Apple CEO Tim Cook Speaks Out Against Indiana's 'Religious Freedom' Law

[Rogifan]

So If an atheist dr lets a christian patient die from a treatable illness, you are ok about that?

So athiests are against treating the sick? I wasn't aware of that. Is this athiests doctor the only doctor this Christian patient had access to? They have no means or ability to see another doctor that has no issues treating their illness? Somehow I find that very hard to believe.

 

[hudson1]

And if I'm the only Dr in town and don't agree with my patients religious belief, can I refuse to treat them? What is this the USSR?

I believe you are either missing or intentionally distorting the issue here. The baker refusing to bake a wedding cake (not anything else) is analogous to the doctor refusing to do a sex-change operation for someone.

 

[Orlandoech]

How about you go someplace else. If you run a business that is open to the public, and have objections to conducting said business with a certain arbitrary group of the population, then move to a country where the government is run by religion. Here in the US, we generally try to have separation of church and state. Try conducting your business in Nigeria - Boko Haram would agree with your views.

Then why is it when I look on my money (USD) it says "In God We Trust"?

I've been looking for "God" my whole life, and he's been in my pocket the entire time!

 

[brianvictor7]

I have come to believe that this kind of legislation is past being useful. This is no longer a Christian nation and legislation like this will not change hearts or minds. Not in the current cultural climate.

Under most circumstances, I have no more (or less) problem working with practicing homosexuals than I do with fornicators and adulterers. That doesn't mean I condone their behavior. To my fellow Christians, I offer this reminder from Paul's first letter to the Corinthians (Chapter 5 verses 9 and following):

"9 I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— 10 not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. 11 But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people. 12 What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? 13 God will judge those outside."

 

[Rogifan]

Whom they love, Tim. Whom they love. /end grammar rant

Hey at least in the new MacBook video Jony Ive said only 13.1mm thick instead of thin. Now if only he could teach Phil Schiller to do the same.

 

[Websnapx2]

I'm Catholic, so I don't point to specific Bible verses to prove everything. In Catholic theology, moral precepts grow and develop from certain first principles, and we don't see the Bible as simply a list of rules.

But anyway, I have given some thought to what I would do if I owned a bakery. The issue for me would be what Catholics call scandal - that I would seem to be saying something by my actions that I don't believe or intend to say.

One solution would be to not do wedding cakes at all, for anyone. This would probably be economic suicide because the margins on wedding cakes are responsible for a great deal of the shop's profitability.

I've thought perhaps one could say "I don't sell wedding cakes, but I do sell multi-tiered cakes that can be used for any purpose. But you have to pick them up yourself, they will not be delivered to a venue."

I would not want to make gays feel unwelcome, but I would not want to dispense with my conscience to achieve that, either. I'm honestly not sure what the right answer is, but I think we need to pay wide deference to business owners who are struggling to figure this out. These are not people who are putting "No fags" signs in their window, as this issue has been grossly mischaracterized as.

Thank you for your honesty –*I can appreciate wrestling with thoughts and emotions you have held all your life while watching change happen around you. I don’t know if you know any gay people or couples, I’m sure if you got to know some –*you would know what good and right thing to do is.

edit: ps – I also grew up Catholic, a lot of it I had issue with as I grew up – things that didn’t line up with things I saw with my own eyes. It can be hard to navigate.

 

[kobalap]

Yep. And if you don't like it take your business elsewhere and tell friends and family to do the same. How difficult is it to vote with your wallet?

I think the Woolworth's department store had the same attitude when they had that whites only counter. "Hey... blacks can go vote with their wallets."

I am no lawyer but what you are proposing seems like a violation of the civil rights act of 1964. I am sure if we get enough republicans together, we can get that law changed also.

This not being the USSR and all.

 

[Mackan]

I don't understand why religious people get special treatment in the US.

Opinions based on religion are no different from someone's personal opinions.

Complaining that the government is forcing you to go against your religious beliefs, is no different from complaining they are forcing you to go against something you simply 'want' to do.

Say someone 'wanted' to discriminate against people because of their race... or perhaps they 'wanted' to abuse kids. Just because you 'want' to do something that doesn't mean you can, especially when it harms others in some way. This is what being a part of a civilised society is all about.

Governments exist to maintain order in society, so of course they should prevent this sort discrimination.

