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

[PinkyMacGodess]

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.

I'll make it easy for you. The Constitution forbids the recognition of any one religion over another. And this 'big government' you are afraid of, just stuck its nose into a place it shouldn't have gone: Telling bigoted people to violate the Constitution.

The 'freedom of religion', also implies freedom FROM religion which makes this act by Indiana patently unconstitutional based on their 'religious values' of hatred, fear, and intolerance.

How far are they going to go, and how much tax payer money are they going to waste defending this ugly and heinous law? If I lived in Indiana, I'd be pissed, because it's always the tax payer that gets stuck paying for this hubris and insanity.

 

[Cory Bauer]

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Are the highly questionable and outdated personal opinions of these ancients really important enough for people to still be emulating a few thousand years later?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.

Quite frankly, people are just using religion as a guise for their own homophobia and intolerance. And sadly, getting away with it.

 

[dec.]

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

*shakes head*

Since that is the common terminology that those people use to describe those that they are discriminating against under a "religious" excuse, I thought it'd be appropriate...

 

[darkslide29]

I'll make it easy for you. The Constitution forbids the recognition of any one religion over another. And this 'big government' you are afraid of, just stuck its nose into a place it shouldn't have gone: Telling bigoted people to violate the Constitution.

The 'freedom of religion', also implies freedom FROM religion which makes this act by Indiana patently unconstitutional based on their 'religious values' of hatred, fear, and intolerance.

How far are they going to go, and how much tax payer money are they going to waste defending this ugly and heinous law? If I lived in Indiana, I'd be pissed, because it's always the tax payer that gets stuck paying for this hubris and insanity.

This is a good reply to what I said. Thanks for the thoughts. I agree with what you're saying.

You probably knew what I was saying in referencing big government, but it isn't a straight dislike or fear of big government. Just not a fan of their attempt to get bigger and bigger, seeking more and more tax dollars to cover whatever they want to stick their noses into next. And you nicely covered that in your response.

 

[Takeo]

Laws like this really are only created as political fodder for governors with future presidential or senatorial aspirations.

BINGO! That's just is. It's all political BS.

 

[kobalap]

Laws like this really are only created as political fodder for governors with future presidential or senatorial aspirations.

I wish it was as simple as one misguided person who is acting out of political ambition. Unfortunately, there is an entire state legislature behind this business. And an entire state that voted in all those politicians.

 

[bradl]

I wish it was as simple as one misguided person who is acting out of political ambition. Unfortunately, there is an entire state legislature behind this business. And an entire state that voted in all those politicians.

This brings up a good question.. does anyone have the breakdown of the votes in the state legislature? I'm sure this will come up to be handy for the next state elections.

BL.

 

[age234]

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.

Ah, the 1950s bogeyman.

It only continues the precedent from time immemorial that a person can deny service to another person. Just like I was able to refuse to produce a video for a Pentecostal group because it went against my Catholic conscience. (And the Pentecostals were grateful, as they wouldn't want someone who had strong opposing beliefs doing work for them. We parted on good terms.)

Of course, only a fraction of 1% of businesses will actually do this, so the individuals concerned will still be served. This law will not actually affect anybody. Gays will still get their sham wedding photos and cakes. Indianans will still get their overpriced coffee. New businesses will open to fill a new niche this law will open up. Other businesses will gun for the market other businesses are refusing to serve.

This isn't the 1950s, so comparisons to it are hyperbolic.

 

[Apple_Robert]

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.

In regards to the case you are referring to, the owners in question applied for and accepted a business license. Said license encompasses all local and state laws pertaining to said business. As such, they could not legally do what they did. Their actions violated the law. Their actions were contrary to the First Amendment in its rightful application of separation of powers between the state and national government, in my opinion.

In regards to the proposed legislation, I believe that the state governments have the right under their state constitution, as well as the Constitution of the United States, to enact legislation that addresses the subject at hand. Having the right to take action in a certain manner does not necessarily mean it is a wise thing to do, in my opinion.

