Apple Celebrates Pride Festival With Rainbow Apple Watch Bands for Staff

[oldmacs]

Thus I DO NOT hate homosexuals, AND I do not agree with their behaviour

So if some other religion decided that it disagreed with people being of a certain race, because it is a sin, and it's followers "did not agree" with that race of people, would that be ok? Because it's essentially the same thing .

At the end of the day people don't wake up one day and decide to be gay, it is not a choice people make and it is a choice that many people who are gay would love to have to avoid the hatred in the world. On the other hand, you chose your religion and can pretty much leave at anytime.

 

[steve knight]

Tell that to these people.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/post...sed-to-do-flowers-for-my-gay-friends-wedding/

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013...akery-closes-after-lgbt-threats-protests.html

So yeah, your lifestyle does affect others, and not in a good way.

so they are fine if they break the law and should have have to follow it? why is it ok for the Christian to refuse to do something but if they are called out on it they are persecuted? see you just love to try to take the other side but end up proving the opposite. I will take your two persecuted christians and top them with
In 2014, the FBI reported that 20.8% of hate crimes reported to police in 2013 were founded on perceived sexual orientation. 61% of those attacks were against gay men.[2] Additionally, 0.5% of all hate crimes were based on perceived gender identity. In 2004, the FBI reported that 14% of hate crimes due to perceived sexual orientation were against lesbians, 2% against heterosexuals and 1% against bisexuals.[3]

The FBI reported that for 2006, hate crimes against gays increased from 14% to 16% in 2005, as percentage of total documented hate crimes across the U.S.[4] The 2006 annual report, released on November 19, 2007, also said that hate crimes based on sexual orientation are the third most common type, behind race and religion.[4] In 2008, 17.6% of hate crimes were based on the victim's perceived sexual orientation. Of those crimes, 72.23% were violent in nature. 4,704 crimes were committed due to racial bias and 1,617 were committed due to sexual orientation. Of these, only one murder and one forcible rape were committed due to racial bias, whereas five murders and six rapes were committed based on sexual orientation.[5]

Santa Clara County Deputy District Attorney (DDA) Jay Boyarsky attributed a surge in anti-gay hate crimes, from 3 in 2007 to 14 in 2008, to controversy over Proposition 8. However, the DDA cautioned against reading too much from small statistical samples, pointing out that the vast majority of hate incidents do not get referred to the District Attorney's office.[6]

In 2011, the FBI reported 1,572 hate crime victims targeted based on a sexual orientation bias, making up 20.4% of the total hate crimes for that year. Of the total victims, 56.7% were targeted based on anti-male homosexual bias, 29.6% were targeted based on anti-homosexual bias, and 11.1% were targeted based on anti-female homosexual bias.[7]

Violent acts against LGBT persons[edit]
1969–1979[edit]

• June 28, 1969 – Police, in the early morning hours, raided a gay bar, the Stonewall Inn, located in the Greenwich Village neighborhood of Manhattan, New York City. This event sparked the Stonewall riots, which were a series of demonstrations by members of the LGBT community.
• March 1970 – Howard Efland, a gay man who had checked into the Dover Hotel in Los Angeles, under the pseudonym J. McCann, was beaten to death by officers of the Los Angeles Police Department.[8]
• June 24, 1973 – An arsonist burned the Upstairs Lounge, a gay bar in New Orleans, killing 32 people.[9]
• June 21, 1977 – Robert Hillsborough was stabbed to death in San Francisco by a man shouting "******".[10]
• July 5, 1978 – A gang of youths armed with baseball bats and tree branches assaulted several men in an area of Central Park in New York City that was known to be frequented by homosexuals. The victims were assaulted at random, but the assailants later confessed that they had deliberately set out to the park to attack homosexuals. One of those injured was former figure skater Dick Button, who was assaulted while watching a fireworks display in the park.[11][12]
• November 27, 1978 – Openly gay San Francisco city supervisor Harvey Milk, along with Mayor George Moscone, was assassinated by political rival Dan White at San Francisco City Hall. Outrage over the assassinations and the short sentence given to White (seven years) prompted the White Night riots.[13]
• January 1979 – Tennessee Williams was beaten by five teenage boys in Key West. He escaped serious injury. The episode was part of a spate of anti-gay violence inspired by an anti-gay newspaper ad run by a local Baptist minister.[14]
• June 5, 1979 – Terry Knudsen was beaten to death by three men in Loring Park in Minneapolis, Minnesota.[15]
• September 7, 1979 – Robert Allen Taylor was stabbed to death near Loring Park in Minneapolis. A local reporter interviewed the murderer from jail and was told, "I don't like gays. Okay?"[15]
• October 7, 1979 – 17-year-old Steven Charles of Newark, New Jersey, was beaten to death in New York City by Robert DeLicio, Costabile "Gus" Farace, Farace's cousin Mark Granato, and David Spoto. They also beat Charles' friend, 16-year-old Thomas Moore of Brooklyn. Moore was critically injured but managed to get help at a nearby residence. Moore identified the four men via a lineup four days after the incident. Farace, the leader of the attack, pleaded guilty to first-degree manslaughter and was paroled after eight years, in 1988. He, himself was murdered on November 17, 1989.[16]

