Padding his resume with what? This does nothing to help him in a bid to become president unless he expects bigots to vote him in.
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
Padding his resume with what? This does nothing to help him in a bid to become president unless he expects bigots to vote him in.
Again, that isn't the problem. The problem is that they now have the ability to discriminate and shroud that discrimination in the guise of their religious beliefs.
That is wrong, full stop.
BL.
I disagree. Freedom of religious expression is constitutionally protected. There is no need for the State of Indiana to add further "clarifications" or "protections" to something that is handled at the federal level. All signs point to this being a thinly veiled attempt to target a particular minority population that generally lacks those same federal protections.
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm not religious, but I'm also not bigoted toward them and making sweeping statements like that is bigotry pure and simple. Our discussion is over.
Last edited:
You act different, look different or they just don't like you for what ever reason and you end up being "gay or lesbian". This is pure insanity. Neo nazis must be celebrating...
----------
This is very cool if you're fan of fascism or otherwise just a good old neo nazi boy.
Taking this as an honest question...your example doesn't work because your hypothetical vegan is still serving the hypothetical omnivore, just not the specific item they want. Restaurants and businesses can decide what they will serve, but cannot necessarily decide to whom they will serve it. This has emerged because of the long history of social inequality and clear discrimination in this country. Omnivores have faced no such historical discrimination, and so are not afforded the same protections as other groups that have.
I would prefer these particular issues were handled in the marketplace rather than via lawmakers/courts and that's exactly what Tim Cook (to a limited extent) and other businesses (to a far greater extent) are doing with their various statements.
----------
It's clearly bringing him publicity. A large segment of the United States electorate will react favorably to the governor's decision.
Cook really needs to learn to separate his personal politics from his position as CEO. Jobs did a pretty good job of keeping Apple relatively apolitical, but Cook is frittering that away. It will not end well.
----------
Yeah, freedom, what a horrible concept. People shouldn't be free to not do things they don't want to do, because letting people live their lives according to their own wishes when they are contrary to the will of the majority is just sooooo fascist.....
----------
Yeah, freedom, what a horrible concept. People shouldn't be free to not do things they don't want to do, because letting people live their lives according to their own wishes when they are contrary to the will of the majority is just sooooo fascist.....
There have been many studies suggesting this is not the case. The most recent work, ongoing, is summarised in an article from late 2014 (http://journals.cambridge.org/actio...=online&aid=9625997&fileId=S0033291714002451#) and garnered quite a bit of press at the time (you'll find a lot of articles about it through Google). The conclusion of the abstract to which I've linked:
Of course there is likely to be an element of choice also. I can tell you however, having had a friend who desperately wished not to be gay, primarily because he wanted children (this was in the late 80s when the notion of gay adoption was some way in the future), that I am as convinced as an "outsider" could be that you are wrong.
I spent many years in Indiana. The riot is that everyone in Indianapolis wants so very badly to believe that they are "Cosmopolitan" and just like the real cities. And then this team of Bozos just proved them to be as backward a bunch of hilljacks as could be. (They did do a nice job on the new airport, however)
Wake up and smell the coffee Indiana. 1954 isn't coming back, even if you enact a law demanding it be so.
Why are we as humans so very interested in which soft parts our neighbors are rubbing against whoever else's soft parts? Why is this EVER anyone's business? I can state with full honesty that I don't give one flat damn what anyone else does with the lights off. I'd rather not think of it. So why are these uptight republicans in their overly starched suits spending time thinking about two men lying in a bed together? One could say that they are obsessed over it.
I actually went back some years ago to shoot a campaign for Steak & Shake. After years in LA I couldn't believe how much heavier everyone was than I remembered. Now, imagining some of those folks getting naked would be disgusting, so I didn't think about it. It wasn't my business. Why should I spend moments imagining those people naked?
I just don't get all of this worrying about what other people do when they are naked. Imagine the arrogance of the thought process, "People getting naked and pleasuring themselves should abide by my personal code of conduct"
And now part 2:
"People getting naked and pleasuring themselves in a way that I have not deemed "normal" can and should be denied service in any establishment that agrees with the Code of Conduct".
What?
Do we REALLY have nothing better to do with our lives then this? Shouldn't the Governor be working on helping citizens have better lives with less crime and more job opportunities? He only gets so many days in office, but instead of working on the ACTUAL job he was elected for, he wants to spend days and days and days thinking about men laying with men and women laying with women. Talk about a pervert. He wouldn't be welcome in those bedrooms as a physical presence, and it's time that we tell legislators that we don't want them in there in ANY way. We won't wander into the Governor's bedroom while he's "doing his business" if he'll stay out of ours.
I couldn't run out of Indiana fast enough when I left. I feel sorry for the brother and sister I left there, hopefully the Governor will stay out of their bedrooms.
Wake up and smell the coffee Indiana. 1954 isn't coming back, even if you enact a law demanding it be so.
Why are we as humans so very interested in which soft parts our neighbors are rubbing against whoever else's soft parts? Why is this EVER anyone's business? I can state with full honesty that I don't give one flat damn what anyone else does with the lights off. I'd rather not think of it. So why are these uptight republicans in their overly starched suits spending time thinking about two men lying in a bed together? One could say that they are obsessed over it.
I actually went back some years ago to shoot a campaign for Steak & Shake. After years in LA I couldn't believe how much heavier everyone was than I remembered. Now, imagining some of those folks getting naked would be disgusting, so I didn't think about it. It wasn't my business. Why should I spend moments imagining those people naked?
I just don't get all of this worrying about what other people do when they are naked. Imagine the arrogance of the thought process, "People getting naked and pleasuring themselves should abide by my personal code of conduct"
And now part 2:
"People getting naked and pleasuring themselves in a way that I have not deemed "normal" can and should be denied service in any establishment that agrees with the Code of Conduct".
