Apple Backs Federal Non-Discrimination LGBT Equality Act of 2015

[tbrinkma]

I can think of numerous minority Republicans. They do not discriminate against minorities. Some FACTS about Republicans and Democrats:

1. Republicans fought to abolish slavery and Lincoln was the first Republican president.

True. The liberal Republican party of the day was anti-slavery. At least in the north. Strangely enough, so was the Democratic party of the day. The early division of pro-/anti-slavery sentiments correlated strongly with the 'north'/'south' divide. Not so much with the Republican/Democrat divide.

2. Democrats fought for slavery.

As did Republicans. (See point 1). More congressional Democrats voted for the Civil Rights Act than did Republicans.

3. The KKK was a wing of the Democratic Party. Segregation and Jim Crowe laws were supported by Democrats.

The KKK was a terrorist organization, not a 'wing' of any political party. Segregation and Jim Crow laws were supported by *southern* Democrats (aka: 'Dixiecrats'), not by Democrats in general. Strangely enough, when the Democratic party (dominated by the voices from the North who were *against* those things) metaphorically kicked those Dixiecrats to the curb, they fled to the Republican party, and took their (largely white and racist) voting base with them.

5. The civil rights movement was started by the Republican Party and the civil rights amendments were passed with a greater percentage of Republican votes than Democrat votes.

More Democrats voted in favor of the Civil Rights amendments than did Republicans.

6. The notion that the two parties "flipped" at some point is a myth started by Lyndon Johnson as part of what he dubbed the great "Democratic Delusion" in an attempt to make progressive values Democrat as a means to power.

The parties *did* flip. The Republicans *used* to be the liberal party of this country. They haven't been since shortly after the Republican party adopted its 'Southern Strategy'. This is well documented: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy

7. Entitlements and other government programs are designed to keep poor beholden to the government and in favor of it. Democrats don't want people to get a leg up and help themselves. By design it is a means of control.

Let me get this straight, you're in favor of giving people 'a leg up', but you're against things like welfare which *actually do that*?
The current (conservative) Republican idea of 'a leg up' can be boiled down to a sentiment of, "**** you. I've got mine, you can eat **** and starve. Get a job, you lazy bum!" as opposed to the current Democratic idea of 'a leg up', which is "Crap, you've got it tough. Let me help make sure you and your kids have food and shelter and the tools necessary for you to find a job."

Get some real information and don't believe the lies or go spreading misinformation about a political party.

You should take your own advice. You repeatedly conflate the southern Democratic contingent (the Dixiecrats) with the entire democratic party. The schism between the two started back in the late '40s, well before the Civil Rights movement got any discernible momentum (1954-1968). Even before 1948, when the Democratic party officially adopted civil rights as a plank int he party platform, they were effectively separate parties. Nothing more than inertia kept them together under the 'Democrat' label by that point. This is similar to the GOP/TEA Party issue of today. They aren't the same party, but the TEA Party formed from a subset of the Republican party and they can't bring themselves to formally split off because they know that if they do, they'll lose a lot of the power (and votes) associated with the 'Republican' name.

 

[tbrinkma]

You do realize the those "southern dixicrats" became what is now the conservative wing of the republican party

No. He likes to pretend that didn't happen, ignoring the great Republican 'Southern Strategy'. It's just a massive coincidence that the Republican stronghold states map perfectly to the pro-slavery/pro-Jim Crow states.

 

[tbrinkma]

I would love to see your proof on this.

Republicans currently use 'progressive' as an insult, and liken 'Progressives' to Nazis. Surely, you're not claiming that the Republican party is the champion of progressive values?

 

[Keirasplace]

They should have introduced and passed this law back in 2009 when the Democrats had control of both houses of Congress and President Obama had just started in office. Such a law passed back then would have resolved the entire same-sex marriage issue on a national scale.

The whole global meltdown and then passing ACA used up most of Obama's good intentions in the early first term. That and being way to conciliant with the GOP, which hasn't been in his second term.

