Apple CEO Tim Cook Speaks Out Against Indiana's 'Religious Freedom' Law

You know who's gonna have fun with this law? The Church of Satan. I'm guessing they'll have some freedoms to exercise here soon, and when they do, people will freak out and repeal the law.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/feat...ic-pamphlets-board-reacts-20141113-story.html

mactastic said:

You know who's gonna have fun with this law? The Church of Satan. I'm guessing they'll have some freedoms to exercise here soon, and when they do, people will freak out and repeal the law.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/feat...ic-pamphlets-board-reacts-20141113-story.html

Click to expand...

The satanic temple has a tendency to legally troll "religious freedom" laws, so it should be fun to watch how this whole indiana thing plays out in the next few months. Even I didn't expect the backlash to be this intense. It's great to see.

Technarchy said:

Doesn't matter what I think, the standard being largely advocated in this thread is saying clearly that if the Westboro Baptist Church walks into a gay bakery and says make a cake that says "God Hates Fags", if the baker refuse they should be sued and that would be okay because...equality.

Click to expand...

No, not the same. Gay couples are simply asking to be provided the EXACT same service as other clientele. If a baker doesn't want to make any hateful cakes, that's totally acceptable. But if a baker will sell one cake to one person, and won't sell an identical cake to someone else, that's simply a different story.

----------

OLDCODGER said:

Why would you insist upon keeping biological rejects around?

The difference between left and right is merely that - not an abnormality, and which grew out of biblical texts and the soldiers' fear of crossing swords with a left-handed person, because it foiled their practiced art.

Not being in tune with Nature's two gender procreation system is abnormal - whether one likes it or not.

----------



If you cannot see the falseness of your statement, then there is no point in discussing it further.

Click to expand...

There's certainly one biological reject in this thread I wouldn't mind not having around...

Nicky G said:

You realize a huge number of people don't believe in these ancient made-up folk tales, right?

Click to expand...

I'm sure he knows that, and that he realizes he is foregoing the revenue from those customers. He certainly realizes by now that he is risking bad publicity.

However, the real reason I posted: do you not recognize the bigotry in your statement I quoted above?

As an agnostic, I am quite aware of the origins of religion. And, I also recognize the bad behavior of some of its adherents.

But, the behavior you displayed above is just as bad (in the context of polite society, not warfare). You may not recognize it, only because you think it's acceptable, or have been taught it is acceptable. It's not.

Perhaps the reason for any uncivil behavior towards you is a reflection of your hostility.

Technarchy said:

Wrong.

The First Amendment and Religious Freedom Restoration Act ensure a person on religious grounds can't be forced to facilitate acts that are clearly outlined as being against their religious beliefs.

So on what grounds would a homosexual deny a jew service that would not be in violation of the First Amendment?

Click to expand...

Where is it clearly outlined that taking photos or baking a cake or performing any service for homosexual weddings is in violation of a religous belief? And who decides what those beliefs are and which ones are valid?

This is all about people not liking people different from them. Religion is a pretense for being discriminatory here. Well religion is fake anyway, so it figures. Where does it say in any religion that thou shall not take photos of gay people? Or thou shall not bake gay wedding cakes?

These are NOT religous beliefs. This is just people being dicks. If my religion said to hate jews, could I not serve all jews?

QCassidy352 said:

For the millionth time, not the same thing -- legally speaking -- because race is a protected class (probably the most strongly protected class, in fact) while sexuality is not.

Click to expand...

I don't think that anybody is disputing that there exists a legal difference.

Whether there is a moral and practical difference is evidently very subjective in this thread. I don't believe there is any difference on those grounds.

samiwas said:

So, can we discriminate against the religious as well? Or are they somehow special?

Note that I don't want to discriminate against anyone, including religious people. But I won't stand by and watch them use their made-up beliefs to oppress others without saying something about it.

Click to expand...

No you can discriminate against religious people too as it works both ways. Some European countries with atheist majorities should pass laws like this so that they can put signs in the window that say "christians not welcome". If everyone works together they could drive out all the theists.

Nicky G said:

No, not the same. Gay couples are simply asking to be provided the EXACT same service as other clientele. If a baker doesn't want to make any hateful cakes, that's totally acceptable. But if a baker will sell one cake to one person, and won't sell an identical cake to someone else, that's simply a different story.

Click to expand...

Presumably you think that all membership clubs should be banned as by definition they exclude many people who apply? What about boys or girls only schools - that's discrimination isn't it? How about nightclubs that bar people from entering becuase they're not wearing the right clothes? I could go on.

----------

samiwas said:

So, can we discriminate against the religious as well? Or are they somehow special?

Click to expand...

People have discriminated again Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc for centuries. Would a Muslim be welcomed into a synagogue? and vice versa? I very much doubt it.

samiwas said:

Note that I don't want to discriminate against anyone, including religious people. But I won't stand by and watch them use their made-up beliefs to oppress others without saying something about it.

Click to expand...

Made-up beliefs? I think you just displayed your own discrimination there.

caesarp said:

Where is it clearly outlined that taking photos or baking a cake or performing any service for homosexual weddings is in violation of a religous belief? And who decides what those beliefs are and which ones are valid?

