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

Macboy Pro said:

...Intolerant puts it lightly for many of the posts I have been reading. I don't mean intolerant of Homosexuals. I mean intolerant of Christians or other beliefs that are different from theirs.

Click to expand...

Freedom of religion entails freedom from religion. The 'intolerance' you are citing is in part about trying to protect everybody's right to believe what they want. My US side of the family is firmly Christian. I believe this law is a risk to them, because at some point the discrimination won't be about whether customers act in ways that are compatible with Christianity, but with the right sort of Christianity.

I live in Scottish town where you can't swing a stick without hitting a monument to people burned, stabbed, drowned, shot, starved, and/or hung because they were the wrong kind of Christians. We have relatively little of that in the US, and I think it best to keep it that way. This is not about intolerance to religion, but about civil rights and the stability of US society.

iBlazed said:

The True Intent Of Indiana’s ‘Religious Freedom’ Bill, According To The People That Helped Write It

The jackasses who stood behind Pence as he signed the law oppose any "clarification bill" being passed right now. They openly admit that the true intention of the bill was to allow discrimination. Anyone who still has doubt about the real intention of this bill is blind as a bat.

Click to expand...

Yes and that is very wrong and scary to me. I am constantly discriminated against for holding the belief that gay lifestyle is immoral according to my religious belief, despite believing that they should be able to do as they wish and not be discriminated against for it. I believe there are many people out there, including some on this very forum, who would be willing to sponsor a bill to discriminate against me because I do not agree that the gay lifestyle is moral. And that is the precise slippery slope that legislation like this could lead to in the future. I can easily envision a United States where I am arrested for not holding the popular opinion due to my "backwards beliefs" because "science is always 100% accurate and never wrong."

BTW I love science.

As a side note, I really am just starting to feel like I'm blowing your guys minds. You just can't wrap your head around the fact that I could say something is immoral, but still believe that they shouldn't be discriminated against for it and should be allowed to do it. Or that I could believe in God, but also love science. I almost went to college to study meteorology and astronomy, but couldn't quite handle the really upper-level math and eventually my creative side won out. I have a very right and left sided brain. I feel like much of science, especially astronomy validates the existence of God. The more I learn, the more it confirms what I know in my experiences in life. My right and left sided brain is prevalent in everything that I do. I do design and photography for a living, but I also code. Heck I've got Xcode open right now debugging a small issue in an app update I'm getting ready to put out in a couple weeks to support various sized iPhone screens and that has a new design I created. I couldn't make an app from scratch but I generally understand what things are doing and I do all my website coding from scratch or from a framework. Anyway, getting off topic, my whole point being that you can be one way and another and have no conflict! But I feel like, generally speaking, smaller minds can't understand that. Not that I'm super smart guy either, but smart enough to realize that, for instance, most people vote along party lines because they do as they are told instead of thinking through the issues for themselves. I see that this often applies to the vast majority of the population, and they only see things in black and white. And as I've said many times, it drives me crazy.

macduke said:

Yes and that is very wrong and scary to me. I am constantly discriminated against for holding the belief that gay lifestyle is immoral according to my religious belief, despite believing that they should be able to do as they wish and not be discriminated against for it. I believe there are many people out there, including some on this very forum, who would be willing to sponsor a bill to discriminate against me because I do not agree that the gay lifestyle is moral. And that is the precise slippery slope that legislation like this could lead to in the future. I can easily envision a United States where I am arrested for not holding the popular opinion due to my "backwards beliefs" because "science is always 100% accurate and never wrong."

Click to expand...

I HIGHLY doubt anyone would support discriminating you in public establishments for your religious beliefs, much less persecution by the government itself. I think you have a persecution complex. Keep in mind, voicing disapproval for your beliefs is not discrimination against you.

macduke said:

Well luckily I don't do wedding photography any more. This is actually useful information for me as I really don't completely understand how it works and luckily I haven't had to deal with it.

Click to expand...

Sometimes I wonder about this. With small businesses being forced to do certain services, it occurred to me that maybe many will not ever start a business. This could actually reduce the "pool" of businesses that will exist in any given town thus having less choice. It's easy to say, "Great, then all the business will be non-bias toward their customers". It's not that simple. Sooner or later those "liberal" businesses will be faced with customers who are offensive to them in some way or another. It's really a double edged sword and a "be careful what you wish for" type thing.

macduke said:

As a side note, I really am just starting to feel like I'm blowing your guys minds. You just can't wrap your head around the fact that I could say something is immoral, but still believe that they shouldn't be discriminated against for it and should be allowed to do it.

Click to expand...