 

[redscull]

Tell that to these people.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/post...sed-to-do-flowers-for-my-gay-friends-wedding/

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013...akery-closes-after-lgbt-threats-protests.html

So yeah, your lifestyle does affect others, and not in a good way.

On the one hand, business owners should be allowed to operate their business how they see fit. And to that end, these two business owners were not legally obliged to serve those gay customers. On the other hand, discriminating against other human beings IS wrong, and at least in this country, society is more and more accepting of this fact. It's a slow process. We're still struggling with real equality for groups that we declared equal over a hundred years ago. But the trend is there, and I think it will continue. So if you want a successful business here, you'll need to welcome everyone equally. And if you're an immoral hater, you really do deserve to be called out.

 

[tgara]

At the end of the day people don't wake up one day and decide to be gay, it is not a choice people make and it is a choice that many people who are gay would love to have to avoid the hatred in the world. On the other hand, you chose your religion and can pretty much leave at anytime.

Homosexual attractions are clearly not a "choice" in the vast majority of cases. However, it would actually be insulting to people with same-sex attractions to suggest that they are compelled to act on those attractions. Homosexual conduct (if it is consensual) clearly is a choice—as is self-identifying as "gay" or "lesbian" or "bi" or whatever. One’s self-identification can be changed at will, as can one’s sexual behavior, although perhaps with difficulty—just as other behavioral habits such as overeating can be changed. So yeah, there is a lot of choice in there.

 

[WarHeadz]

Tell that to these people.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/post...sed-to-do-flowers-for-my-gay-friends-wedding/

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013...akery-closes-after-lgbt-threats-protests.html

So yeah, your lifestyle does affect others, and not in a good way.

So some business owners choose to discriminate against customers for existing incorrectly, get sued and are found to be in violation of the law, but it's somehow the fault of those discriminated? Talk about victim blaming, no wonder conservatives often to the same to rape victims. Brock Turner's supporters are also unhappy about "political correctness".

You can bitch and moan about it all you want, society will NEVER go backward to fit your personal agenda.
[doublepost=1467042806][/doublepost]

Homosexual attractions are clearly not a "choice" in the vast majority of cases. However, it would actually be insulting to people with same-sex attractions to suggest that they are compelled to act on those attractions. Homosexual conduct (if it is consensual) clearly is a choice—as is self-identifying as "gay" or "lesbian" or "bi" or whatever. One’s self-identification can be changed at will, as can one’s sexual behavior, although perhaps with difficulty—just as other behavioral habits such as overeating can be changed. So yeah, there is a lot of choice in there.

So what you're saying is that you can enjoy gay butt sex if you really wanted to?

 

[bent christian]

On the one hand, business owners should be allowed to operate their business how they see fit.

Businesses cannot and should not be able to operate only how they see fit. We have labor laws and licensing requirements for very good reasons. This thread is proof.
[doublepost=1467043080][/doublepost]

So what you're saying is that you can enjoy gay butt sex if you really wanted to?

