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
The laws protects others from certain behaviour - why pick and choose? If behaviour can be discriminated against, what's the problem?
Your disdain for the Constitution of the United States and the principle of freedom is duly noted.
Freedom can be quite messy at times, especially if some of "We The People" don't agree with the personal preferences of others.
I can't talk about the Bible, but you really do need to look into your understanding of the Koran, how it was "revealed" and recorded, and it's content. From what you have written above, you really don't seem to have any idea about this. I'm saying this as an non religious person, an athiest in fact, born and bred in the UK, but who has studied Islam, including sira and shari'a. The koran is also the perfect example of Arabic, is a reference for Arabic grammar and lexis.
Let's not forget that Chaucer is pretty much incomprehensible to most of the English speaking world, and Shakespeare is not exactly an easy read! Like original sources for religion (Bible, Koran etc), most people require quite a bit of help understanding these writers, even when English is their first, native language.
That would be typical multinational business think; close stores in Indiana due to a small difference in how liberty is expressed but keep doing business is abysmal, sh*thole countries where people, particularly guys, are treated very badly. Brilliant.
Why? Is it against your religion?
My religion is to discard any and all religions since religion is a synonym of madness.
Should white people have the right to not serve black people? Or the other way around? The only reason this anti gay law is different is because they have a small passage in one of many books that make a suggestion that a man should not sleep with another man. It's also being very selective of what is acceptable and what is not. Marrying someone of the opposite sex is for life and sex should not occur before marriage. Yet, marriages don't seem to last these days and only the really devote christians don't have sex before marriage. If these people who are in favour of these rights wanted to apply the laws of their religion onto their customers and refuse anyone who doesn't comply, they would be out of business in weeks.
It's not a church, it's a secular business. If you are that religous that everything you do has to relate to your religion, live in a country like Saudi Arabia (or the equivalent for Christians). Oh yeah, that's now the U.S.
Why harm customers of Apple because our state leaders are dumb? Or why put their employees at that store out of jobs?
Actually, this is a HUGE step forward, as it protects religious rights of those that don't want to provide services to those going against their religious views. It also states that they can be forced to provide the services if the state has a compelling reason to do so (I would imagine something like there is no competition in a reasonable distance would be included and things like treating life threatening injuries and such is obviously counted in having a compelling reason).
But this is also about so much more than just sexual orientation, it's truly about religious freedom, which is after all part of the bill of rights and is constitutionally guaranteed.
Let's say there's a Christian Pharmacist that doesn't want to carry the morning after pill, this would allow him to not carry it. Under present law in many states he doesn't have the freedom not to carry it.
This also actually benefits those participating in same sex marriage, as it eliminates one of the biggest arguments against same sex marriage, which is that if it is allowed many will be forced to provide services to those going against the providers religious beliefs. You take this out of it and you eliminate the only really legitimate legal hurdle that those opposed to same sex marriage really have. And this is coming from someone who really thinks that same sex marriage should not be allowed or at bare minimum make it where the government only honors civil unions (grandfather in previous marriages) and make marriage just a religious ceremony that is up to the applicable religion if it is appropriate or not.
How does a gay person buying a wedding cake put others in danger? How does a shop owner protect the rest of society by not serving gay people? Are gay people supposed to say 'ok you win, I'll be straight now because Homophobe Cakes R Us can't make a 6 tier fruit and nut caramel delux with lemon icing for me'?
I believe there are some in the homosexual community who actively seek to pervert the law for their own social / political devices. I don't agree with that mindset. At the same time, that kind of mentality is not limited to those individuals in the homosexual community. I believe that there are many groups who have the same kind of mentality. And it is often a mentality that denounces judicial activism, while at the same time calling on and using that same philosophy to get what is wanted at the expense of the foundation of our Republic.
Because it imposed conditions, which regulates and, therefore, is discriminatory by nature. One either has free trade, or one does not - there is no third option.
Hmm... interesting. I ask you about the relationship between the old/new testament - old/new covenant and point out the ignorance with which you argue that people of faith today are required to obey levitical purity laws regarding shellfish, beards, etc. in order to be consistent in their faith and you respond with pointing to misinterpretations of New Testament passages about homosexuality. Wow, dodge much?
There have been multiple books written to argue the interpretations of New Testament passages regarding the subject of homosexuality. Writers, skeptics, and apologists, have gone to great lengths to twist and turn correct exegesis and ignore the whole of the scriptural message about marriage. But, that's not what I was specifically asking you about was it?