I think it's you whose mind is being blown up right now. Our minds easily wrap around the fact that your personal opinion shouldn't be written into law. I think you're more surprised and impressed with yourself for thinking that way, and you should be impressed with yourself! It's a very rational mindset to hold. I'm sure many of us think your opinion is immoral, but we don't support discrimination against you. Although you already said you think that many here would.

macduke said:

Condone isn't the best word. I don't know how many different ways I can say it over and over, I don't wish to judge anyone. It's not up to me. I can't because I am a sinner too. We're all in the same boat. I am supposed to love other people and I try, despite being someone who can be shy and has trust issues due to being betrayed by some of the people closest to me in the past. But I am allowed to hold the opinion that their life choices are sinful by definition of the God I believe in, the God that I know is true due to evidence that I have seen in my own life and existence—evidence in which there is no way to prove to anyone else and I don't care that I can't. I just don't want to be involved in their ceremonies because I try to actively avoid sinful situations as much as possible. I know myself and know that the best thing I ever did for myself was start making better decisions about things like that. You don't know me so don't tell me what I know best about myself and my beliefs and what makes me feel good and bad.

That has been my only problem with this entire issue. They can do WHATEVER they want, just leave me and any photography business I run part-time and anything else to do out of it. And that's the only reason I have "announced" that I don't think it's right. Because why else would I not want to photograph them? Stop trying to turn this around like I'm forcing my views on all of you. You guys have certainly been shoving your views down my throat and if I don't go along with it then you rip my head off. Can't you just accept that I support anti-discrimination laws for gays but am also allowed to think what they're doing is right? The only reason I'm even talking about it is that I feel like I'm being discriminated against by having to participate in events that are against my beliefs. I actively would have to go to a place that I don't want to be at. Furthermore, there are some sects (which I don't believe in) that would go as far as to say that they could lose their entire salvation for participating in an actively sinful event. While that is not my belief at all, you shouldn't force people to—in their own opinion—lose their salvation over something as trivial as photographing a wedding ceremony. Just hire someone else! Believe me, many photographers are hurting for money (it's not the best paying work) and there is never a shortage of people looking for their next paycheck.

Click to expand...

There is no such thing as salvation or sin or any "god" that sees what we do or controls what happens to us or anyone else. That was made up by tribes long ago to keep the people in line.

In fact, the primitive tribes that believed in the Sun as "god" had it more right than any of the big religions. Science now knows that all of the atoms on Earth, including the billions of atoms that make up you, and everything you see and everything in and around Earth -- all of it -- it all came from inside exploding stars (super novas). So we all came from the elements created inside the furnace of stars that exploded long ago. So by worshipping the Sun, the primitives were a lot closer to reality than Judaism, Christianity or Islam.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/space/star-in-you.html

http://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/the-exploding-stars-inside-of-us

So don't worry about it. Its alright. Just go to work, hang out with your family and friends. Then you die. That's it, end of story - eventually your atoms will become something else. Do unto others as you would have others do unto you. That's all you need to do. The rest is all window dressing.

caesarp said:

There is no such thing as salvation or sin or any "god" that sees what we do or controls what happens to us or anyone else. That was made up by tribes long ago to keep the people in line.

In fact, the primitive tribes that believed in the Sun as "god" had it more right than any of the big religions. Science now knows that all of the atoms on Earth, including the billions of atoms that make up you, and everything you see and everything in and around Earth -- all of it -- it all came from inside exploding stars (super novas). So we all came from the elements created inside the furnace of stars that exploded long ago. So by worshipping the Sun, the primitives were a lot closer to reality than Judaism, Christianity or Islam.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/space/star-in-you.html

http://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/the-exploding-stars-inside-of-us

So don't worry about it. Its alright. Just go to work, hang out with your family and friends. Then you die. That's it, end of story - eventually your atoms will become something else. Do unto others as you would have others do unto you. That's all you need to do. The rest is all window dressing.

Click to expand...

Thank you for the unnecessary atheist dribble. Please return to the topic of the thread.

sualpine said:

Thank you for the unnecessary atheist dribble. Please return to the topic of the thread.

Click to expand...

Better counteract that with some bible verses. Go!

macduke said:

Yes and that is very wrong and scary to me. I am constantly discriminated against for holding the belief that gay lifestyle is immoral according to my religious belief,

Click to expand...

What is immoral? I think that brown eyes are immoral? See how silly it is? Anyone can say anything is immoral. And my religion, the religion of the paper clip, tells me that in the holy book written by Dr. Seuss. Its called: "Immoral needs an Epidural"

Immoral is just a word that people use when they don't like something. Sort of like those who say they are offended. But not liking something is not necessarily the basis for civil law.

