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
Actually, as a hard, HARD right conservative, Ayn Rand fan -- and although not "religiously active" myself -- I endorse and support Indiana's new law. Good on Mr. Pence.
Hopefully, we'll see more of the same in the other red states.
I know my opinion goes against the grain in a Mac forum, but that's too bad. I am who I am. Ain't diversity great?? (Unless it's an opinion that's "diverse" from the left, that is!)
For you blue state folks -- what you want to do where you are, is fine with me (that's what conservatism is all about). But the same rules apply where WE are!
(Aside: I would normally refrain from posting political opinions in a dedicated Mac forum, but since it seems perfectly acceptable [from the moderators' viewpoint] for "the left" to sing in chorus here, I see no reason not to grate against the choir!)
Hopefully, we'll see more of the same in the other red states.
I know my opinion goes against the grain in a Mac forum, but that's too bad. I am who I am. Ain't diversity great?? (Unless it's an opinion that's "diverse" from the left, that is!)
For you blue state folks -- what you want to do where you are, is fine with me (that's what conservatism is all about). But the same rules apply where WE are!
(Aside: I would normally refrain from posting political opinions in a dedicated Mac forum, but since it seems perfectly acceptable [from the moderators' viewpoint] for "the left" to sing in chorus here, I see no reason not to grate against the choir!)
The first time this law actually is used to deny service to anyone for anything it will be challenged in court.
There was a case like that here in Vermont where a devout Christian innkeeper refused to host gay weddings. They were found by the court to be guilty of unlawful discrimination.
Probably this same scenario will play out on the national stage, with the ultimate decision to be made by the Supreme Court.
There was a case like that here in Vermont where a devout Christian innkeeper refused to host gay weddings. They were found by the court to be guilty of unlawful discrimination.
Probably this same scenario will play out on the national stage, with the ultimate decision to be made by the Supreme Court.
Oh please.
Please what? Do you have anything to say other than "oh please" and "nice try"? All I hear are empty phrases. I don't know how "y'all" debate down in Texas, but that won't help you win any debates here and it certainly won't advance your point.
----------
Actually, this thread is in the PRSI (politics religion social issues) subsection of the macrumors forums. We welcome all political views and while the forum is predominantly left wing, we love to have input from the right otherwise things get boring. Since you consider yourself far right, you're different even from many other right wing contributors because most of them are more moderate. You should really consider joining in on some conversations in PRSI.
And cases like that are exactly why laws like this are unfortunately needed. Businesses don't have to choose to use it, but it prevents the laws legalizing gay marriage from effecting people who don't want to have a part in it. And with how popular gay marriage is now it's not like they won't be able to find services, it'll only be a small minority of business owners using this law.
As much as I disagree with what you're saying, I would say political opinions on this post are quite fine. In fact I just noticed that it's under the Politics, Religion, Social Issues category. So thankfully it seems the mods put it there for a reason. But otherwise yes, keeping all that stuff out of normal discussions is part of what makes most of the other forums great!
To me it's very simple. The minute you use religion as a basis for your law you immediately start to discriminate, because your "god" isn't the best god.
To a rational person, and leaving religion at home, it seems that any business who sells goods to the public should be required to sell those goods to any member of the public, regardless of race, creed, religion, rap sheet, etc. Talk about a slippery slope. We're one step away from blacks entering the back of establishments.
I could care less about your feelings of homosexuality. If you are against it, don't do it! But you cannot make another suffer *your* wrath, simply because you believe they are an abomination in front of *your* god.
You have freedom, freedom to be heterosexual. You don't have freedom to impose your laws via religious views on others via the public marketplace... I guess unless you live in Indiana.
Chalk up another state where I wouldn't want to live.
Do I hear Pat Robertson getting ready to spew some nonsensical diatribe?
Remember folks, man made god, not the other way around. So basing laws off one bad idea and coming up with another bad idea doesn't help anything.
Just as I would never enter a church and tell people not to worship, in the same vein I would never want anyone to create a law based on the teachings of your religion.
