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 Backs Federal Non-Discrimination LGBT Equality Act of 2015
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I pretty much agree. But I wouldn't go so far as to say that they would openly support something that they are actually against just because it's popular (you probably didn't mean this). Who knows, maybe they would. But I definitely agree that if popular opinion on an issue happens to align with something they even remotely believe in, you can bet they'll milk it for all its worth. Not just Apple--I'd expect any company to do the same if they thought it would help their bottom line in the long run. I don't blame them. This is just what companies do. But personally, I'm very uninspired by anyone declaring support for an issue when they only stand to gain from it. Not to say they aren't genuine. Just that the gesture is tainted, because it's convenient. A truly inspirational gesture or act, by my definition, is the opposite of convenient. It's sacrificial. It's dangerous. Of course, maybe Apple doesn't intend to be inspirational. Which is fine too.
Now if Apple were to make an unpopular declaration, or take a stand based on a principle that would put them in jeopardy as a company, then that would demand some real respect from me, even if I didn't agree with their stance. But that would never happen. For companies, unpopular beliefs are leaked, not declared.
I would say their audits of their Chinese factories are unpopular.
Hard to agree. Tim has had his glitches, but I think Steve had even more. Ping, anyone? MobileMe? Apple TV 1? Hockey puck mouse?
The apple watch launch was one of the most successful in apple history. Apple maps is my main form of GPS today. The new MacBook launch went over as well as the original MacBook Air launch, which is not well at all. But It will eventually become their best selling laptop. As for the confederate flag thing, let's get real, no one gives a **** about that stupid flag other than a small minority of Americans. Notice how Apple hasn't reversed course on that one? Because no one cared enough to complain other than a few neo-confederates in the first few days.
All I know is that since Steve jobs died, Apple has doubled in value. It's hard to contribute that soley to the iPhone. Sure, the iPhone plays a big part, but you don't double your value from $350 billion to over $700 billion by remaining stagnant.
Lol. Keep fantasizing. Breitbart and theblaze have hardly "eclipsed" anything. You right wing fanatics are really starting to feel the heat of irrelevance.
Last edited:
If Apple really believes this, then they should also be supporting the recently introduced First Amendment Defense Act.
http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-acti...vent-discrimination-for-opposing-gay-marriage
This thread is ridiculous. Even if you still believe that homosexuality is a choice, and therefore admit that you made a choice to be heterosexual, the Civil Rights Act included protection from discrimination because of one's religion, which is absolutely a choice. So hiding behind your intolerant and ignorant understanding of science still does not lend credence to any argument your making about protecting others based on what your perceive to be a lifestyle choice. If you can choose to follow a certain faith and be protected, others should be able to "choose" to be homosexual and be protected.
More religious privileged bull **** masquerading as liberty. Religious privilege is slowly being dismantled. Deal with it.
i don't really get the 'apple are hypocrites since they operate in _____(country)" remarks..
apple is based in the u.s... lots of inequality here as well.. we're still fighting for civil rights in this country. (for example.. see the original post)
Why does the first amendment need a bill to defend it? Protection for freedom of speech and religion are built into the first amendment. The first amendment is its own first amendment protection. Gay people have ZERO legal protection from discrimination on a federal level. Stop trying to make Christians out to be a persecuted minority. No one is buying it. It's not going to happen. Give up. I hope Apple actively opposes the "first amendment protection" act the same way they opposed the Indiana RFRA.
While I think no one should be discriminated against for certain things like jobs and opportunities, it has been shown to go overboard when people disagree with their choices.
While you shouldn't discriminate because of who they are (no matter what), you should not be forced to participate in what they do.
While you shouldn't discriminate because of who they are (no matter what), you should not be forced to participate in what they do.
This is why I hope this issue leads to the wholesale revoking of tax-privileges for religions. The First Amendment protects against the government instituting laws that would prevent one from exercising their religion. It says nothing about a tax-free status because you believe there's a guy on a cloud somewhere. Since when did special privileges become party of religious freedom? If anything, it is the opposite of the inherent ideology of the separation of church and state. Religious institutions should not be discriminated against nor should they be given special privileges.
Can you give an example of how people are being forced to participate in something relating to "gay rights"? I haven't heard any stories where people are being forced to be gay or enter into a same-sex marriage.
This is why:
http://dailysignal.com/2015/07/18/oregons-war-on-the-christian-bakers-free-speech/
As Justice Alito said in Obergfell, the decision "will be used to vilify Americans who are unwilling to assent to the new orthodoxy" and "will be exploited by those who are determined to stamp out every vestige of dissent".
Actually, I'm not surprised in the least why you feel this way. This earlier comment by you makes that clear:
Sadly, its this type of thinking that will continue to polarize the country on this issue and many others.
Exactly. The First Amendment protects against the government preventing people from practicing their faith, not their tax-exemptions.
No one's forcing anyone to participate in anything, and that's not what this bill is about.
I agree with Planey. I'm Catholic. I don't care what two consenting adults do with each other. And there is Pope Francis, who said it wasn't his place to judge. While neither of these is the same as saying being gay is not wrong, in a Christian/Jewish/Muslim sense, it does suggest a level of tolerance, equality, and love above the opposing viewpoint.
So the 1.1 number is incorrect. Excluding me and the Pope you are at 1.099999998 billion. At the most.
The same ******** logic was used back in the 60's and 70's when people hid behind their "beliefs" when they refused to provide service to minority clients. No one is preventing you from going to church or praying or whatever else you want to do in the name of god. What you can't do is discriminate against OTHER people because of your beliefs. Can't you understand the pervasiveness this would have if left unchecked? I could create a religion that doesn't believe people with blond hair or big noses or crooked teeth or talk funny are sinners and are unworthy in the eyes of my god. Then, all of my followers who have businesses could pick and choose based on those parameters who they want to serve and who they don't.
Other than hyperbole, can you name a specific reason or case of "vilification" that your proposed law is meant to prevent? If you think that forcing a county clerk to issue a license (aka do their job) is vilification, you're going to be in for huge disappointments in the future.
Nobody in their right mind thinks that's the definition of tolerance. Nor do you have to support intolerance to be tolerant.
Religion means believing in an imaginary friend. Christianity only puts a name and identity on that imaginary friend.
Yeah but their imaginary friend is more real than everyone else's imaginary friends. Because they said so.