@tgara is saying that people should not live their lives freely, because it makes him/her feel icky.

 

[melendezest]

So if some other religion decided that it disagreed with people being of a certain race, because it is a sin, and it's followers "did not agree" with that race of people, would that be ok? Because it's essentially the same thing .

At the end of the day people don't wake up one day and decide to be gay, it is not a choice people make and it is a choice that many people who are gay would love to have to avoid the hatred in the world. On the other hand, you chose your religion and can pretty much leave at anytime.

First off, I was not talking about some other religion, and thus cannot speak for it. I was referring to mine.

To put this in religious context narrows the subject, we're talking about cultural, moral, and ideological concepts.

As long as one does not opress the other, everything is permissible. I know this to be true, as I have been able to work side-by-side with white supremacists, LGBT, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindu, and many other ideologic/religious group members peacefully. Our ideological discussions are interesting, to say the least, but so far this has not impacted negatively on our ability to work together towards at least a common (professional) goal.

Now, the issue of whether one does not decide to be gay is complex. Perhaps an individual is born "gay".

But the Biblical concept speaks specifically against behavior, not state.

Thus, the Biblical offence occurs when homosexual activity occurs.

To be clear, an example would be this:

An individual who is sexually attracted to other members of the same sex but chooses to NOT engage in same-sex sexual relations is free from culpability. An individual who chooses to do so is guilty of an offence.

For the Christian, it is within their "scope" to recognize what the offence is, without judging the offender.

There is CLEAR separation of the two (offender vs offence). This is why (real) Christians are called to "love the sinner" and "hate the sin".

Be advised, not everyone that calls themselves "Christian" actually is...

EDIT: I also want to clarify: I'm not throwing stones here, lest I be judged.

I have my own laundry lists of offences against my God that I have to work through with Him.

I merely pointing out (my) God's point-of-view, as specified by His documentation...

 

[oldmacs]

Homosexual attractions are clearly not a "choice" in the vast majority of cases. However, it would actually be insulting to people with same-sex attractions to suggest that they are compelled to act on those attractions. Homosexual conduct (if it is consensual) clearly is a choice—as is self-identifying as "gay" or "lesbian" or "bi" or whatever. One’s self-identification can be changed at will, as can one’s sexual behavior, although perhaps with difficulty—just as other behavioral habits such as overeating can be changed. So yeah, there is a lot of choice in there.

This is absolute crap.

If you're attached to the same sex only you are 'GAY/LESBIAN', Or if you're attracted to both you are 'BI' they are simply words to describe which sexes a person is attached to, and since this is based on orientation, there is no changing that.

So are you arguing that people should against their nature be celibate because homosexuality doesn't suit some of society? Of course homosexual activity is a choice, just as heterosexual activity is a choice.

There is no practical choice for gay people to become straight.

 

[rdowns]

First off, I was not talking about some other religion, and thus cannot speak for it. I was referring to mine.

To put this in religious context narrows the subject, we're talking about cultural, moral, and ideological concepts.

As long as one does not opress the other, everything is permissible. I know this to be true, as I have been able to work side-by-side with white supremacists, LGBT, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindu, and many other ideologic/religious group members peacefully. Our ideological discussions are interesting, to say the least, but so far this has not impacted negatively on our ability to work together towards at least a common (professional) goal.

Now, the issue of whether one does not decide to be gay is complex. Perhaps an individual is born "gay".

But the Biblical concept speaks specifically against behavior, not state.

Thus, the Biblical offence occurs when homosexual activity occurs.

To be clear, an example would be this:

An individual who is sexually attracted to other members of the same sex but chooses to NOT engage in same-sex sexual relations is free from culpability. An individual who chooses to do so is guilty of an offence.

For the Christian, it is within their "scope" to recognize what the offence is, without judging the offender.

There is CLEAR separation of the two (offender vs offence). This is why (real) Christians are called to "love the sinner" and "hate the sin".

Be advised, not everyone that calls themselves "Christian" actually is...

Not act on your feelings? Love the sinner, hate the sin. Just more religious ******** designed to put a positive on their hate and bigotry.