And I'm not aware of any religion that specifically says, "thou shall consider the gay lifestyle immoral". Rather, its all open to interpretation.

----------

sualpine said:

Thank you for the unnecessary atheist dribble. Please return to the topic of the thread.

Click to expand...

Its not atheistic -- its called facts. I'm sorry you believe reality is dribble.

caesarp said:

What is immoral? I think that brown eyes are immoral? See how silly it is? Anyone can say anything is immoral. And my religion, the religion of the paper clip, tells me that in the holy book written by Dr. Seuss. Its called: "Immoral needs an Epidural"

Immoral is just a word that people use when they don't like something. Sort of like those who say they are offended. But not liking something is not necessarily the basis for civil law.

And I'm not aware of any religion that specifically says, "thou shall consider the gay lifestyle immoral". Rather, its all open to interpretation.

----------



Its not atheistic -- its called facts. I'm sorry you believe reality is dribble.

Click to expand...

It's off topic.

sualpine said:

It's off topic.

Click to expand...

How so, religion was part of this thread and immorality. I'm pointing out how religion and immorality are just made up nonsense. Thus, on topic.

But thank you Mr. thread Taliban.

caesarp said:

There is no such thing as salvation or sin or any "god" that sees what we do or controls what happens to us or anyone else. That was made up by tribes long ago to keep the people in line.

In fact, the primitive tribes that believed in the Sun as "god" had it more right than any of the big religions. Science now knows that all of the atoms on Earth, including the billions of atoms that make up you, and everything you see and everything in and around Earth -- all of it -- it all came from inside exploding stars (super novas). So we all came from the elements created inside the furnace of stars that exploded long ago. So by worshipping the Sun, the primitives were a lot closer to reality than Judaism, Christianity or Islam.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/space/star-in-you.html

http://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/the-exploding-stars-inside-of-us

So don't worry about it. Its alright. Just go to work, hang out with your family and friends. Then you die. That's it, end of story - eventually your atoms will become something else. Do unto others as you would have others do unto you. That's all you need to do. The rest is all window dressing.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I understand all of that. I have studied it in college (not extensively). I am an amateur astronomer in the sense that it's a light hobby (as far as my equipment goes, although I would like to buy a larger diameter reflector with star tracker and adapters to do astrophotography with my photo gear, as well as solar filters to photograph sun spots) and I read a lot of articles about astronomy and keep up reasonably well with the latest findings. But the more I learn, the more that I can't help but believe that there is intelligence behind it all. I happen to believe your world view is incredibly depressing stating that there is nothing beyond this life. But it's fine that you believe that. So I will agree to disagree respectfully. I never want my religious belief to oppress anyone else, and I never want anyone else to oppress my religious belief. As I stated in an earlier post, my best friend is an atheist, so I've heard all of the arguments and am fully aware. He has also heard my arguments and continues his belief. The key thing is that we respect each other. It makes me angry when religious people don't do that, as well as atheist. There are many people on both sides who get so passionate about their belief or disbelief that they lose track of respect, which is the most important thing. Especially if they want any reasonable discussion to take place. I know I've been guilty of getting too embroiled in debate in the past and things get emotional. But I'm human, we all are, we're all imperfect. We just have to try to be reasonable with each other when we disagree.

rdowns said:

Nothing to do with it at all. :roll eyes:

Why did he go ahead with the bill despite 30 legal scholars telling him the law was bad?

http://web.law.columbia.edu/sites/d...ity/law_professors_letter_on_indiana_rfra.pdf

Why did Pence sign the bill in private, with no media and with 3 anti-LGBT organizers?

Why does the law now need a fix?

Pence knew exactly what this bill was and who it targeted.

Click to expand...

Yes, he knew, but not for the nefarious reasons you think. The Indiana law is modeled after the Federal RFRA. 16 legal scholars agreed with him about the language in the bill.

http://www.indianahouserepublicans.com/clientuploads/PDF/RFRA.pdf

As far as the letter you referred to, the main authors of that letter, Katherine Franke and Kara Loewentheil, are both gay activists at Columbia University. What did you expect them to write? Their letter is obviously biased and not the product of an objective analysis. It carries ZERO weight.

The law doesn't need fixing. What needs fixing is people's understanding of what the law is and is not. Critics like you and others say that Indiana’s RFRA amounts to a license to discriminate. Flat wrong. Far from being a blanket grant of immunity, it simply allows religious liberties to be raised as a defense in lawsuits. That religious liberties may be offered as a defense is not a guarantee that this defense will be accepted by a court.