Hasn't religion caused enough grief over the millennia? Geesh, if not for the Vatican, the Mac would have came out in '84... 1684. All god has done is hold back science and innovation. Imagine the knowledge lost in all those burnt pages scattered in the town square... we needed a book burning, but they were burning the wrong books.
If Issac Newton wasn't so nutty at the end of his life trying to decode the bible, we'd probably already have the theory of everything by now.
That should be the abomination.
Obviously, I'm an atheist. But I would never want to impose a law abridging TRUE religious freedom. But to use the law to impose religious views on others? Not for me.
I can't wait until the dinosaurs die out and the new breed of mammal can usher in a new generation.
To a rational person, and leaving religion at home, it seems that any business who sells goods to the public should be required to sell those goods to any member of the public, regardless of race, creed, religion, rap sheet, etc. Talk about a slippery slope. We're one step away from blacks entering the back of establishments.
I could care less about your feelings of homosexuality. If you are against it, don't do it! But you cannot make another suffer *your* wrath, simply because you believe they are an abomination in front of *your* god.
You have freedom, freedom to be heterosexual. You don't have freedom to impose your laws via religious views on others via the public marketplace... I guess unless you live in Indiana.
Chalk up another state where I wouldn't want to live.
Do I hear Pat Robertson getting ready to spew some nonsensical diatribe?
Remember folks, man made god, not the other way around. So basing laws off one bad idea and coming up with another bad idea doesn't help anything.
Just as I would never enter a church and tell people not to worship, in the same vein I would never want anyone to create a law based on the teachings of your religion.
Hasn't religion caused enough grief over the millennia? Geesh, if not for the Vatican, the Mac would have came out in '84... 1684. All god has done is hold back science and innovation. Imagine the knowledge lost in all those burnt pages scattered in the town square... we needed a book burning, but they were burning the wrong books.
If Issac Newton wasn't so nutty at the end of his life trying to decode the bible, we'd probably already have the theory of everything by now.
That should be the abomination.
Obviously, I'm an atheist. But I would never want to impose a law abridging TRUE religious freedom. But to use the law to impose religious views on others? Not for me.
I can't wait until the dinosaurs die out and the new breed of mammal can usher in a new generation.
The gay couple wants a cake from the baker, not a threesome.
Religious freedom has NOTHING to do with it. But bigotry, ignorance, homophobia, and a few other things have EVERYTHING to do with it.
Keep god in the holy book and out of the law book and everything would be so much better.
EDIT: And I'm fully aware, just as an iOS vs Android debate, this thread is sure to descend into lunacy, if it hasn't already. Nothing to be gained other than a "get it off my chest" moment. But no post here will change anyone's mind either way.
At the same time we should also find the gene responsible for believing in fairy tales and eliminate that as well. Since homosexuality has not killed millions like fairy tales have, finding the stupid gene should be our number one priority!!
Last edited:
If we make religious freedom more valuable than human civil rights, that means Satanists should be allowed to sacrifice humans and eat human intestines in public because they are expressing their freedom of religion.
I disagree that any passionately held belief deserves automatic reflexive respect. If I told you a woman who never had sex gave birth and a zombie rose from the dead you would and SHOULD either laugh at me or order a psychiatric exam. Just because we put the word religion in front of some "beliefs" doesn't make them less absurd or not subject to disdain or mockery. That is the problem. Faith and beliefs should be critically and severely examined and not just accepted because it is an alleged religion. This free pass given to outdated myths of primitive societies needs to be taken away. Sorry we live in modern times now. We aren't desert nomads anymore. No more simply allowing any silly superstitions to get tax exemptions and dictate our secular laws.
When we start doing that, all this religous nonsense will die the death it now deserves. Wear this, eat that, don't eat that, allow men to do this, but not women. Pray to that, sing this hymn, go here on a holiday. Fast on this day. It's all a crock.
LOL! So there it is. Can't find anything else so you immediately reach for the "redneck" card. Are you listening to yourself? Such hypocricy around here.