 

[bent christian]

Not act on your feelings? Love the sinner, hate the sin. Just more religious ******** designed to put a positive on their hate and bigotry.

Yes. People find justification in religion for bigoted thinking. They project [onto the religion]. It is not the other way around.

Miraculously, many Christians are totally fine with LGBT+, others are not. They read the same basic text.

 

[WarHeadz]

@tgara is saying that people should not live their lives freely, because it makes him/her feel icky.

Hit the nail right on the head. This is what it always boils down to, icky feelings. Often times they blame their icky feelings on their religious beliefs, but that's becoming harder and harder to do in a time where you see churches draped in rainbow flags.

 

[oldmacs]

First off, I was not talking about some other religion, and thus cannot speak for it. I was referring to mine.

To put this in religious context narrows the subject, we're talking about cultural, moral, and ideological concepts.

As long as one does not opress the other, everything is permissible. I know this to be true, as I have been able to work side-by-side with white supremacists, LGBT, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindu, and many other ideologic/religious group members peacefully. Our ideological discussions are interesting, to say the least, but so far this has not impacted negatively on our ability to work together towards at least a common (professional) goal.

Now, the issue of whether one does not decide to be gay is complex. Perhaps an individual is born "gay".

But the Biblical concept speaks specifically against behavior, not state.

Thus, the Biblical offence occurs when homosexual activity occurs.

To be clear, an example would be this:

An individual who is sexually attracted to other members of the same sex but chooses to NOT engage in same-sex sexual relations is free from culpability. An individual who chooses to do so is guilty of an offence.

For the Christian, it is within their "scope" to recognize what the offence is, without judging the offender.

There is CLEAR separation of the two (offender vs offence). This is why (real) Christians are called to "love the sinner" and "hate the sin".

Be advised, not everyone that calls themselves "Christian" actually is...

So you now get to choose who is a Christian and who is not?

Being a Christain myself I don't need to be advised on anything. There are branches of Christianity that would argue what you have said, and they are no less Christian than you are. The bible is fairly open to interpretation on homosexuality. Jesus never specifically dammed it and there are arguments for and against the other mentions.

Personally, I simply can not believe that God would have allowed humans to be homosexual, the making their lives into a misery by saying that they are not allowed to have relationships. The extremely brief mentions of homosexuality in the bible (that we don't even know who wrote them, or whether translations/transcriptions changed them) are overpowered by messages of Jesus in equality/love for all which is fairly hard to argue against.

But anyway you missed the point. If Christianity didn't like certain races, would that then make racism ok?

Now, the issue of whether one does not decide to be gay is complex. Perhaps an individual is born "gay".

Only in the minds of the hateful.

 

[melendezest]

Not act on your feelings? Love the sinner, hate the sin. Just more religious ******** designed to put a positive on their hate and bigotry.

There is no spin, other than the one you're putting in here.

I speak plainly and specifically AGAINST hatred.

Yet here you are, throwing it around.

 

[steve knight]

Yes. People find justification in religion for bigoted thinking. They project [onto the religion]. It is not the other way around.

Miraculously, many Christians are totally fine with LGBT+, others are not. They read the same basic text.

Yes we don't want to look at all the christian parents that threw out their children because they could not tolerate the sin and that was more important then loving the sinner.
Remember you choose to see the bible as gods word but that does not make it so.

 

[MadeTheSwitch]

If an Apple employee believes the LGBTQ lifestyle is incorrect, are they allowed to have that opinion? Doubtful.

Considering the younger generation doesn't care about such things for the most part, it's doubtful that this issue is even much of an issue anymore. But let's say it still is. Why would someone anti-gay work for a gay person and a pro gay company? I wouldn't work for someone who didn't respect my equality.

 

[WarHeadz]

First off, I was not talking about some other religion, and thus cannot speak for it. I was referring to mine.

To put this in religious context narrows the subject, we're talking about cultural, moral, and ideological concepts.