To require a wedding vendor to service a same-sex wedding is not eliminating discrimination against the gay couple. It’s coercing the wedding vendor. Think of an alternative situation where a gay baker is required to bake dessert cakes for a pro-marriage rally sponsored by a conservative group. Surely we should acknowledge that a person should not be required to provide a good or service for an event premised on views that the baker finds objectionable. Do you really want to live in a country where supposedly free businesses are required to use their goods and services against their will? Or does that only apply to Christians because you loathe them?

caesarp said:

But not liking something is not necessarily the basis for civil law.

Click to expand...

Well, I don't like people killing other people. Guess it's good there's a law against that. Oh wait... that's in the Bible too. Now we are all fanatics!

AppleFan360 said:

Well, I don't like people killing other people. Guess it's good there's a law against that. Oh wait... that's in the Bible too. Now we are all fanatics!

Click to expand...

I know your joking but not liking something is different from something that hurts someone else, like killing them or robbing them.

It doesn't hurt me if someone is gay. It hurts me if they kill me. Big difference. I don't need the bible or any other book to tell me that. Its pretty much common sense that you shouldn't do stuff that hurts others -- and it goes back to way before the bible.

caesarp said:

I don't need the bible or any other book to tell me that.

Click to expand...

What's interesting is that you already follow many of the teachings in the Bible and just don't know it.

tgara said:

Yes, he knew, but not for the nefarious reasons you think. The Indiana law is modeled after the Federal RFRA. 16 legal scholars agreed with him about the language in the bill.

http://www.indianahouserepublicans.com/clientuploads/PDF/RFRA.pdf

As far as the letter you referred to, the main authors of that letter, Katherine Franke and Kara Loewentheil, are both gay activists at Columbia University. What did you expect them to write? Their letter is obviously biased and not the product of an objective analysis. It carries ZERO weight.

The law doesn't need fixing. What needs fixing is people's understanding of what the law is and is not. Critics like you and others say that Indiana’s RFRA amounts to a license to discriminate. Flat wrong. Far from being a blanket grant of immunity, it simply allows religious liberties to be raised as a defense in lawsuits. That religious liberties may be offered as a defense is not a guarantee that this defense will be accepted by a court.

To require a wedding vendor to service a same-sex wedding is not eliminating discrimination against the gay couple. It’s coercing the wedding vendor. Think of an alternative situation where a gay baker is required to bake dessert cakes for a pro-marriage rally sponsored by a conservative group. Surely we should acknowledge that a person should not be required to provide a good or service for an event premised on views that the baker finds objectionable. Do you really want to live in a country where supposedly free businesses are required to use their goods and services against their will? Or does that only apply to Christians because you loathe them?

Click to expand...

But the big difference is the federal law and most states did not apply the defense to private lawsuits -- only actions by the government. This is what opens the door for discrimination. There are other differences too:

"you will find that the Indiana statute has two features the federal RFRA—and most state RFRAs—do not. First, the Indiana law explicitly allows any for-profit business to assert a right to “the free exercise of religion.” The federal RFRA doesn’t contain such language, and neither does any of the state RFRAs except South Carolina’s; in fact, Louisiana and Pennsylvania, explicitly exclude for-profit businesses from the protection of their RFRAs.

The new Indiana statute also contains this odd language: “A person whose exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened, by a violation of this chapter may assert the violation or impending violation as a claim or defense in a judicial or administrative proceeding, regardless of whether the state or any other governmental entity is a party to the proceeding.” (My italics.) Neither the federal RFRA, nor 18 of the 19 state statutes cited by the Post, says anything like this; only the Texas RFRA, passed in 1999, contains similar language.

What these words mean is, first, that the Indiana statute explicitly recognizes that a for-profit corporation has “free exercise” rights matching those of individuals or churches."

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...ianas-religious-freedom-law-different/388997/

----------

AppleFan360 said:

What's interesting is that you already follow many of the teachings in the Bible and just don't know it.

Click to expand...

What's interesting is that the bible simply copied (err plagiarized) a lot of stuff that came before it, and much of it is common sense. Obvious to most people. And I certainly don't need to worship the bible or the mythical creatures mentioned in it or anyone who allegedly wrote it.

Cory Bauer said:

The law as it stands would indeed allow a business owner to refuse service to a homosexual solely on the basis of them being gay, and they'd be legally protected in doing so by citing "religious freedom". If however, the bill was amended to add gays and lesbians as a protected class as race and sex currently are - then discrimination based on sexual orientation would no longer be legally protected by the state of Indiana.

Click to expand...

