I said use their "huge market clout," not their piles of cash (though both are fine too). Pulling their products from sale in the state of Indiana would cause a political earthquake there and elsewhere.
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 CEO Tim Cook Speaks Out Against Indiana's 'Religious Freedom' Law
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I said use their "huge market clout," not their piles of cash (though both are fine too). Pulling their products from sale in the state of Indiana would cause a political earthquake there and elsewhere.
Both parties are comprised largely of corporatist neocons anyhow. What their members were saying 50 years ago is pretty much irrelevant.
In the year 2015, I think it's pretty safe to say that the Republican party is predominantly behind limiting the rights of certain classes of people. Feel free to disagree.
you know when you grew up, and bad things happened to you because someone else bullied you or something. and you wish that bully gets what he deserved later on in life.
well for the supporters of this law, i kinda wish that their kids turn out gay or ect. so that these supporters feel 1st hand how damaging this law is.
well for the supporters of this law, i kinda wish that their kids turn out gay or ect. so that these supporters feel 1st hand how damaging this law is.
Hmm, an interesting point of view. The part of me that would like big government to keep out of the free market says let them buy their cake elsewhere. Someone will take their business. This shouldn't be the government's job. But the article makes an interesting point about sporting events - what happens when the Indianapolis Colts owner decides to not allow certain customers to enter? There is no alternate product to buy. This can likely become even more complicated if public funds were used for the stadium, etc.
I could probably debate with myself for a while on this topic, going back and forth. I saw many people have already responded to you, but I don't have the time to read through the dozen pages. I hope people weren't too harsh toward you. I'm born and raised in liberal as possible San Francisco, but I still try to keep an open mind on topics, to not have a knee-jerk reaction that can set the wrong precedent and create more issues later on,
So let me ask -- you are familiar with the notion, WIDELY embraced by the medical and scientific community, that homosexuality is naturally-occuring behavior, appears in many primate (and other) species, and is generally NOT considered to be a "choice" that a person makes, right? Do you see how denying someone a product or service because of an inborn aspect of their person is different, fundamentally, than what you're describing? And should, oh I dunno, maybe be protected differently, due to it not being a choice?
I can just imagine.. "Dr. Smith, I know you are a foot doctor, but we need you right now to perform an abortion, stat."
It sounds like the law gives businesses the right to run themselves out of business for being bigots. That's a GOOD thing, right? Don't we WANT bigoted business to wither away? If so, then why the opposition to this law? Now anti-gay businesses can run themselves out of business by showing their true colors, whereas before, they were not allowed to do so, thereby helping them stay in business.
It's not like forcing an anti-gay business to serve gay customers magically makes those anti-gay individuals become tolerant. I also figure gay individuals would rather patronize those who accept and/or embrace their lifestyle, over those who do not.
I, for one, am happy to see this legislation pass, and am glad to let these anti-gay businesses shoot themselves in the foot.
It's not like forcing an anti-gay business to serve gay customers magically makes those anti-gay individuals become tolerant. I also figure gay individuals would rather patronize those who accept and/or embrace their lifestyle, over those who do not.
I, for one, am happy to see this legislation pass, and am glad to let these anti-gay businesses shoot themselves in the foot.
What if the woman's life was in danger, what do you think should happen then? Just so it's clear, what if those same doctors didn't want to perform medical treatment on someone who was not white or Christian cause it went against their beliefs? What if they are the only doctors in town. Im assuming you still think that's ok?
That phrase wasn't on our currency until the Civil War period:
http://www.treasury.gov/about/education/Pages/in-god-we-trust.aspx
Your right to religious freedom ends where it affects the rights of others. ISIS is just about upholding the religious freedom of some people who think it's fine to murder everyone who doesn't precisely agree with them.
How does this affect Apple or Starbucks or Salesforce? This simply allows businesses to deny service on religious grounds. No corporation is required to do so.
Let's be honest, the only businesses that will implement this right are mom and pop bakeries and photographers in the wedding business. Let's not turn this into the second Holocaust.
Let's be honest, the only businesses that will implement this right are mom and pop bakeries and photographers in the wedding business. Let's not turn this into the second Holocaust.