What?
Do we REALLY have nothing better to do with our lives then this? Shouldn't the Governor be working on helping citizens have better lives with less crime and more job opportunities? He only gets so many days in office, but instead of working on the ACTUAL job he was elected for, he wants to spend days and days and days thinking about men laying with men and women laying with women. Talk about a pervert. He wouldn't be welcome in those bedrooms as a physical presence, and it's time that we tell legislators that we don't want them in there in ANY way. We won't wander into the Governor's bedroom while he's "doing his business" if he'll stay out of ours.
I couldn't run out of Indiana fast enough when I left. I feel sorry for the brother and sister I left there, hopefully the Governor will stay out of their bedrooms.
There is no valid reason to oppose this law. If you don't like discrimination, then don't discriminate. If you don't like businesses that discriminate against you, don't buy from them. If someone wants to be a jerk, then this is a free country and they can be a jerk.
If a wedding baker doesn't want to bake for a gay wedding, why doesn't the wedding party just find someone else instead of forcing the hand of someone who doesn't want to do business with them?
If a wedding baker doesn't want to bake for a gay wedding, why doesn't the wedding party just find someone else instead of forcing the hand of someone who doesn't want to do business with them?
It's an empty law that serves no purpose other than allow discrimination for people who are not as religious as they want to be seen. A right to refuse admission already exists. A right to be homophobic also exists. But why is it ok to specify that you don't want to serve gay people but have no issue with serving people of other faiths just as long as they are not gay? If the law is religion specific, it should enforce that anyone who wants to restrict trade based on religion must prove their own devotion to their religion and must not serve anyone who is of any other religion. Otherwise this is a complete farce. It encourages homophobia, it doesn't allow religious people to be more religious. Indiana is sending a message that they are homophobic. I'm sure there are plenty of people who live there who detest being labelled like this but this is solid proof that current government and election systems do not work.
Only an idiot would think this law makes sense.
Don't claim you support freedom and equality, but hate religious freedom.
I don't scream discrimination because I can't get a BLT at a kosher deli.
And it goes both ways, someone walked into an LBGT friendly bakery and asked them to make this cake
Shop owner refused and was sued for discrimination. Yay?
I don't scream discrimination because I can't get a BLT at a kosher deli.
And it goes both ways, someone walked into an LBGT friendly bakery and asked them to make this cake
Shop owner refused and was sued for discrimination. Yay?
Way to miss the point. A kosher deli doesn't discrimate people, it discriminates food. The bakery who wouldn't make the cake would have refused as the message would be written by them. the message's purpose is to provoke anger. A wedding cake with two men holding hands on the top of it does the opposite.
Classic straw man.
Have a look, that cake says "God HATES Fags".
If you really think that is the same as a wedding cake then there is no reasoning with you.
Doesn't matter what I think, the standard being largely advocated in this thread is saying clearly that if the Westboro Baptist Church walks into a gay bakery and says make a cake that says "God Hates Fags", if the baker refuse they should be sued and that would be okay because...equality.
Big name companies and their top dogs take stances like this often. This isn't a first for Apple nor will it be the last.
Maybe Tim should worry about not shipping devices with junk memory that needs to be silently replaced.
You should be able to walk into a kosher deli, and order anything on their menu. If they don't have BLT on the menu, then you can't order that.
You can't force a baker to write a hateful message on a cake, but you should still be able to buy a cake from the baker.
If a baker doesn't want to put two women or two men on top of a cake, then just ask for the cake with no figurines on top. You can get the figurines elsewhere.
No, just more straw man from you.
That isn't the gist of disagreeing with this stupid law, and I'm pretty sure that you are intelligent enough to know that. Maybe I'm wrong.
BTW, ever had to deal with the Westboro loonies? I did. I was a grip during an Episcopalian convention in Indianapolis. The Episcopalians were considering being decent and inclusive, which of course riles people like the Westboro Baptists. (and yourself apparently)
I followed a camera operator out through the crowd. The saddest thing were the kids. The religious intolerant folks spreading their message of warm, Christian Hate brought their kids. Little 8 year olds holding up signs and chanting hateful nonsense. Talk about being a bad parent.
You know, the closed minded busy bodies who think other people's love lives are their business to judge, will all be going the way of the Dodo. The wind has been blowing the same direction for awhile now. The folks clinging to their 19th Century "morals" will make less and less noise as they get old and die off. Bible thumping from the old folk's home doesn't get you on the 6 o'clock news.
But again I have to ask, why is what I or anyone else does behind a closed door the business of a cake baker? I can honestly state that I don't have the least bit of interest in what the baker does when he or she is naked, why are they thinking about my private parts and what I do with them?
By that logic slavery should have been kept legal to prevent any harm to the cotton market.
Forget the Bible - it's just a book.
I would prefer that a gene be wholly responsible, found, and eliminated.
There is no comparison between "different", and "pervert/abnormal".
Your comparisons are terrible, since when is not offering a food anything like refusing service to someone? A valid comparison would be not giving service to a black person which again shows the stupidity of this. Your comparison would be on the level of being angry at an ice cream shop for not selling meat.
Why would you prefer that it be eliminated? If gay people's preference is to be gay and that's what they enjoy being, what's it to you? Why do you feel the need to rid the world of this? Brings us back to the Hitler reference.
There is no abnormal. Being left handed is not abnormal, it's just less common. Being gay is not abnormal. If you have never met a gay person, you either live a very sheltered life or just haven't realised you've met one. Accept that they share the planet with you and they probably like the way they are.
You were not born Christian. You would not have decided to believe in God had you not been surrounded by Christianity.
I on the other hand grew up having never even heard the word "gay" until long after I realised I was.
You religion is much more a "learned behaviour" than my sexuality.