As long as one does not opress the other, everything is permissible. I know this to be true, as I have been able to work side-by-side with white supremacists, LGBT, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindu, and many other ideologic/religious group members peacefully. Our ideological discussions are interesting, to say the least, but so far this has not impacted negatively on our ability to work together towards at least a common (professional) goal.

Now, the issue of whether one does not decide to be gay is complex. Perhaps an individual is born "gay".

But the Biblical concept speaks specifically against behavior, not state.

Thus, the Biblical offence occurs when homosexual activity occurs.

To be clear, an example would be this:

An individual who is sexually attracted to other members of the same sex but chooses to NOT engage in same-sex sexual relations is free from culpability. An individual who chooses to do so is guilty of an offence.

For the Christian, it is within their "scope" to recognize what the offence is, without judging the offender.

There is CLEAR separation of the two (offender vs offence). This is why (real) Christians are called to "love the sinner" and "hate the sin".

Be advised, not everyone that calls themselves "Christian" actually is...

EDIT: I also want to clarify: I'm not throwing stones here, lest I be judged.

I have my own laundry lists of offences against my God that I have to work through with Him.

I merely pointing out (my) God's point-of-view, as specified by His documentation...

Why would your god make me have exclusively same sex attractions, only to force me to be celibate and not enjoy love and intimacy (a basic human right) in the same way that heterosexuals do? That's sick and cruel and I don't buy it for a second.

 

[bent christian]

Hit the nail right on the head. This is what it always boils down to, icky feelings. Often times they blame their icky feelings on their religious beliefs, but that's becoming harder and harder to do in a time where you see churches draped in rainbow flags.

It is quite an expectation that the world around us will accommodate and cater to our own personal likes and dislikes. Such entitlement these people live with.

 

[oldmacs]

There is no spin, other than the one you're putting in here.

I speak plainly and specifically AGAINST hatred.

Yet here you are, throwing it around.

No you don't, you essentially tell the LGBT community that they are different and they're not allowed to love because for some reason they are born with same sex attraction. Its this message that hurts people and its this message that condemn people to mental illness.

 

[WarHeadz]

Considering the younger generation doesn't care about such things for the most part, it's doubtful that this issue is even much of an issue anymore. But let's say it still is. Why would someone anti-gay work for a gay person and a pro gay company? I wouldn't work for someone who didn't respect my equality.

Lol I challenge anyone to walk into an Apple store and find an employee who's against LGBT rights. My local Apple store has a transgender employee, you can see she is treated with love and respect by her straight cisgender peers just by how they interact. Our generation is so over this crap, many older people are angry that millennials will never inherit their various bigotries no matter how hard they try.

 

[zioxide]

Let's get back on topic.

The main problem is that Apple seem to be more interested in endless watch bands than in focusing on their loyal customers. What we would like is computers worthy of the name Apple, be it in the form of Macs, iPads or iPhones. We're not getting them, and that makes me sad.

Regardless of where you stand on Tim Cook's political leanings, the point is that his heavy emphasis on politics is wearisome for us Apple enthusiasts, because it shows that they are not concentrating on making good computers. I have never seen such negativity on Apple's products as in the last few years, and therefore it is reasonable to deduce that they have taken the eye off the ball. It is unquestionable, in my opinion, that Apple are in for a sustained period of revenue and profit decline that need not have happened, and that that is a direct result of Cook's decision to divert his attention from their products and spread it over areas like politics, which do nothing for Apple's bottom line or reputation as a maker of outstanding computers, but help him to feel good about himself.

This is a load of crap. You seriously think Apple can't walk and chew gum at the same time?

On top of that, they didn't release this to the public. Didn't even issue any press release. It was a gesture for employees. Something different than the t-shirt they get every year. The only reason it's news is because some anonymous employee shared it on Reddit.
[doublepost=1467044297][/doublepost]

It may come to surprise you that not everyone feels that homosexuality is something that needs a parade. It may also come to surprise you that not everyone feels that Apple should take such an active political stance.

Boo hoo. Don't buy their products if it irks you that badly.

 

[thisisnotmyname]

I, too, would like a world without sin.

We are all sinners; it is not a thing to be celebrated. We should condemn all sin, whether it is murder, theft, greed or sexual abuse.