This is all about people not liking people different from them. Religion is a pretense for being discriminatory here. Well religion is fake anyway, so it figures. Where does it say in any religion that thou shall not take photos of gay people? Or thou shall not bake gay wedding cakes?

These are NOT religous beliefs. This is just people being dicks. If my religion said to hate jews, could I not serve all jews?

Click to expand...

I think you have blundered into the real issue here, even if you didn't realize it.

People like others for all kind of reasons, and don't like them for just as many more. This is true in both personal and business situations.

Some of them are rational. Some of them are not.

If I got dumped by a blonde girlfriend, it would be dumb to avoid all blondes, but not so dumb to avoid women with similar behaviors.

If a someone in a green shirt paid me with a bad check or did shoddy work, I would be smart to refuse to deal with them again, but dumb to avoid dealing with anyone that wore a green shirt.

You asked: "[...] who decides what those beliefs are and which ones are valid?" This is where the problem started -- using the government to decide. Rather than letting the individuals decide, and suffer the negative consequences for bad decisions, it has become a competition to determine who has the most political power.

iBlazed said:

One could only wish. I wonder how long after secession it would take the confederacy to devolve into a third world country. Discovery should do a documentary about that scenario, like the one about the earth when all the people disappeared.

Click to expand...

This actually made me LOL.

Shaun said:

Presumably you think that all membership clubs should be banned as by definition they exclude many people who apply? What about boys or girls only schools - that's discrimination isn't it? How about nightclubs that bar people from entering becuase they're not wearing the right clothes? I could go on.

Click to expand...

You are in the UK. Membership clubs here are already subject to laws that prohibit discrimination based on protected characteristics—those characteristics that make a person who they are and they cannot change. There is no reason to ban those places if they discriminate based on a selection process that takes into account other irrelevant characteristics.

I think that single sex schools are discrimination. From the studies I've read, there are no significant benefits by separating boys and girls and so I believe there should not be an exemption for them.

Clothing is not a protected characteristic. It doesn't define who you are. If you're wearing the wrong trousers then go home and change. If you're black, disabled, a woman, or are gay then it isn't possible to do the same.

The fact you can't seem to see the difference between discrimination based on factors that make a person who they are and those that are petty, such as their clothes, suggests you don't know what you're talking about.

Do you believe a black man should be denied equal service compared to a white man because of the colour of his skin?
Do you believe a woman should be denied equal service compared to a man because she is a woman?
Do you believe a disabled person should be denied equal service compared to others because that person is disabled?

Then why do you believe a gay person should be denied equal service compared to that of a straight person because they are gay?

ptb42 said:

I'm sure he knows that, and that he realizes he is foregoing the revenue from those customers. He certainly realizes by now that he is risking bad publicity.

However, the real reason I posted: do you not recognize the bigotry in your statement I quoted above?

As an agnostic, I am quite aware of the origins of religion. And, I also recognize the bad behavior of some of its adherents.

But, the behavior you displayed above is just as bad (in the context of polite society, not warfare). You may not recognize it, only because you think it's acceptable, or have been taught it is acceptable. It's not.

Perhaps the reason for any uncivil behavior towards you is a reflection of your hostility.

Click to expand...

Actually, there are some groups within the broader Christian Church I don't tend to have problems with. The Episcopalians I've met seem to be a pretty cool group. I still think the Abrahamic religions are a crock of ****, but I don't have a problem if someone wants to believe in them. What I do have a problem with is someone believing in hocus-pocus and using it to discriminate against others.

For the record, I'm not an atheist, but I am smart enough to have come up with my own belief system. Which ironically I learned later in life actually is quite similar to a religion that's out there, but that's another story altogether.

----------

Shaun said:

Presumably you think that all membership clubs should be banned as by definition they exclude many people who apply? What about boys or girls only schools - that's discrimination isn't it? How about nightclubs that bar people from entering becuase they're not wearing the right clothes? I could go on.

----------



People have discriminated again Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc for centuries. Would a Muslim be welcomed into a synagogue? and vice versa? I very much doubt it.



Made-up beliefs? I think you just displayed your own discrimination there.

Click to expand...

It's not discrimination to say that a virgin giving birth and a guy rising from the dead all zombie-style is clearly a made up folk tale, really used more than anything as a creation myth for a economic and political movement, AKA The Christian Church. It's discrimination to not provide someone an equal service because they believe in such ridiculous fictions.

.

QCassidy352 said:

No, because there's a difference between protected classes (of which Jews are one) and unprotected classes (of which homosexuals are one).

Click to expand...

Probably not for much longer. If SCOTUS eventually ends up ruling that sexual orientation is protected under "Sex" or "Sex Stereotypes" in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, it will ultimately make it much more difficult for businesses to invoke their state RFRA law if being sued by a gay couple. Expect the case that I just linked to to end up at SCOTUS within a year or two. And we also can't forget that in about half the states, probably including some with RFRA laws, sexual orientation is already a protected class.

.

QCassidy352 said:

Sure. I'm just talking about the current state of the law, with respect to Indiana in particular.

Click to expand...