That's right. Religous people ae afraid to too deeply look at the sham of what it is they base their lives on. And when anyone starts to do so they cry bigotry. No. It's not bigotry to finally say the emperor wears no clothes. It's reality. The desert nomad myths have no place in today's society. There are no virgin births and dead people don't rise from the dead. There I said it. Are you scared now?
Lmao!!! Thank you for the laugh. I know it hurts that your bigoted right wing agenda is already on the wrong side of history and that Indiana is currently being tarred and feathered as an example for any other states that may try to enshrine bigotry into their law. And I know it also hurts that the bigoted right wing agenda is only 2 months away from losing the battle against marriage equality on a national scale, but trying to turn the tables on people fighting for civil rights and call them "bigots" won't work today, and it won't fool future generations readings history books. The segregationists thought like you too; they lost, and so will you. You already did. And don't look for any relief in 2016, it won't happen.
Sad but true. The U.S. is the laughingstock of much of the world now due to our backwards religous yahoos.
Thats just it though, you open a business to the public, you pretty much have to serve the public. The other alternative is chaos where vague standards can override all common sense. And these vague standards can be totally unproven and only backed and verified by ones personal convictions. Thats why we dont explicitly base society at large at religion. Unless you rigidly define the religions standards by dictum of government, you will just have chaos. Of course when you have such a government dictum you essentially have a theocracy which doesnt allow for religious freedom - something that society desires and is a rock foundation of America.
It wasnt too long ago in America that we applied the same ideas with race. We had to drag racists into the 20th century by saying no you cannot discriminate against blacks. Heck, people were well adapt to using religious arguments (sincerely held beliefs) to justify racist laws and a host of discrimination. Thankfully society has moved on to where such attitudes are only held by the minority, and now we dont cater to racism all that well. We allow it to exist as a freedom of speech idea, but we counter it with other massive freedom of speech to counter it. But we do have laws to protect people from the oppression of the masses.
When people support these laws, try to substitute homosexuality with blacks and see how unacceptable to that. We as a society would never allow a business to discriminate against people who are a certain race (in fact, such things are out right illegal) or another protected class. Why shouldnt homosexuality be any different? Peoples objections are based on their religious beliefs just like they did with racial discriminations. We cannot have chaos where one persons personal (and impossible to prove objectively) can override all sense of morality. To what extent do we accommodate hate?
When you open a business to the public, you dont get to discriminate arbitrarily. You need a darn good reason, and your personal peccadillos should be seen with a huge amount of skepticism to how you discriminate. The easiest solution to this is simply make natural discrimination (basically recrimination based on things that one cannot control and are based on their natural sense - sexuality, race, disability, etc).
That doesnt mean that a business has to accommodate everything or everybody. A kosher deli doesnt have to be forced to sell pork products and compromise their beliefs. Nobody is proposing such things. Thats not the same thing as saying that you cannot discriminate against living breathing people. Your business doesnt have to cater to everybody, but it should be the customers choice to determine that (outside of things that can get you kicked out of a store). A business owner cant just say no gays allowed because they claim its religion (but really they find certain people icky - honesty how can one tell the difference). You open your doors to the public, you are going to possibly have to deal with members of the public that you dont like. If you dont want to deal with them, you are going to need a compelling reason to deny that. Religion seems to be the stupidest since I can easily reject a religious belief just like I can reject any non-scientific concept like flat earth, or holocaust denial.
It wasnt too long ago in America that we applied the same ideas with race. We had to drag racists into the 20th century by saying no you cannot discriminate against blacks. Heck, people were well adapt to using religious arguments (sincerely held beliefs) to justify racist laws and a host of discrimination. Thankfully society has moved on to where such attitudes are only held by the minority, and now we dont cater to racism all that well. We allow it to exist as a freedom of speech idea, but we counter it with other massive freedom of speech to counter it. But we do have laws to protect people from the oppression of the masses.
When people support these laws, try to substitute homosexuality with blacks and see how unacceptable to that. We as a society would never allow a business to discriminate against people who are a certain race (in fact, such things are out right illegal) or another protected class. Why shouldnt homosexuality be any different? Peoples objections are based on their religious beliefs just like they did with racial discriminations. We cannot have chaos where one persons personal (and impossible to prove objectively) can override all sense of morality. To what extent do we accommodate hate?
