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

[ecschwarz]

Your move, Tim. Action, not just words. Close the Indiana Apple Stores.

I doubt that would happen, but Indianapolis already has a horribly undersized and outdated Apple Store (it's one of the very early ones from 2003 - wood floors, glass dividers) - it already feels like we're being ignored.

The South Bend/Mishawaka one is certainly nice, but the "flagship" for the state shouldn't be in a much smaller market...

 

[thekeyring]

Do you really think that our world would work if folk could just demand a day off because of religious reasons? Hey, I'm a Pastafarianism and I require our busiest day of the year off for religious reasons! Not being able to do a certain thing at work is a different situation completely - if the business can accommodate and have that person do something else, then they'll do that. If it was not possible, then that person would have to leave as they cannot do the job. There's no law requiring businesses to find a new role for a religious person because their beliefs mean they cannot do the job they applied for (e.g. checkout assistant, scanning alcohol and pork). If those duties were not part of the original job description and are newly enforced, then it's very different and the business will have to find something else for them to do.

I think taking Sunday or Good Friday off in a Christian country should be more acceptable than it currently is. Especially as other religions are accounted for. However, I see your point.

----------

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?

Not trying to complain, really. As I get both Sunday's and Good Friday off, it's irrelevant. I was raising it as an example to share some of the fear (largely irrational) that people are losing their right to a religion.

It was largely off topic, and I'm beginning to regret making the point, as I've annoyed so many people.

 

[Cory Bauer]

Baking a wedding cake is in a small way participating in a wedding. If the wedding is one that the baker believes is wrong to participate in then the correct decision is to say no.

The fascists on the left cannot stand it when people make their own decisions but that in no way should interfere with a person taking an honest stand on an issue.

Even if what you say is true, this law is far more reaching than that; they didn't pass a law that simply allows a business to kindly not participate in a gay wedding (whether that be hosting the reception or providing the flowers). If I'm understanding it correctly, this law allows a business establishment to deny service of any kind to any individual simply for being born gay. That's no more of an "honest stand" than hanging a "no coloreds" sign on the door.

I fail to see why race and sexual orientation are the same thing. Race has no bearing on moral behavior in and of itself. Sexual orientation, however, does.

You seem to be assuming that if someone is born with an inclination to behave in a certain way then such behavior should be protected.

You seem to be assuming that sexual orientation is a behavioral issue, like something that can and should be "corrected". Sexual orientation is not something a person controls anymore than they can control the color of their skin.

Regardless of that, you're not going to find a passage in the bible that suggests the proper thing to do when finding a homosexual in your business establishment is to demand that they leave.

There are many kinds of freedom that we can reasonably expect to be protected by the government, but "freedom to discriminate" is not one of them.

"I refuse to serve gays because I'm a Christian."

...is no more acceptable than...

"I refuse to serve blacks because I'm a member of the KKK."

While religious people are generally allowed to get away with a lot of very poor behaviour, their is a limit, and it is reached when this behaviour starts to adversely affect the lives of other people.

This quote sums this whole thing up pretty well.
"Your right to swing your arms ends just where the other man’s nose begins."

Thank you. Exactly. The idea that the discriminators are being discriminated against because they can't discriminate is...really grasping for straws.

 

[Mr. Buzzcut]

So do you think the same apply if you have to make a cake for a mixed race couple? Give me a break there is no place in the world for people who think like this

Oh and PS in a capitalist economy the marketplace does not usually fix it self Capitalism with out regulation is inherent to fail aka not make the right decisions

So many posts about cake. Do you want someone making a cake for you who doesn't want to make a cake for you? Forced cake making probably doesn't yield the best cake.

I don't agree with the law but on the other hand it's sort of like a group of people fighting back against the special privileges given to other protected classes. Either we're equal or we're not. Get rid of all of it and let us all live together by choice and not by force.

 

[bradl]

Do you really think that our world would work if folk could just demand a day off because of religious reasons? Hey, I'm a Pastafarianism and I require our busiest day of the year off for religious reasons!

If your religion has its own separate holiday for Fettucini Carbonara, I'm converting.

BL.