I gotcha. I do predict that the supreme court will eventually rule that "sex" also covers sexual orientation. Because, unless the gays are having sex inside the business in question, it can be argued that the person is being discriminated based on "sex stereotypes", which SCOTUS already decided is protected under the civil rights act. So as it is, you already can't fire a man because he acts too feminine in your view and you can't fire a woman if you think she's too butch. That's sex discrimination, and you can apply that same logic to who they have sex with in the privacy of their home. After all, It's just a sex stereotype that men have to have sex only with women and vice versa.

Shaun said:

People have discriminated again Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc for centuries. Would a Muslim be welcomed into a synagogue? and vice versa? I very much doubt it.

Click to expand...

Your example is still of discrimination by religious people. How on earth is that supposed to be a comparison? I'm asking if someone, as just a regular ol' schmoe, can discriminate against religious people and kick them out of a restaurant, clothing store, whatever, or refuse to service them?

Made-up beliefs? I think you just displayed your own discrimination there.

Click to expand...

Do you even know what discrimination means? I can call you every name and discredit your beliefs all day. That is not discrimination. Refusing to associate or to provide a service to you or not allowing you in an establishment based on arbitrary beliefs is discrimination. The fact that you don't understand that simple concept is enough tells me all i need to know.

QCassidy352 said:

No, because there's a difference between protected classes (of which Jews are one) and unprotected classes (of which homosexuals are one)

Click to expand...

So your views are based on arbitrary "protected class" lists? Pathetic.

mactastic said:

You know who's gonna have fun with this law? The Church of Satan. I'm guessing they'll have some freedoms to exercise here soon, and when they do, people will freak out and repeal the law.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/feat...ic-pamphlets-board-reacts-20141113-story.html

Click to expand...

And if they don't want to be a part of a Christian wedding they certainly should be free to not be a part of it. I don't want to force my beliefs on them just like I don't want others to force theirs on me.

mrkramer said:

And if they don't want to be a part of a Christian wedding they certainly should be free to not be a part of it. I don't want to force my beliefs on them just like I don't want others to force theirs on me.

Click to expand...

So do you think there should be a differentiation in the law for businesses that directly participate in customer's personal events and ones that just serve them sandwiches and coffee?

rdowns said:

Bracing for the onslaught of bigots that we see every time they put a front page article in PRSI.

Many religious types should heed my signature.

Click to expand...

Hypocrisy has always been the main stay of so-called "Christianity". Christ taught to not judge and you shall not be judged. If you won't forgive your brothers, you will not be forgiven and yet I see nothing but judgment and hatred and bigotry among SO many Christians. I see churches telling how God wants you to be rich. This is not what Jesus taught. I believe there are more modern day "Pharisees" (who judge others and/or love money) than ever before. They are not hard to find. They judge and spew hatred and push their personal beliefs to become law and in so doing place themselves above the God they claim to obey. So sure they understand the Bible...a book about spiritual lessons, not literal acts of vengeance.

Compare the Lord in the Old Testament to Jesus who actually came to earth. What is spiritual and what is matter are two different things. Jesus did not cast down fire to burn up the sinners. No, "fire" is a trial/purifying/refining process, not a call to throw meteors at various cities. He rebuked his disciples when they asked to pray for a Sodom style hellfire to rain down on an unbelieving town. Clearly, a town is not a person and Jesus was not talking about sending meteorites to rain down on cities on the "Last Day" either. The problem with the blind leading the blind is they will both fall into a hole.

No, these laws that these types are constantly trying to pass aren't about "religious freedom", but about their right to be bigots. Jesus taught to love one another, not hate your neighbor that is different from yourself. Saying this only enrages the hypocrites, though as it did in Jesus' time when he said similar things about the Pharisees of that age.

.

iBlazed said:

So do you think there should be a differentiation in the law for businesses that directly participate in customer's personal events and ones that just serve them sandwiches and coffee?

Click to expand...

Yes, as just serving someone sandwiches and coffee at your restaurant doesn't make you involved in anything that the other person is doing outside their eating there. Being forced to cater sandwiches and coffee for a religious gathering, wedding or political event is different as it forces you to be involved in something that may go against your beliefs.

Perhaps Apple should ban Republican party members and open supports for Apple stores in Indiana.

I am assuming, based on both the act and the picture of the man, that he is a Republican? Would I be correct?

mrkramer said:

Yes, as just serving someone sandwiches and coffee at your restaurant doesn't make you involved in anything that the other person is doing outside their eating there. Being forced to cater sandwiches and coffee for a religious gathering, wedding or political event is different as it forces you to be involved in something that may go against your beliefs.

Click to expand...

Fair enough.

----------

mazz0 said:

I am assuming, based on both the act and the picture of the man, that he is a Republican? Would I be correct?

Click to expand...

Yeah, he does have that douchey look to him doesn't he?

Another goofy bill from Arkansas' own Sen. Bart "Theodore Bilbo" Hester. I don't think I can take another night of Arkansas being pilloried on the evening news again. I wish the Legislature could focus on issues that really matter like jobs, healthcare, roads, schools and improving the economy of Arkansas.