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
Equality legislation has absolutely nothing to do with Apple and is nothing but a distraction from Tim Cook's lack of vision.
I wonder how many more flops we will have to endure under Cook's 'leadership' before he gets the sack.
The time for him to step down is well overdue. He is a parasite on the name of Apple, and for as long as he remains CEO, the stock will suffer.
I wonder how many more flops we will have to endure under Cook's 'leadership' before he gets the sack.
The time for him to step down is well overdue. He is a parasite on the name of Apple, and for as long as he remains CEO, the stock will suffer.
Last edited:
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.
Okay, people. Pay attention to this. You know that word people like throwing around when someone insults them? They always end up saying something like "why do you have to resort to ad hominem attacks, huh?".
...and I'll eventually pop in and say something like "insults aren't an ad hominem attack", because I'm an annoying know-it-all, and everyone hates me.
See the quote above? THIS is an ad hominem attack. Hell, it's practically a textbook example thereof. He's not attacking the argument, rather trying to discredit his position by attacking the person himself.
Now I don't have anything against Brdl04, don't even know what he's arguing for or against, but...man, this was a chance I couldn't pass up.
You have yet to give me proof as to the "obvious long history" of racism in the Republican Party. Maybe Ill start and give you some reading on the "historical long history" of racism in the Democratic Party.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/420321/democratic-party-racist-history-mona-charen
Again, I don't object to the contents of it, but like the recent debate about marriage, as the minority opinion put it, 37 of the 50 states already solved the question, why does the Court need to intervene?
It's a matter of separation of powers. I can object to the Federal Government involving itself in matters best left to the states while not objecting to the intent of the law at a State level.
It's not "all or nothing".
When it comes to who and what Democrats and Republicans are, especially in the Deep South, it's a confusing issue that can take hours and hours to explain.
But we in Dear Old Dixie do serve as the perfect example of the great ideological shift. See, before the 60's, the south was a Democrat stronghold. Now it's almost exclusively Republican. There's a good reason for this.
People supporting equality call others neanderthals. Sounds more like some hate and nazi talk to me.
I say we bring it back into port then...
The original case was wheat being grown on a private farm in Kansas affecting the price of wheat across state lines, and therefore, the Interstate Commerce Clause came into effect.
A tenuous reading, at best.
Because the question came before the Supreme Court. They were asked "is banning gay marriage constitutional", and 5 of the 9 Justices said "no".
They were simply doing what they always do: weighing on politics and social issues as they pertain to the Constitution.
(taking a comedy break here...)
My Dixie Wrecked...
(OK, back to the heat of the battle...)
Civil rights are all or nothing. No one should have to have civil rights in one state and be a second class citizen in the state next door. Your logic may apply to other types of laws, but civil rights are different ballpark. And it's not federal overreach. It's legally well established that the federal government has the power to do this.
OK, we got the message:
1. Apple is gay
2. Apple is "cool" because of that
In this case, dear Apple, change the Logo back to the old rainbow one:
- it would perfectly match the new corporate message
- and also please the rest of us, who are either old school or don't possess any of those 2 attributes above.
Peace.
1. Apple is gay
2. Apple is "cool" because of that
In this case, dear Apple, change the Logo back to the old rainbow one:
- it would perfectly match the new corporate message
- and also please the rest of us, who are either old school or don't possess any of those 2 attributes above.
Peace.
Last edited:
Yes because one has to be gay to support common sense civil rights. This mindset is the problem with this country.
Theres some issues where its a case of right or wrong, not about beliefs. Gay rights is one of them.
Its great to see Apple supporting this.
That's funny considering how well the stock is doing. Tim is doing a fantastic job running apple. But I guess you can continue living your own reality if you want to.
fighting hate with hate never works. because someone hates a race doesn't make you any better then you hating that person. Hate is hate no matter what. SO what do you do about it? who knows....
you will not ever be in a perfect utopian world where everyone loves each other for who they are.....yes its sad, but its true.
There's a difference for hating a person for what they are, and for who they are.
Do you hate Bill because he's an ass? Does he annoy you all the time? Throw rocks at your house? That's not discrimination. Bill can always choose to wise up, realize what an ass he's been, and quit throwing rocks at your house. He might do this because you pointed out how much an ass he is.
But an ass is what he is, not who he is.
If you hate Bill because he's black, that's another thing entirely. You hate him because of his state of being. Something he can't change. He could be the nicest guy in the world, but you hate him simply because of the color of his skin.
...and that would make you an ass.
So you see why intolerance of intolerance isn't really intolerance by the social definition of the word.
Caucasian serves as the catch-all term for European/Slavic-or thereabout people. Kinda like how Chinese and Japanese people fall underneath the Asian blanket.