The contents of old books of myths and fable have absolutely no bearing on the matter.

Agree totally with what you say.

Given the right childhood, education, and support from the society, more and more people can hopefully feel strong and confident on their own, and don't have to rely on religion. Unfortunately, it's a ****** world, so no surprise we have to cling on to religion to find strength and meaning, which only deepens the problems.

I have no answers to many of the "big questions", and I hope there is something after death, and someone that "listens" when things are hard. But I can never fool myself into believing in these man made religions we have created thousands of years ago. Today we have science that explains a lot. What I believe I keep personal, and don't force onto someone else.

 

[mudslag]

Yes, if I'm a doctor who doesn't believe in abortion I shouldn't have to provide an abortion to someone.

To be fair, if you were a doctor that didn't want to provide abortions, you wouldn't be working in a place that provided them. You can't just go to any doctors office to get one done. Abortions are mainly performed at locations that specialize in them.

 

[cfedu]

So athiests are against treating the sick? I wasn't aware of that. Is this athiests doctor the only doctor this Christian patient had access to? They have no means or ability to see another doctor that has no issues treating their illness? Somehow I find that very hard to believe.

On an airplane, small town, or the persons condition does not look bad, but can go critical at any time.

If my beliefs are that theists are immoral, why should I be forced to treat people who are against my belief. If the person dies, so be it.

Now I know that atheism is NOT a religion but if you ask any fairy tale tellers they will tell you that evolution and atheism is a reglion.

 

[Rogifan]

I believe you are either missing or intentionally distorting the issue here. The baker refusing to bake a wedding cake (not anything else) is analogous to the doctor refusing to do a sex-change operation for someone.

Exactly. This baker isn't refusing to sell a cupcake to a gay person. I've yet to hear of an instance where a gay person was refused service solely because of their sexual orientation. Anyone who thinks this bill will result in that is distorting the issue for political reasons.

 

[kobalap]

I'm Catholic, so I don't point to specific Bible verses to prove everything. In Catholic theology, moral precepts grow and develop from certain first principles, and we don't see the Bible as simply a list of rules.

But anyway, I have given some thought to what I would do if I owned a bakery. The issue for me would be what Catholics call scandal - that I would seem to be saying something by my actions that I don't believe or intend to say.

One solution would be to not do wedding cakes at all, for anyone. This would probably be economic suicide because the margins on wedding cakes are responsible for a great deal of the shop's profitability.

I've thought perhaps one could say "I don't sell wedding cakes, but I do sell multi-tiered cakes that can be used for any purpose. But you have to pick them up yourself, they will not be delivered to a venue."

I would not want to make gays feel unwelcome, but I would not want to dispense with my conscience to achieve that, either. I'm honestly not sure what the right answer is, but I think we need to pay wide deference to business owners who are struggling to figure this out. These are not people who are putting "No fags" signs in their window, as this issue has been grossly mischaracterized as.

What percentage of your congregation uses birth control? You should probably set aside the "conscience" talk and start up with the hypocrisy talk.

----------

Exactly. This baker isn't refusing to sell a cupcake to a gay person. I've yet to hear of an instance where a gay person was refused service solely because of their sexual orientation. Anyone who thinks this bill will result in that is distorting the issue for political reasons.

Why do we need this nonsense? What's wrong with the first ammendment?

I thought you conservatives were against laws for the sake of laws. You know, any new law only serves to restrict freedoms and what not.

 

[td1439]

So a question for all of the free market types: you'd be cool with an amendment to this bill which states that any business which chooses to deny service to a customer based on sexual orientation would have to publicly state in advance that they do so, correct? In my mind, this would make for a more informed consumer who might base their choice of bakers on issues like this.

However, when a similar amendment was added to a RFRA bill in Okahoma, it stalled in the legislature and was not passed. RFRA backers defeated amendments, one similar to the Oklahoma amendment and one stating that the RFRA would not be used to discriminate, in Indiana. So I think we can dispense with the notion that this is about protecting religions from government intrusion.

 

[macduke]

This law seems like a slippery slope leading to widespread discrimination of anyone determined to be gay by some arbitrary measure. Reminds me of witch hunts which were similarly impossible to verify. I don't believe I support the intent of this law.