But adding LTBG people to the current list of suspect classes will only protect them against Government discrimination. It won't apply to private businesses. Or are you saying there needs to be a special carve-out in the Indiana RFRA for LTBG folks? There is no such carve-out in the federal statute, and it has worked fine.

----------

caesarp said:

But the big difference is the federal law and most states did not apply the defense to private lawsuits -- only actions by the government. This is what opens the door for discrimination. There are other differences too:

"you will find that the Indiana statute has two features the federal RFRA—and most state RFRAs—do not. First, the Indiana law explicitly allows any for-profit business to assert a right to “the free exercise of religion.” The federal RFRA doesn’t contain such language, and neither does any of the state RFRAs except South Carolina’s; in fact, Louisiana and Pennsylvania, explicitly exclude for-profit businesses from the protection of their RFRAs.

The new Indiana statute also contains this odd language: “A person whose exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened, by a violation of this chapter may assert the violation or impending violation as a claim or defense in a judicial or administrative proceeding, regardless of whether the state or any other governmental entity is a party to the proceeding.” (My italics.) Neither the federal RFRA, nor 18 of the 19 state statutes cited by the Post, says anything like this; only the Texas RFRA, passed in 1999, contains similar language.

What these words mean is, first, that the Indiana statute explicitly recognizes that a for-profit corporation has “free exercise” rights matching those of individuals or churches."

Click to expand...

But as I pointed out in post 1185, the federal statute DOES include the possibility for private suits. The Obama Justice Department has even taken the position that RFRA can be used as a defense in private suits involving the enforcement of laws that substantially burden free exercise of religion.

Everybody keeps mindlessly citing the same incorrect quote from the Atlantic magazine. It's simply not true.

tgara said:

But adding LTBG people to the current list of suspect classes will only protect them against Government discrimination. It won't apply to private businesses. Or are you saying there needs to be a special carve-out in the Indiana RFRA for LTBG folks? There is no such carve-out in the federal statute, and it has worked fine.

But as I pointed out in post 1185, the federal statute DOES include the possibility for private suits. The Obama Justice Department has even taken the position that RFRA can be used as a defense in private suits involving the enforcement of laws that substantially burden free exercise of religion.

Everybody keeps citing the same incorrect quote from the Atlantic magazine. It's simply not true.

Click to expand...

There are plenty of sources which outline what makes the Indiana bill unique and therefore dangerous. Are you trying to suggest that the bill is no different and therefore the protests are unwarranted?

caesarp said:

What's interesting is that the bible simply copied (err plagiarized) a lot of stuff that came before it, and much of it is common sense.

Click to expand...

Define common sense and where do you think it came from. As much as you hate to admit it, much of our culture is based on that "mythical" book and you follow parts of it each and every day.

AppleFan360 said:

Define common sense and where do you think it came from. As much as you hate to admit it, much of our culture is based on that "mythical" book and you follow parts of it each and every day.

Click to expand...

Actually, our culture is based on the principles of Enlightenment, which provided the basis for our Constitution. If anything, we are deriving our culture from that, in the sense that we have no one true established religion in this country.

BL.

The governor of North Carolina has announced that he will veto the RFRA bill there. Nipped that one in the bud right quick...

Cory Bauer said:

There are plenty of sources which outline what makes the Indiana bill unique and therefore dangerous. Are you trying to suggest that the bill is no different and therefore the protests are unwarranted?

Click to expand...

Yeah.

Section 9 of Indiana’s RFRA provides that “A person whose exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened, by a violation of this chapter may assert the violation or impending violation as a claim or defense in a judicial or administrative proceeding, regardless of whether the state or any other governmental entity is a party to the proceeding.”

Indiana made explicit for its own law what federal courts of appeals and the Obama Justice Department had already recognized about the federal counterpart. Indiana’s RFRA does no more than codify that the private enforcement of public laws — such as discrimination claims — can be defended if there is a substantial burden on free exercise of religion. That’s it. It's the same as the federal law in that respect.

tgara said:

The law doesn't need fixing.

Click to expand...

Governor Mike Pence disagrees with you.

AppleFan360 said:

Define common sense and where do you think it came from. As much as you hate to admit it, much of our culture is based on that "mythical" book and you follow parts of it each and every day.

Click to expand...

The bible came from the cultures before it and before that. And common sense is knowing that what hurts me (like a punch in the face) isn't good. Therefore someone shouldn't do that. Common sense is knowing that burning a house down is bad, cause it would suck if it happened to my house.

We have real laws now and a secular government (for the most part), we don't need your book of fables any more. But thanks for playing.