 

[tbrinkma]

I understand that the GOP had the first president that led the country on a war that eventually wound up freeing the slaves, enacting the 13th amendment, had a greater percentage of legislators in Congress enacting the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (they didn't have a majority, so they couldn't pass it, but the percentage division voting for it was greater than the percentage of the D party voting for it), and one of the governors from that party signed legislation that removed the Confederate Battle Flag from the South Carolina State Capitol complex, where a Democrat had installed it.

So your knowledge of history stops in the 60s? Try reading about what's happened *since* then.

 

[Keirasplace]

They could do both. Besides, this isn't politics. It's common decency, a concept that seems to be too much for some people to comprehend.

Some people think being a decent human being is political.... Somehow.

 

[tbrinkma]

And these terms were made by the mostly white ruling class of the USA. It also assumes that white people are non colored and the rest of the world has had color applied to them.

Don't be silly. Us whites had the color leached *out* of us by the comparative lack of sun in Europe and northern Asia. And, no, I'm not referring to getting a 'tan'. I'm referring to the fact that the lesser amount of sun (way back in the pre-historical days) meant a Vitamin-D deficiency if you didn't have paler skin.

 

[tbrinkma]

It depends on whether one is using the subtractive color theory or the additive color theory.

http://www.colormatters.com/color-and-design/are-black-and-white-colors

Not really. Since we're discussing color as 'created' by light reflecting off of a surface, we're definitively talking about subtractive color.

Unless, of course, you know humans who emit light.

 

[Keirasplace]

This is an inconvenient truth. How quick we forget that Apple has no problem doing business in countries that have zero LGBT rights. They're for whatever rights in each country that are the most profitable for them.

They exert influence where they can; just like the US does business with plenty of unsavory countries. One thing you forget is that there is risk to them in doing these actions even if its just in the US. Because, as you said, many countries where Apple does business are anti-lbgt. People there could react badly to its actions.

 

[tbrinkma]

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".

You haven't actually ready anything about the case that didn't come straight from the right-wing media, have you?

Some small facts of which you're probably unaware:
1) The gay couple never filed suit against the bakery, the state did.
2) The gay couple never took the issue to the press, the bakery did.
3) The bakery was fined for openly, and admittedly, violating an existing anti-discrimination law, just as they would have been had the couple in question been denied service for being black, or mixed-race, or Jewish.
4) The gay couple was awarded damages due to the bakery repeatedly releasing the couple's information (including phone number, and address), resulting in threats to their safety. The couple nearly lost their *children* because, after being doxed by the bakery, they couldn't guarantee the children's safety from the hate and threats being levied against them.

The decision in Obergfell is the same decision as in Loving v Virginia. Strangely enough, dissent to *that* decision still exists, it's just not fashionable these days to scream that you're being oppressed because blacks and whites can marry one another.

 

[Eraserhead]

The whole global meltdown and then passing ACA used up most of Obama's good intentions in the early first term. That and being way to conciliant with the GOP, which hasn't been in his second term.

How exactly was the global meltdown - which happened when Bush was in office - Obamas fault?

 

[ThisIsNotMe]

Can you please copy and paste the exact paragraph from this page that implies Apple does not support equal rights?

The only things I can see on that page that discuss equality are:





That is the opposite to what you are claiming.

If Apple supported equal rights than 'diversity' would be irrelevant.

 

[haxrnick]

4) The gay couple was awarded damages due to the bakery repeatedly releasing the couple's information (including phone number, and address), resulting in threats to their safety. The couple nearly lost their *children* because, after being doxed by the bakery, they couldn't guarantee the children's safety from the hate and threats being levied against them.

This keeps getting repeated and I can't find anything on it. Not even on ThinkProgress. Where are you getting this?

 

[dec.]

This keeps getting repeated and I can't find anything on it. Not even on ThinkProgress. Where are you getting this?

http://www.oregonlive.com/business/index.ssf/2015/03/halfway_through_sweet_cakes_by.html

Very happy to help out

 

[MOFS]

This keeps getting repeated and I can't find anything on it. Not even on ThinkProgress. Where are you getting this?

She [Rachel Bowman-Cryer]said the threats were part of a stream of "hateful, hurtful things" that came after the couple's contact information (home address, phone and email) was posted on Aaron Klein's personal Facebook page. She said she feared for her life and her wife's life.

link

On a side issue, it has been reported by the BBC that Apple's proactive nature to LGBTQ rights is a positive thing for the company.