As a heterosexual male, I don't care what homosexuals do, so long as they do not violate my constitutional rights, or seek to pervert the law for their own devices. The same goes for any other lobby groups.

----------

Religion isn't a valid excuse for racial bigotry.

Homosexuality is not a race, in my opinion.

 

[bradl]

In regards to the case you are referring to, the owners in question applied for and accepted a business license. Said license encompasses all local and state laws pertaining to said business. As such, they could not legally do what they did. Their actions violated the law. Their actions were contrary to the First Amendment in its rightful application of separation of powers between the state and national government, in my opinion.

In regards to the proposed legislation, I believe that the state governments have the right under their state constitution, as well as the Constitution of the United States, to enact legislation that addresses the subject at hand. Having the right to take action in a certain manner does not necessarily mean it is a wise thing to do, in my opinion.

Problem is, this isn't proposed legislation. This is a bill that the Governor of Indiana just signed into law. Further, the law runs afoul of not only various civil rights laws (Civil Rights Act of 1964, Civil Rights Act of 1965, Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, Americans with Disabilities Act of 2008, and the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution).

In no way does this state bill trump any federal bill that they must abide by. SCOTUS already ruled on that.

BL.

 

[scottsjack]

As a hetero who fully supports the equality before the law of gay people, and full, constitutionally protected gay marriage and who also fully supports liberty and the right of association I am in complete agreement with the Indiana law.

If someone does not want to bake a cake for your marriage because they disagree with gay marriage, mixed-race marriage, mixed-religion marriage or secular marriage then grow up and find someone else to do it.

 

[kobalap]

This brings up a good question.. does anyone have the breakdown of the votes in the state legislature? I'm sure this will come up to be handy for the next state elections.

BL.

Or sadly, not.

 

[ronjon10]

Christians who support this bill would do well to read their Bibles. It has a few things to say about how to treat your neighbors.

This sums it up nicely:

The Parable of the Good Samaritan
25 On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. “Teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”

26 “What is written in the Law?” he replied. “How do you read it?”

27 He answered, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’”

28 “You have answered correctly,” Jesus replied. “Do this and you will live.”

29 But he wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?”

30 In reply Jesus said: “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he was attacked by robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead. 31 A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side. 32 So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. 33 But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him. 34 He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, brought him to an inn and took care of him. 35 The next day he took out two denarii[c] and gave them to the innkeeper. ‘Look after him,’ he said, ‘and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.’

36 “Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?”

37 The expert in the law replied, “The one who had mercy on him.”

38 Jesus told him, “Go and do likewise.”


Seems pretty clear to me. Really, it's one of the most clear and unambiguous things found in the Bible.

 

[QCassidy352]

.

 

[gnasher729]

Do you think a police owned t-shirt printing company will produce shirts that say F the police and has a picture of a dead police officer who got shot by a sniper at a protest rally?

This is about peoples not being punished for refusing service that violates their beliefs. It is not about race.

The difference is that this t-shirt would be meant as an insult against police officers. The wedding cake is for celebrating a happy occasion for two people. If a cake shop owner refuses to make a cake saying "I hate Christians", that's absolutely fine with me.

 

[kobalap]

As a hetero who fully supports the equality before the law of gay people, and full, constitutionally protected gay marriage and who also fully supports liberty and the right of association I am in complete agreement with the Indiana law.

If someone does not want to bake a cake for your marriage because they disagree with gay marriage, mixed-race marriage, mixed-religion marriage or secular marriage then grow up and find someone else to do it.

Woolworth's had the same perspective in the late 50s and early 60s. They had a whites only counter. If you didn't like sitting in the back, go find another place to eat at.

Are you saying we would be better off with "whites only" counters?

 

[Apple_Robert]

Problem is, this isn't proposed legislation. This is a bill that the Governor of Indiana just signed into law. Further, the law runs afoul of not only various civil rights laws (Civil Rights Act of 1964, Civil Rights Act of 1965, Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, Americans with Disabilities Act of 2008, and the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution).