HOWEVER, there should be a law protecting people from doing services that aid in ceremonies that violate their religious belief. For instance, I happen to personally know Elaine Huguenin, a wedding photographer in New Mexico who had a case go all the way to the NM Supreme Court, and she lost. They basically said that the price of citizenship includes going against her religious beliefs. She had a gay couple approach her about shooting their wedding and she politely declined. They were able to easily find another photographer and for less money. But what do they do? They launch a human rights complaint with the state of New Mexico. It was ridiculous.

I do freelance web design, and you can bet that I would never build a pornographic website, an occult website, or anything else that goes against my beliefs. Actually I discriminate all the time with my job. I actively turn down clients that I feel like are going to be a pain, or not pay, and that's my right! I have a limited amount of time to spend on projects outside my regular job, and I'll be damned if I'm going to go with a client that I have a bad feeling about. Considering how much the government takes in taxes it's hardly worth it. So you can be certain I'm going to work with the people I want to. And that's what should be protected. Should you be compelled as a Muslim photographer to photograph a bar mitzvah? It's such a slippery slope either way. But for me it's more about participation in ceremonies and events as an outsider.

 

[Rogifan]

To be fair, if you were a doctor that didn't want to provide abortions, you wouldn't be working in a place that provided them. You can't just go to any doctors office to get one done. Abortions are mainly performed at locations that specialize in them.

Point being is some here think people should be forced by government to do something that goes against their moral or religious beliefs. What if I lived in a small town that only has one clinic and none of the doctors there believed in performing abortions? To some here the government should force those doctors to offer abortion services. I think that's ridiculous.

 

[Futurix]

In the UK there is a fear that Christianity isn't covered by the same protection as other religions. For example, Muslims can refuse to serve certain types of meat at work, and their employers can't do anything. However, if I decided I refused to work Sundays - or Good Friday - because I'm a Christian, I doubt I would be protected.

Because of the Christians both Good Fridays and Sundays are already public holidays (for everyone, not just Christians - even if you are not observing them) and you have full support of the law to refuse working during them (and your employer cannot do anything about it). None of the Muslim or Jewish or Hindu holidays are protected like that. You are already more privileged than any other group of people in this country - yet you are still complaining?

 

[cfedu]

I believe you are either missing or intentionally distorting the issue here. The baker refusing to bake a wedding cake (not anything else) is analogous to the doctor refusing to do a sex-change operation for someone.

I could be anti gay marriage or anti theist. You can't claim one belief is valid and the other is not. If these laws do pass don't be surprised when you see signs saying no christians allowed.

If those cases get upheld, than don't be surprised if a Dr refuses a christian Patient one day. In the end this will not end well for anyone.

 

[hudson1]

I think the Woolworth's department store had the same attitude when they had that whites only counter. "Hey... blacks can go vote with their wallets."

I am no lawyer but what you are proposing seems like a violation of the civil rights act of 1964. I am sure if we get enough republicans together, we can get that law changed also.

This not being the USSR and all.

Republicans???

Richard Russell (Democrat from Georgia) on the 1964 Civil Rights bill: "We will resist to the bitter end any measure or any movement which would have a tendency to bring about social equality and intermingling and amalgamation of the races in our (Southern) states."

Strom Thurmond (Democrat from South Carolina): "This so-called Civil Rights Proposals, which the President has sent to Capitol Hill for enactment into law, are unconstitutional, unnecessary, unwise and extend beyond the realm of reason. This is the worst civil-rights package ever presented to the Congress and is reminiscent of the Reconstruction proposals and actions of the radical Republican Congress."

 

[kensic]

I don't agree. If your personal mythology cripples you to the degree that you lack the ability of handling the public - your potential customers - equally in an according way, I would consider either mental therapy or a career choice that does not subject you to potentially having to deal with "sinners" or "God-hated perverts".

u started it out well, then at the end you called them sinners and god hated perverts.

*shakes head*

 

[oneMadRssn]

What we have is a government that is not allowed to establish a federal religion and must allow for the free practice of religion. Anything beyond that is made up.

The issue with laws that deal with religion, such as the that of this discussion, is it forces some part of the government, whether its the courts or some other body that the legislature or executive has delegated to, to decide which religious belief qualifies or falls under the scope of this law. Making that decision falls awfully close to establishment of religions. Many cases in both states and federal courts have expressed similar ideas - mostly in dicta though. I think a natural extension of that is any law that will inevitably put someone in the position to make that judgement call should also be unconstitutional under, for lack of a better term, inevitable establishment issues.