 

[caesarp]

It's a good thing to condemn businesses for doing things we find reprehensible, like denying services to gay people. Don't patronize their business, organize a boycott...these are all things people can and should do when someone does something they find unfair or offensive. But to say that it's illegal for someone not to engage in a private business transaction that violates their religious beliefs sounds insane to me. Say you have a muslim owned print shop, and someone comes in and wants to print flyers for a gay festival, and the muslim owner says doing this will violate my religious beliefs, please use the print shop down the street. The idea that the muslim owner should be forced to engage in that transaction against his will or be in violation of the law sounds insane to me.

Just because I find something offensive doesn't mean it should be illegal.

Printing stuff doesn't violate a belief. It's not like they are forced to turn gay. That's just filling a business order. and an excuse to discriminate because they don't like what someone else does.

 

[brianvictor7]

I am of the religious conservative. And I think this law is abosolutely ridiculous. It goes against everything Jesus Christ stood for. You cannot use man's laws to create holiness.

Basically correct. There was a time when the country when we had such a thing as shame. Now it is gone. This law is meant to protect those who feel obliged to take a stand against immoral behavior. That isn't going to change the worldly behavior. I Cor 5:9ff

 

[2bikes]

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.

This reminded me of;
Some religious person ask Ricky Gervais why he doesn't believe in god. He says `the same reason you don't believe in Zeus`.

 

[Mr. Buzzcut]

Why is it so hard to respect someone's religious views? It's not like there aren't a dozen other bakeries out there happy to bake whatever cake they want.

In the spirit of this law, why should anyone have to respect someone's religious views. Think about it.

 

[OLDCODGER]

Putting all of this supernatural nonsense aside, anyone should be able to accept or decline to do business with anyone they choose.

As for laws governing sale, isn't there a law which prohibits selling booze to someone who is clearly drunk?

 

[caesarp]

Why is it so hard to respect someone's religious views? It's not like there aren't a dozen other bakeries out there happy to bake whatever cake they want.

You can have views all you want, just don't run a business open to the public then. No one forced the narrow minded person believing in Bronze Age myths to go into business. Don't sell to gays all u want at the church bake sell. Open a business on Main Street then deal with the public as they come.

 

[QCassidy352]

.

 

[bradl]

Putting all of this supernatural nonsense aside, anyone should be able to accept or decline to do business with anyone they choose.

As for laws governing sale, isn't there a law which prohibits selling booze to someone who is clearly drunk?

To a degree.

Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution:

The Congress shall have Power...

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

Commerce Clause of the Constitution. Since business falls under the authority of Congress, and with the aforementioned Civil Rights Acts barring discrimination, it would be up to Congress on how people should and should not conduct business with whom, along with underlying State and municipal law, as long as those laws do not violate federal laws.

BL.

 

[caesarp]

This reminded me of;
Some religious person ask Ricky Gervais why he doesn't believe in god. He says `the same reason you don't believe in Zeus`.

Or Apollo or Thor or any of the hundreds of other gods invented by man. It's all hogwash. God was invented by man. Get over it people.

 

[Mr. Buzzcut]

I agree with you. The Gay community talks about tolerance and understanding but at the same time they have no tolerance towards people who disagree with them. IMO people should be free to say or believe whatever they like so long as they don't exercise that right through force or violence. As the man says if you don't like it go live somewhere else or go shop somewhere else.

I really disagree with this stuff being legislated but on the other hand picture being non-Christian and having to move to the bible belt for whatever reason, maybe a job opportunity. Is it right for people to have your view? Shun everyone not like you? An entire community against you because you're not like them? Law or no law it's simply wrong. You should not reject someone who believes differently if they do so in a peaceful way. Not like a homosexual woman walks into a cake shop and propositions the baker as part of ordering a cake. It's ridiculous and people who treat others they way you describe should be ashamed of who they are.

It's eye opening to get to know people different than yourself. It's hard to do after being beat over the head with a bible your whole life but if you can get past that you stand a chance of becoming a better person.

 

[fitshaced]

Putting all of this supernatural nonsense aside, anyone should be able to accept or decline to do business with anyone they choose.

As for laws governing sale, isn't there a law which prohibits selling booze to someone who is clearly drunk?

That's to protect others from a possible drunken act of stupidity. It's considered responsible of the store to not sell the alcohol. This new law puts gay and lesbians on the back of the bus away from straight people, ala Rosa Parks. It's discrimination.

How will this be used anyway? Will there be signs saying 'No Gays!' on shop windows? Will homosexual people have to declare their sexual preference when ordering a wedding cake online?