Mr Cook's "CEO activism" benefited his company, too, say researchers from Harvard Business School and Duke University who have been tracking his Twitter use.

"He effectively framed the debate using social media at a time when opinions were being formed and the impact went beyond the political," says Aaron Chatterji, a professor at Duke.

Apple boss Tim Cook's tweets have benefited his company's brand, researchers believe

"We have found his statements about the law had a positive impact on consumer sentiment for Apple."

It also helps if you have more than 1.3 million Twitter followers.

Long may this continue.

 

[haxrnick]

Thank you.

 

[glxyjones]

You haven't actually ready anything about the case that didn't come straight from the right-wing media, have you?

Some small facts of which you're probably unaware:
1) The gay couple never filed suit against the bakery, the state did.
2) The gay couple never took the issue to the press, the bakery did.
3) The bakery was fined for openly, and admittedly, violating an existing anti-discrimination law, just as they would have been had the couple in question been denied service for being black, or mixed-race, or Jewish.
4) The gay couple was awarded damages due to the bakery repeatedly releasing the couple's information (including phone number, and address), resulting in threats to their safety. The couple nearly lost their *children* because, after being doxed by the bakery, they couldn't guarantee the children's safety from the hate and threats being levied against them.

The decision in Obergfell is the same decision as in Loving v Virginia. Strangely enough, dissent to *that* decision still exists, it's just not fashionable these days to scream that you're being oppressed because blacks and whites can marry one another.

Wow, I thought it was bullsh&t even before I read all of that. Thanks for the info.

 

[69650]

Ironic that a story on equal rights for gays is in a separate but not equal forum.

Why is this not an "equal forum"? You have the freedom to comment on this story without censorship.

 

[GREEN4U]

what's religion then?

Religion is man's effort to reach God, through ritual, asceticism, etc.

Christianity teaches that no man seeks God on his own (evidence by all the darkened hearts here), but rather that God chooses who He saves/who will believe in Him. And the only way to be "right" before God is to confess Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior of your life.

 

[GREEN4U]

If anybody has a question about their personal relationship to God, please feel free to message me.

It's the most important decision you can make in your life.

 

[subjonas]

I would say their audits of their Chinese factories are unpopular.

Aren't the audits a good thing? Why are they unpopular?

 

[69650]

Maybe Apple should practice what they preach. Apple's current leadership includes 15 White Males and 3 Women. There is just one non-White person in their executive profile. Not exactly pushing the equality agenda. Apparently it's ok to be gay but not so good if your Black, Asian, Latino, Chinese or any other ethnic group.

 

[Renzatic]

Christianity teaches that no man seeks God on his own (evidence by all the darkened hearts here), but rather that God chooses who He saves/who will believe in Him. And the only way to be "right" before God is to confess Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior of your life.

I'm not exactly an atheist, not exactly religious either, but Calvinists are the funniest of the funny, let me tell you.

So no man seeks God on his own, but God has already chosen those who will eventually seek God to be saved. Therefore, the whole process of proselytizing for the sake of another's soul is a moot point, since it's already determined beforehand who will do what. Predestination contradicts the concept of free will, throws into question the idea of a loving God, and negates Christ dying on the cross to forgive the sins of mankind. It makes existence nothing more than an elaborate play put on for the sake of one entity.

What's the point of anything if we're just automatons running through a preset program. Why would a loving God create billions upon billions of creatures solely for the purpose of doubting His plan, destined to suffer in eternal damnation? If there's no choice, then there's no reason for any of it.

 

[flat five]

God chooses who He saves/who will believe in Him.

why doesn't he choose more of these people?

 

[Wondercow]

Maybe Apple should practice what they preach. Apple's current leadership includes 15 White Males and 3 Women. There is just one non-White person in their executive profile. Not exactly pushing the equality agenda. Apparently it's ok to be gay but not so good if your Black, Asian, Latino, Chinese or any other ethnic group.

Even if no one from a minority group was qualified, or even wants such a position? Who cares who makes up any given group as long as membership in that group was/is open, fairly, to all who are qualified and the final decision is not made through bias?