Take these scenarios: a peaceful christian baker is asked to make a cake that celebrates a satanic cult, and the christian baker refuses. Down the street, a grocery store owner that has a completely bonafide belief god hates people who cannot walk on their own refuses to put in a wheelchair ramp to allow access to handicapped folk. Both claim exception under this religious freedom law. It will be up to someone, probably a judge, to decide whose religious belief is sufficient to qualify and whose isn't.

Ultimately, some religious belief will be found to be too much, no matter how genuine, to qualify for this religious freedom, and it will be excluded by the government to the inclusion of other religions - thereby definitely violating the establishment clause.

Let's not also pretend this decision will treat the grocery store owner's religion as equal to that of christianity, especially not in Indiana.

 

[Rogifan]

So a question for all of the free market types: you'd be cool with an amendment to this bill which states that any business which chooses to deny service to a customer based on sexual orientation would have to publicly state in advance that they do so. In my mind, this would make for a more informed consumer who might base their choice of bakers on issues like this.

However, when a similar amendment was added to a RFRA bill in Okahoma, it stalled in the legislature and was not passed. RFRA backers defeated amendments, one similar to the Oklahoma amendment and one stating that the RFRA would not be used to discriminate, in Indiana. So I think we can dispense with the notion that this is about protecting religions from government intrusion.

I'd have no problem with a bakery putting up a sign that says they don't bake cakes for gay weddings similar to a no shirt, no shoes, no service sign.

 

[WestonHarvey1]

What percentage of your congregation uses birth control? You should probably set aside the "conscience" talk and start up with the hypocrisy talk.

A very large percentage. Society has created a culture of fear around large families, and even the uncertainty involved with the approved methods of Natural Family Planning scares people into using contraception.

However, it's very naive and incorrect to think that all these Catholics using birth control disagree with the church's teachings. It is probably the single most heard confession in the confessional. There is no doubt a large number of Catholics that reject the teaching, but there is also a large number of Catholics who feel they are sinning and personally failing by their use of birth control.

I felt I the need to say all that, but now must say that your post made *absolutely no point whatsoever the issue of this thread*.

 

[Eso]

It seems to me the point of this is designed to prevent "ordained ministers" from having to perform gay marriages (or be liable for not) against their conscience once gay marriage inevitably becomes law in all states.

 

[Nicky G]

Nicky G, I get that you don't agree with this law being passed and by the number of posts you have made in this thread it would appear that you are passionate in those beliefs. However, when you make your argument, please stick to accurate and truth based claims.

You have more than once now in this thread made these ridiculously false statements regarding what the Bible puts forth as requirements for faith. I'm sorry, but you clearly don't understand the relationship between the old and new testaments and between the old and new covenants if you are appealing to tired and overused fallacies like beards, tattoos, and shellfish.

Many others have gone before you in throwing out these ignorant kinds of statements. Please understand, I mean no offense, and don't use the word ignorant as an attack, but as an adjective to describe the uninformed and uneducated nature of the comments you are making. Yes, there are some orthodox Jewish sects who might push adhereance to levitical purity laws, but when taken as a whole the message of the Bible does not put forth such extreme externally focused criteria for faithful living.

If you want to disagree with Biblical positions then feel free to do so and I respect your right to state such, but let's make sure we are not putting forth false statements about what the Bible truly says.



Runebinder, see above addressed to Nicky G as it also applies to your comments. Thanks.

Maybe you need to study the New Testament more closely, then? I highly suggest the following article:

http://www.westarinstitute.org/reso...t-the-new-testament-says-about-homosexuality/

 

[oneMadRssn]

Republicans???

Richard Russell (Democrat from Georgia) on the 1964 Civil Rights bill: "We will resist to the bitter end any measure or any movement which would have a tendency to bring about social equality and intermingling and amalgamation of the races in our (Southern) states."

Strom Thurmond (Democrat from South Carolina): "This so-called Civil Rights Proposals, which the President has sent to Capitol Hill for enactment into law, are unconstitutional, unnecessary, unwise and extend beyond the realm of reason. This is the worst civil-rights package ever presented to the Congress and is reminiscent of the Reconstruction proposals and actions of the radical Republican Congress."

Yea. Abe Lincoln was a Republican. What happened to them? They used to be cool.