In no way does this state bill trump any federal bill that they must abide by. SCOTUS already ruled on that.

BL.

How is the newly signed law in violation of the federal laws you cited?

 

[bradl]

As a hetero who fully supports the equality before the law of gay people, and full, constitutionally protected gay marriage and who also fully supports liberty and the right of association I am in complete agreement with the Indiana law.

If someone does not want to bake a cake for your marriage because they disagree with gay marriage, mixed-race marriage, mixed-religion marriage or secular marriage then grow up and find someone else to do it.

The issue here is that they are using the name of religion to disguise their bigotry in telling someone to go somewhere else. That is wrong.

that is like someone telling me that they won't make a cake for my wife and I because they don't believe I should be marrying someone else outside of my race, because they believe that their religion calls for no interracial marriages.

Their religion has no bearing on my event, nor does it impact their business. They should be able to put their religion aside for their business. If they can't, should they even be in business to begin with? Or are they, and by extension, their business, prejudiced?



----------

How is the newly signed law in violation of the federal laws you cited?

This law gives someone the guise of their religion to discriminate against people based on that person's race, religion, sex, national origin, or any other personal characteristics.

That is in clear violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, in which the Act of 1965 and the ADAs are extensions of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

BL.

 

[yg17]

Homosexuality is not a race, in my opinion.

It might as well be. Gay people don't choose to be gay any more than black people choose to be black.

On the other hand, people choose their religion, and more importantly, choose to be bigots.

 

[cfedu]

The difference is that this t-shirt would be meant as an insult against police officers. The wedding cake is for celebrating a happy occasion for two people. If a cake shop owner refuses to make a cake saying "I hate Christians", that's absolutely fine with me.

Who cares about the Nazi cake, or cop hating shirts. I would make a Nazi cake, I would also know which families my kids should not be friends with, trust me, everyone would know I made a Nazi cake for this person.

As for the Cop shirts, I'd love to make them. I would even offer free home delivery for all the orders to their customers. Those people would be constantly harassed for stupidity. I'm no pro cop but, boy would this be funny!!!! Funny like a guy robbing a donut shop!!!

 

[Cory Bauer]

This isn't the 1950s, so comparisons to it are hyperbolic.

How is it in any way different than hanging a "No Coloreds" sign on the door and denying blacks service? This is a law that allows a business to treat other human beings as lesser individuals because of the way they were born. It's exactly the same.

 

[QCassidy352]

.

 

[brianvictor7]

Sorry, but as a lawyer, I can't agree with you there. The first amendment doesn't have a "freedom of religion" clause. Rather, it has two separate religion clauses, which can be at odds with each other: the free exercise clause (which I suspect is being used at least in part as justification for this law), and the establishment clause, which I think is what you're saying this violates.

But although I am not defending the law, I don't think it even comes close to violating the establishment clause. This law neither favors one religion over another (and wouldn't it be fun to see, say, Muslims use it in ways that infuriate the right?) nor requires anyone to comply with any religious principle or belief whatsoever.

You have no right to be free from the religious expression of private parties, no matter how odious you find their beliefs.

Thank you most sincerely for being a voice of objectivity here, regardless of personal position.

 

[Heltik]

It seems Tim Cook is fixated on this State Law. It's his Indiana jones.

 

[burgundyyears]

Everyone here is assuming that this means that Christians will not serve gays for simply being gay. While many Christians believe homosexuality is wrong, there is no religious belief that I know of that says you can't provide them with basic services.

This law was intended to protect the inevitable situation where a gay couple asks a priest to marry them (which is a religious belief that many Christians would have an issue with) and he is forced to do so. And don't tell me that that won't happen.

This law is irrelevant to the hypothetical you have outlined. Churches and ministers are in a special category already and no court in the US will compel any religious minister to perform any rite, sacrament, service, etc. There are still churches that will not marry interracial couples, for example. This is about for-profit businesses and corporations donning the guise of religious belief, which is pretty much nonsense.