WTF? Google started the whole "Legalize Love" campaign among other things... why would you say that?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Among 60 Companies to File Statement with U.S. Supreme Court Backing Gay Marriage
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
- Status
WTF? Google started the whole "Legalize Love" campaign among other things... why would you say that?
Even for a great cause I'm not a big fan of corporation exerting influence in the political and social arena. I don't like the idea of mega-corporations using their substantial influence one way or another. They should be open and fair to all internally, but if you accept corporations trying to make a positive impact on society by influencing legislation don't you also have to accept a corporation making a negative impact. Let the voice of the individuals be the social actors. The same goes for Unions, their scope should be limited to their organizational purpose.
Since it's not important to you, everyone else should drop it. You live in the center of your own universe.
well, the dog wouldn't be consenting... If it was, I'd say "I don't care", but spare me the details...
Terrific idea!
Zoophilia is fine, as long as both parties are consenting adults.
I'll be glad to give you away...
I'd hate to live in a society in which all companies were mindless, robotic entities whose single and only purpose is to make as much money as possible.
We're pretty damn close to it, but as long as initiatives like these exist, we are reminded that humans are running the show.
I'm not. One of the problems hindering the party is the fact that so many of them appear violently opposed to gays in general. Same with racial "minorities" (that is, only Hispanics and blacks). I think it's fine that they're doing this, but I'm a bit worried that people will start voting based on RACE and that the parties will elect candidates only if they are "minorities".
If you look at the statistics for the black vote for Obama, it's scary. I supported Obama too but for legitimate reasons. Clearly, it's no coincidence that so many blacks agreed with me. If Romney was better (which I would definitely not say), it would suck for people to vote for Obama based on his skin color.
I hope his gay apocalypse happens. Then eventually people with his like-mindedness will stop being born. Even if that means the utter collapse of the human race. Still a win-win in my eyes
My point is sarcasm. Those who are against gay marriage or typically the same people who wants corporations to have the same rights as people.
Cheney's daughter is a lesbian. Meghan McCain is straight, blonde haired, green eyed hottie... socially moderate / fiscally conservative Republican... aka... my dream girl.
I teach in a business school and students are often surprised to find that there are no federal laws that prevent discriminating against homosexuals. I always tell them that it's only a matter of time until there are laws and more importantly, it's bad business to discriminate against gay people. Businesses need to find the best employees and being gay has little if anything to do with how well an employee does their job. I think there should be laws to protect homosexuals from discrimination, not on the basis of it being right or wrong behavior, but because there exists the potential for people to be unfairly treated based on something that has no impact on their ability to be great employees.
Well I have not seen any evidence of society breaking down in those places that have legalised gay marriage. Indeed society has broken down in many places where being gay is illegal, never mind gay marriage. So by a similar logic you could say that making homosexuality illegal leads to a breakdown in society. Of course that's complete bollocks as there is no link between cause and effect.
I'm not sure what breakdown in society could be caused by gay marriage? Unless you're concerned that us homos are going to force you all to become gay once we have made marriage legal?
Too bad Apple has to be PC like most other big corporations. What if someone wants to marry two women, or a man wants to marry a woman and another man, or wants to marry his dog. Should we be supporting that too because it might affect his workplace morale?
It shouldn't even matter. As long as both couple (husband & wife) want another partner in their household then it should be allowed.
Who are we to decide how other people should live? It just boggles the mind why people have a problem with how others are living..
Don't like Gay Marriage? Don't marry a gay person. Against Polygamy? Don't marry more than one person..
Depends on what you mean. I don't want corporations to have the same rights as people, but I don't not want them to. However, I know that it is a fact that corporations do, and always will, have the same rights as people.
Or do you mean that the current companies known as corporations should cease to be corporations?
----------
I have seen evidence of society breaking down in places that have legitimatized it, but I do not know what the cause of that is. It could very well be something other than the gay marriage and likely is.
Similar to the US. Society in the US sucks, but who can tell why it does? All I know is that this place is infested with mean, selfish, safety-freak, gun-happy, bad-drivefr, and/or overly politically correct people. When to France, I saw NO car crashes and NO people texting while driving.
On the topic of gay marriage, I'm pretty agnostic. But the reasoning these companies are advancing is against their interests, dangerous for others, and ultimately, in my view, unconstitutional.
First, the idea that there is a national consensus on the issue is patently false. If it were true, the Supreme Court wouldn't be hearing this case. The political process would have taken care of the issue a long time ago. The fact that Prop 8 passed at all and only a small minority of states have recognized same-sex marriage indicates there is no consensus.
Second, even if it were true, it's not the Court's business to make decisions based on national consensus. That's what the political branches are for. It's not in the companies' best interest either to advance that type of argument because if Courts ignore what the law actually says and instead decide cases based on what feels good, larger companies will almost always come out on the short end of the stick.
If you're cool with this type of reasoning because it gets the result you want, look back into another era of the Court that ignored the actual letter of the law in favor of what they thought was best. In the 20s and 30s, the original heyday of "substantive due process" (an oxymoron if I ever heard one) and you'll find that it protected the interests of so-called conservatives. It's a dangerous line of thinking no matter what ideology you hold.
First, the idea that there is a national consensus on the issue is patently false. If it were true, the Supreme Court wouldn't be hearing this case. The political process would have taken care of the issue a long time ago. The fact that Prop 8 passed at all and only a small minority of states have recognized same-sex marriage indicates there is no consensus.
Second, even if it were true, it's not the Court's business to make decisions based on national consensus. That's what the political branches are for. It's not in the companies' best interest either to advance that type of argument because if Courts ignore what the law actually says and instead decide cases based on what feels good, larger companies will almost always come out on the short end of the stick.
If you're cool with this type of reasoning because it gets the result you want, look back into another era of the Court that ignored the actual letter of the law in favor of what they thought was best. In the 20s and 30s, the original heyday of "substantive due process" (an oxymoron if I ever heard one) and you'll find that it protected the interests of so-called conservatives. It's a dangerous line of thinking no matter what ideology you hold.
People so misinterpret the idea of corporations as people. There are certain things that only people can do like enter into contracts. So, in order for corporations to function they have to be granted legal status as a person for purposes of legal transactions. Nobody is suggesting more than that. It is just an anomaly of our justice system. This is just a silly talking point to try to get people riled up about big businesses.
If what you say is true, companies known as corporations today SHOULD be people. But I find it hard to believe that there is such controversy over something obvious like this.
Guys who think they shouldn't: Why not? What rights do they have that they shouldn't? I'm curious to know.
That makes more sense to me and kind of provides a valid reason for corporation involvement because of things like health care etc. And I like your analogy of directors and executives haha, I like to think of them as mad people that are normally incredibly good at generating profits!
I don't see hypocrisy in opposing gay marriage and supporting person's rights for companies. They seem fully unrelated to me.
What is it that you oppose about companies having some person rights?
Wikipedia says:
So you think companies should not be able to sue or be sued in civil court? That's ridiculous if it is your reason.
- Status