When you open a business to the public, you dont get to discriminate arbitrarily. You need a darn good reason, and your personal peccadillos should be seen with a huge amount of skepticism to how you discriminate. The easiest solution to this is simply make natural discrimination (basically recrimination based on things that one cannot control and are based on their natural sense - sexuality, race, disability, etc).
That doesnt mean that a business has to accommodate everything or everybody. A kosher deli doesnt have to be forced to sell pork products and compromise their beliefs. Nobody is proposing such things. Thats not the same thing as saying that you cannot discriminate against living breathing people. Your business doesnt have to cater to everybody, but it should be the customers choice to determine that (outside of things that can get you kicked out of a store). A business owner cant just say no gays allowed because they claim its religion (but really they find certain people icky - honesty how can one tell the difference). You open your doors to the public, you are going to possibly have to deal with members of the public that you dont like. If you dont want to deal with them, you are going to need a compelling reason to deny that. Religion seems to be the stupidest since I can easily reject a religious belief just like I can reject any non-scientific concept like flat earth, or holocaust denial.
Are you listening to yourself? You haven't successfully disputed anything, you reply with less than witty catchphrases, yet you expect to be taken seriously. Maybe the like minded folks in your social circles accept this form of debate because they all agree with each other, but you better be prepared for a REAL debate if you're going to spew your crap on a forum with diverse views.
Actually the line is not hard. People are defining religous freedom wrong. Religous freedom is being able to freely practice your religion in your place of worship or your home. It doesn't mean using your personal religous views when engaging in public commerce outside your place of worship.
No store owner is being told they can't go to church and practice their religion. They have all the religous freedom in the world. But when they choose to engage in commerce in the public sphere they need to abide by non secular laws. No one is forcing them to go into business.
Otherwise, we have chaos. What if my religion called for punching people in the face that I disliked. It's my religous belief right - so I can do that without fear of arrest?
----------
This person gets it. It is not religous freedom to bring your beliefs into public commerce. It's religous freedom to practice your religion in your place of worship and your home. No one is being stopped from that. So there is no religous freedom argument. Just like those religions that don't believe in medical treatment -- parents will be arrested if they allow their kids to die. You can't argue religous freedom when it affects others.
Well, it didn't take long, did it?
http://radionowindy.com/1365999/kyl...00-and-refused-service-to-a-gay-couple-audio/
http://radionowindy.com/1365999/kyl...00-and-refused-service-to-a-gay-couple-audio/
I still don't think you can say 'without doubt' that he existed. Say I wrote a book about the life of someone called John with the help of some of my friends. Everyone I told about John would assume I was telling the truth and perhaps write about him themselves. Perhaps some time latter the people making copies of these texts might not like certain aspects of the story so decide to change it or to add in some detail or another. This is exactly what happened with the Bible and it's pretty obvious when you compare early versions of it. There are big differences between them. I believe a historian once tried to count the differences and found there were more than there were actuall words in the Bible.
That's the problem with trying to get a picture of history from written accounts, people lie, make things up, and exagerate all the time.
While I'm interested in history I don't find the story of Muhammad to be interesting enough to spend much time researching. The guy just seems so barbaric, self righteous, and evil. I'm sure you are probably right and he existed, all I'm really saying is that you should take everything you read with a pinch of salt and not just assume it is true because it's the commonly held belief.
Religious texts in particular are often just recycled myths modified to suit the addenda of the person writing them.
Going back to what I said earlier the existence of Muhammad doesn't make much difference. It simply means he was the warlord I was talking about. Clearly the religion was nothing more than a rehash of the older Jewish and Christian religions with simplified myths and more barbaric and warlike language, to match the harsher lifestyle of the people writing it. Islam is clearly about controlling people and getting them to behave in the way the author wishes, largely through threats, the power of fear, and the pressure of loyalty to the cult.
The sad thing is these tactics still seem to work on modern people.
Last edited: