids to "figure out" what their sexual identity is. This is a historical calling card of the collapse of society. History backs this up.

Wow, it only took one page for someone to falsely equate homosexuality to pedophilia.

It's like a modernized version of Godwin's law

U.S. Senate Approves Anti-Discrimination Bill Endorsed by Tim Cook

macrumors bot

macrumors 68000

Graphics

macrumors 6502

macrumors 65816

macrumors 68020

macrumors Pentium

macrumors 68000

macrumors 6502a

macrumors 6502a

macrumors 65816

macrumors Penryn

macrumors 65816

macrumors Penryn

macrumors 6502

macrumors 6502

macrumors 6502a

macrumors 6502

macrumors 6502

macrumors G3

macrumors Penryn

macrumors Pentium

macrumors 65816

macrumors Penryn

macrumors Pentium

Our Staff