If you dislike adultery, how do you feel about that poor Josef guy whose wife got pregnant and came up with the absolutely lamest excuse that anyone could have made up...
While I would hope everyone can agree that murdering people is wrong, the argument "Your right to religious freedom ends where it affects the rights of others" will end up making us into a nation where people can hold any religious belief so long as they don't express it because sooner or later someone will make a law to effectively say that they have the right to not be offended by someone's religious beliefs. It is already happening.
Yes.
A business was sued out of business, the owners became penniless because they did not want to make a wedding cake for a homosexual couple. It was against their religious beliefs.
This law is to protect the concept of: 'we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone.'
Homosexuals do not have a superior standing to religion.
Use some logic and try to be a responsible adult.
To what Josef are you referring? The husband of Mary the mother of Christ? If so, I don't think you and I have much to discuss.
My point is, there is so much time in the day. I find it amusing that with what little time religious people have, they choose to pick on gay people. I mean, aren't there bigger issues to solve not only in society in general but also in your church?
LOL.. a joke about my own religion, but can't not laugh. That's a good one.
Trying to envision this scenario happening today, 2000 some odd years later. And it ends up on Maury [trashy talk show always doing paternity tests, for those unfamiliar].
On topic - honestly don't know how to feel about this one. Discrimination is wrong, especially if its discrimation based on an innate trait. But I also dislike big government and want them to keep out. Not sure which scenario has the worst setting precedent. Both can create a slippery slope.
Hate isn't, or isn't supposed to be, a religious value.
I wonder if Pense has been huffing Gary fumes too much.
I wonder if Pense has been huffing Gary fumes too much.
The issue is that it sets a precedent and drags our country back into 1950's mentality that it's ok to treat people like lesser human beings because of the way they were born. That is not a message we want to send to people today or future generations. This law should not exist.
Exactly. I said it before jokingly, but Jesus wouldn't have kicked the gays out of his barber shop. I'd love to hear a religious person argue otherwise.
I don't understand how anyone could believe the same god who supposedly created hundreds of billions of galaxies, as well as the vast multitude, beauty and variety of life on Earth, was also responsible for books like the Bible or the Koran.
If a god wanted to get his message across to humans in the form of a book, it would be far more compelling than those examples. The reality is, the Bible and the Koran are so dull and poorly written that the majority of 'believers' don't even get past the first few pages.
It also doesn't take a great deal of research to discover that a number of the stories from these books are blatantly ripped off from far older myths that involve completely different gods and characters, but otherwise include the same story and sequence of events.
So either god is a terrible plagiarist or these holy books are simply the work of ancient scholars who had run out of new ideas.
Are the highly questionable and outdated personal opinions of these ancients really important enough for people to still be emulating a few thousand years later?
They were human, they got stuff wrong, it's time to move on.
Distaste for homosexuality is a perfectly natural instinct, it's called 'being straight'. You can understand how this instinct lead to hatred in the past, but this is 2015. We are no longer so primitive, and religion is no longer an excuse for adults acting like little kids in a playground.
If a god wanted to get his message across to humans in the form of a book, it would be far more compelling than those examples. The reality is, the Bible and the Koran are so dull and poorly written that the majority of 'believers' don't even get past the first few pages.
It also doesn't take a great deal of research to discover that a number of the stories from these books are blatantly ripped off from far older myths that involve completely different gods and characters, but otherwise include the same story and sequence of events.
So either god is a terrible plagiarist or these holy books are simply the work of ancient scholars who had run out of new ideas.
Are the highly questionable and outdated personal opinions of these ancients really important enough for people to still be emulating a few thousand years later?
They were human, they got stuff wrong, it's time to move on.
Distaste for homosexuality is a perfectly natural instinct, it's called 'being straight'. You can understand how this instinct lead to hatred in the past, but this is 2015. We are no longer so primitive, and religion is no longer an excuse for adults acting like little kids in a playground.
Well, since Josef was not the father, and there is no god ...
Not that I blame her, she and her son would have had a rather miserable life if she hadn't convinced him.