Tell me, how many books have been written regarding the insistence that modern people of faith are still under the old covenant and therefore beholden to the Levitical food laws, hygiene laws, and clothing laws. Um, none of which I'm aware. That's right, there isn't a group out there saying that new covenant Christians are abandoning their faith because they are rampantly growing beards, eating shrimp and wearing blended fabrics. Hmm... why is that? Oh yeah, it's because the only people who make ridiculous arguments like that are folks on the internet who don't know enough about the Bible to intelligently and accurately discuss it. Seriously, "if I had a dime for every time" I've seen someone foolishly pull that nonsense out like it was some kind of "theological trump card" that defeats the arguments of believers and sends them off scurrying in their hypocrisy.
Simply put, you are putting forth as fact that the Bible says one thing about how people of faith should live (no beards, no shellfish, no polyester, etc.) when in truth the Bible says no such thing. In fact, a correct theology of the Law and the Old/New Covenants clearly contradicts what you are saying. I sincerely hope you understand what I'm saying because continuing to appeal to this kind of ignorance only destroys the credibility of your argument.
Stick with the article you referenced. Although it is incorrect in it's interpretations, it is at least a better argument than grasping at the straws of trying to apply Old Testament Levitical law to post covenant followers of Christ. Sorry Nicky G, you can't take scripture out of context and make it say what you want it to say.
Providing a service isn't a belief. Running a business is not a belief. Not believing in abortions means you don't have to have one. It doesn't mean not selling to someone who once had an abortion. No ones BELIEFS are being affected by selling goods or services that they willingly opened a business to provide. This word BELIEF is being stretched to absurd lengths.
----------
People who are that religous should maybe not open public businesses. Just become a priest.
This is NOT just about sexual orientation, people are assuming it is and that is indeed a part of it, but it is about so much more. It is about the rights to practice what you believe.
And being white or black isn't a religion, so no they shouldn't have that right. And I have known many businesses who do stick strictly to what they believe in and you know what, they are usually the most successful businesses.
For example, we have a car dealership out here in California that was bought by a Christian Family and they decided that they were going to close on Sunday (something that in some parts of the country is illegal for a car dealership to do by the way). Prior to them buying the dealership, Sundays were the busiest sales day for this dealership. The city even tried to stop them from closing on Sundays, luckily our laws didn't allow them to do that. And you know what happened? Their sales were double what they were the previous year (oh and they bought the dealership after a really good year) and have increased every year since then, even during the economic downturn. They stuck to their religious beliefs, despite being persecuted by the city, etc. and it has paid off for them.
Now what would have happened if they were in one of the areas that is able to prevent them from closing on Sunday. They would have either had to remain open on Sunday, against their religious beliefs or risk jail time.
The same thing can be said about morning after pills, same sex marriage, abortion and a number of other issues. This is about protecting the freedoms of everyone, no matter what their religious views are.
Then your laws are wrong.
Skin colour and sexual orientation are controlled by your genes, neither are a moral issue or a matter of 'choice'. Do you remember 'choosing' to be attracted to people of the opposite sex? Of course not, it's just an irrational urge that you can't control, triggered by your teenage hormones. Gay people simply have this flipped the other way, it's utterly ridiculous to discriminate against them for it.
I'm actually from the UK, but I think these issues transcend petty manmade concepts such as countries and religions. This is about human beings treating each-other as equals, living in peace, trying to move forward, and improve things for everyone.
But it is perfectly fine for irreligious people to get away with the very poor behavior of sleeping with whomever they please and spreading venereal diseases which, correct me if I'm wrong, affects the lives of other people (Note: I'm speaking of all kinds of sexual immorality here, not merely homosexual).
I would disagree, the pharmacist who doesn't believe in abortions should not be required to sell the morning after pill.
And the reality is everyone should be that religious and willing to stand up for what they believe in.
Thank you, that's great to hear.
Really, this law should have never passed based on two simple points:
1. No biblical passage even comes close to implying that one should turn away homosexuals or other *ahem* "sinners". And
2. Even if such a Biblical passage existed, basic human decency should hold precedence over what's written in a 2,000 year old book. The Bible also includes instructions for proper slave-trade etiquette, but that doesn't make slavery acceptable.
You are setting yourself up as judge and jury for an entire class of people: namely the religious who happen to disagree with you. I am born with a religious tendency and discovered my preference for Christianity (I'm bi-religious by the way as I find being an atheism ... and sin in general ... very attractive).
"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!"
I've never known a disrespectful Christian or Muslim, but I know plenty of disrespectful atheists like you who complain. Though most of them are respectful.
The freedom to exercise one's religion does not grant one the right to ignore and be above local, state, and national laws that are not in violation of the First Amendment.
If a person of faith has values that he or she feels strongly about, in regards to owning and running a business, it might behoove one to read all applicable laws ahead of time. One cannot rightfully agree with and accept a business license that is bound by laws the business must abide by, and then turn around and ignore the previously agreed to laws when they get in the way of personal preferences that don't actually inhibit or deny the rightful exercise of the First Amendment.