 

[downpour]

Why is it so hard to respect someone's religious views?

"Hi, because you don't believe in the same mythology my parents taught me, I believe you are going to Hell. Your skin will all be burnt away, and then regrow in an endless cycle, so you can experience maximum pain forever.

What's that? You don't respect my views?

It's so unfair! Waaaaah!"

 

[caesarp]

In the spirit of this law, why should anyone have to respect someone's religious views. Think about it.

i disrespect any view based on desert nomads and their alleged holy books. Think for yourself.

 

[jlc1978]

But, you have to know that people who have a religious faith are scared that this will open the doors for government to tell churches what they can believe. And that I understand.

What will be interesting is the reaction the first time a business refuses to sell to someone of faith. For example, a Christian baker could refuse, on religious grounds, to bake a cake for a Mormon ceremony since, in the baker's view, it is not a rite of Christian marriage and thus against his religious beliefs.

It's not a question of forcing beliefs on someone as much as a thinly veiled attempt to allow discrimination against a specific group.

 

[cmwade77]

This seems like a slippery slope. Not for Apple, but Indiana. Crazy that in 2015, this is passed.

Actually, many churches and others have been forced to provide services when providing such services go against their religious beliefs and that is just wrong.

Bottom line is I wouldn't personally choose to deny services to anyone based on the face that their choice goes against what I believe, but anyone should have the right to do so.

Let's say I run a catering business and I say that I refuse to provide services to anyone named Mike because it goes against my religious beliefs (yes this is an absurd example, but go with me). That is well within my rights to do so and it is well within the rights of anyone named Mike to sue me over it. They would loose, as there is nothing illegal with this, but even if they won and I was forced to serve them, would they really want my services? I surely wouldn't be giving them the best service. Instead wouldn't they prefer to go to a caterer that is say named Mike and would give them preferential treatment?

Same thing goes for any service, as long as there are competitors out there, why would you want to try to force someone to do something against their religious beliefs? Yet, that is exactly what is happening in many states and Indiana was smart enough to see it and put a stop to it.

 

[AppleFan91]

As a Christian, straight person from Indiana - this is absolutely embarrassing for all of us. I know it may not seem like it but more people, at least in central Indiana where I live are outraged that this bill exists, let alone was passed. We are sickened that Indiana, a state that we are trying to prove no longer is just cornfields and backwards living, willingly took a 50 year step back. I, for one, signed the petition to remove Mike Pence from office and I was joined by 65,000 others. We didn't want this but he was just too focused on pandering to his party and now we are the laughingstock of the US/World right now and taking huge economic hits from companies boycotting us. It's a sad day in Indiana but please don't join others in thinking the people of Indiana wanted this. We didn't and we don't.

Again, as a Christian who has a transgender sister, I was always taught by my faith to love everyone just as Christ did and treating people as they aren't equal because of their sexual orientation or ANY reason, is not that. This bill is simply discrimination hidden behind the veil of "religious freedom" and I'm offended that they are using religion to enforce their bigotry.

/rant

EDIT: on a similar note....so much for us getting another Apple Store here ;(

 

[cmwade77]

What will be interesting is the reaction the first time a business refuses to sell to someone of faith. For example, a Christian baker could refuse, on religious grounds, to bake a cake for a Mormon ceremony since, in the baker's view, it is not a rite of Christian marriage and thus against his religious beliefs.

It's not a question of forcing beliefs on someone as much as a thinly veiled attempt to allow discrimination against a specific group.

And the baker would be incorrect as Mormons are Christians. And this is a two way street, there very well could be those that refuse to sell to straight couples due to their religious beliefs and that should be their right to do so.

 

[OLDCODGER]

To a degree.

Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution:



Commerce Clause of the Constitution. Since business falls under the authority of Congress, and with the aforementioned Civil Rights Acts barring discrimination, it would be up to Congress on how people should and should not conduct business with whom, along with underlying State and municipal law, as long as those laws do not violate federal laws.

BL.

This is why I said "should". That part of the Constitution is itself discriminatory.

 

[cdm283813]

Never mix politics, sex orientation, religion or color with tech gadgets. There are no winners in this type of discussion.
People will just hide behind their phony screen name(s).

 

[bradl]

This is why I said "should". That part of the Constitution is itself discriminatory.

Elaborate. How is that part of the Constitution discriminatory?

BL.