Apple Issues Statement in Support of Supreme Court Gay Marriage Rulings

SPUY767 said:

Apple really should keep their mouths shut on political issues, as should all businesses. Employees are free to have their opinions, but they need not project those opinions onto the brand.

Click to expand...

Maybe they are using it to weed out some people who have an old-fashioned way of thinking. Apple needs people with open minds to continue to innovate.

People can't be closed-minded about some things and open about others, it tends to be a personality trait.

donutbagel said:

Isn't the idea that Congress is going to pass something else protect equal voting rights? The Supreme Court gutted the Voting Rights Act on the grounds that it was unconstitutional to target the South, from what I've read.

Click to expand...

Well the obstacle there is that it needs to get passed through Congress.

chrono1081 said:

Basically the way I see it is if God didn't like gays he wouldn't have made me gay.

Click to expand...

Are you saying that god is gay?

donutbagel said:

It's called Affirmative Action. There are plenty of things that you can't do or are harder to do if your skin looks too white.

Click to expand...

Funny, I've never EVER felt oppressed because I'm white. As a woman, yes. White, no.

filmantopia said:

Should the same apply to sterile couples or couples who do not wish to reproduce?

Click to expand...

There's a difference between something being illegal and not being recognized as "legitimate" by the government.

ResPublica said:

Paul however clearly condemns homosexuality.

Click to expand...

He does? Where?

chrono1081 said:

I'm a Christian but I don't agree with what the English version of the Bible claims that Paul said. The word Paul uses is not directly translatable into a real word. Many Biblical scholars agree that the reference deals with pedophilia not homosexuality.

Basically the way I see it is if God didn't like gays he wouldn't have made me gay.

Click to expand...

It's not even an issue with Paul's world. Disclaimer: I really don't want to starting dragging in Bible interpretations but, Paul never said anything BAD about marriage, nor is marriage promoted as simply a mean for procreation.

skunk said:

Are you saying that god is gay?

Click to expand...

Well, His hair is pretty fabulous in that Michelangelo painting....

laurim said:

Funny, I've never EVER felt oppressed because I'm white. As a woman, yes. White, no.

Click to expand...

Have you applied to college or applied to a summer class in programming recently? Believe it or not, there are some classes that bluntly state that "minorities" do not have to pay, but others do. Being a woman can help or hurt, depending on circumstances.

chrono1081 said:

The word Paul uses is not directly translatable into a real word.

Click to expand...

Well quite. Which makes it pretty hard to say it "clearly" means homosexuality.

laurim said:

Well, His hair is pretty fabulous in that Michelangelo painting....

Click to expand...

Well, we all know about him. Bent as a 9,000 Lire note.

donutbagel said:

It's called Affirmative Action. There are plenty of things that you can't do or are harder to do if your skin looks too white, including white-ish minorities like Arabs.

Click to expand...

OMG NO! There really are some ********* up people in this thread.

You DO know AA works both ways and involves more than race right?

skunk said:

Are you saying that god is gay?

Click to expand...

He's gay, and he's not, if he is that is.

yg17 said:

No one is forcing your church to marry a gay couple. No church in the 12 states where it is legal are required to do so. There are plenty of churches, judges and civil servants out there who aren't bigots to perform the weddings.

Click to expand...

Tis a fallacy is to assert someone(s) is a bigot because they disagree with you on this issue for faith-based reasons.

You're not alone in this on this particular thread, however.

zioxide said:

So should adoption be illegal then?

Click to expand...

Everybody recognizes that adoption is not ideal. Adoption shouldn't be illegal but it should always remain exceptional. I have no problem with saying that many heterosexual parents are worse parents than gay parents. But that doesn't mean that the law should say that the basic biological connection between parent and child can be denied by a redefinition of parenthood. Nor does it mean that we shouldn't prefer a child being raised by his biological father and mother when comparing with any other situation. In fact I believe that a marriage between man and woman includes the idea of having children in principle, making it fundamentally different from any gay marriage. That's why it shouldn't be the same thing for both kinds of couples.

skunk said:

The judge is not acting as an individual. The judge is only there because of authority invested by the state. The state has no religion. The agent of the state should not dispense that authority below a partisan religious banner.

Click to expand...

I understand your point of view. It can send the wrong message, but at the same time it sends the message that the government can take away your freedoms as it sees fit, even if they're using employment as an excuse, which is rather unsettling to me.

donutbagel said:

Isn't the idea that Congress is going to pass something else protect equal voting rights? The Supreme Court gutted the Voting Rights Act on the grounds that it was unconstitutional to target the South, from what I've read.

Click to expand...

If that's the case, why not get rid of laws forcing integration and allow Southern states to reinstitute segregation because those laws target the South?