I wish Apple would concentrate more on innovation and less on watch bands and politics that has nothing to do with Apple's products but only serves to divide and alienate its customers and employees.

I think we should be much more concerned about offending Apollo. That flaming chariot of his in the sky could torch the entire planet and kill us all. If you think global warming is bad just wait until Apollo rides the sun right down into our little blue rock. Get your priorities straight my friend! I'll take a little raining frogs and locusts over solar-planetary collision any day of the week.

It is hateful rhetoric such as the above that perpetuates homophobia.

You are directly responsible for attacks on LGBT+ people. You caused the terrorism hate crime at Pulse in Orlando.

Careful you don't twist an ankle with that leap. Hazardous logical fallacies like that should be left to the professionals.

 

[MadeTheSwitch]

Let's get back on topic.

The main problem is that Apple seem to be more interested in endless watch bands than in focusing on their loyal customers. What we would like is computers worthy of the name Apple, be it in the form of Macs, iPads or iPhones. We're not getting them, and that makes me sad.

Regardless of where you stand on Tim Cook's political leanings, the point is that his heavy emphasis on politics is wearisome for us Apple enthusiasts, because it shows that they are not concentrating on making good computers. I have never seen such negativity on Apple's products as in the last few years, and therefore it is reasonable to deduce that they have taken the eye off the ball. It is unquestionable, in my opinion, that Apple are in for a sustained period of revenue and profit decline that need not have happened, and that that is a direct result of Cook's decision to divert his attention from their products and spread it over areas like politics, which do nothing for Apple's bottom line or reputation as a maker of outstanding computers, but help him to feel good about himself.

Ridiculous. It's called multitasking. Any modern day company as large as Apple is working on a multitude of things at the same time. You act like Apple is still working out of a garage. Watch bands is a minor decision that took a fraction of Apple's time. If the rumors we have heard are true, those Apple computers you want are in the works as you read this. It's not an either/or situation. No one is saying "Damn, I wish we had more time to work on computers, those rainbow watch bands really took a lot of my day up.". No. No they didn't.

 

[Harrycooke]

Lots of people are angry about lots of things in this country right now. However, you do not have the right to say that Benjamin Frost directly terrorist attacked Pulse in Orlando. That is defamation and libel and the law is very clear about that. You are being extreme and in no way helping your cause.

Their post was homophobic. All homophobia contributes to perpetuating homophobic hatred which caused Omar Mateen to hold homophobic beliefs. These homophobic beliefs were LEARNED. Benjamin Frost is teaching others to be homophobic, therefore he has to accept culpability. In fact, straight people in general need to accept culpability because homophobia is the norm and if you aren't helping eliminate homophobia, you are contributing.

Honestly, I'm getting fed up of the straight tears in this thread. If you aren't LGBT+ you do not get to tell us how to feel about homophobia. Stop making yourselves the victim, and perhaps contribute to the fight against homophobia.

 

[pat500000]

There is no excuse for murder. On that we can agree.

But to assume that a disagreement in the moral concept of LGBT automatically leads to murder is ridiculous and an equally angry and intolerant overreaction as those who HATE homosexuals.

For me, this is simple: homosexual behaviour is in direct contravention to the Judeo-Christian moral principles I ascribe to.

Those very principles are also in direct contravention to muder, hatred, discord, etc.

Thus I DO NOT hate homosexuals, AND I do not agree with their behaviour.

But it is an ideological disagreement, and not one to be enforced at the point of a gun (even if in the eyes of the Biblical God it IS a capital offence). At the CENTER of such doctrine is LOVE, COMPASSION, and FORGIVENESS. Not hatred.

Thus, as Thomas Jefferson put it : "But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. What is it men cannot be made to believe!"

Those who claim intolerance regarding others must be careful that they do not become intolerant themselves.

Well said. I work with people who are gays but I don't hate them and I don't condone their belief but at same time they are great people to work with.

 

[steve knight]

Well said. I work with people who are gays but I don't hate them and I don't condone their belief but at same time they are great people to work with.

what beliefs are those? gayness is not a belief.