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
It already HAS! I got through a couple of pages before I got so mad I had to post. First, a similar federal law was passed by the US congress and signed by BILL CLINTON. It went to the Supreme Court and was unconstitutional at the state level because congress didn't have the authority, not because there was anything illegal about the law. After the Supreme Court ruling, congress and the president encouraged states to pass their own laws.
About 20 states (including Illinois) already have this law in place.
Finally, this law protects ALL RELIGIONS. Say a town puts in a "No Hats" law. This law would protect the Muslim women and allow them to wear their burkas or the Jewish men to wear a Kipa. A similar law already protected a church's right to feed the homeless despite a city's protest.
Read the law and look at the legal precedents. Don't rely on social media for all your information. And if Apple banned Indiana, wouldn't that be religious discrimination?
I had a priest once ask if I was a religious person. I truthfully answered "No".
He replied, "Good, I don't trust religious people".
----------
Well said.
Great article. It is absolutely true that a number of LGBT and black activists are little more than obnoxious fascists to whom only their views represent freedom. Some of them seek nothing less that the total annihilation of their opponents.
But they are religious laws. Even today in modern societies members of the Jewish faith (its not 100% universal - I know a couple of Jewish individuals that love bacon) do not eat pork even though we in modern societies have an excellent idea if how to properly prepare it to avoid parasites. The fact that its basis no longer requires a religious law - we have food preparation and handling guides that cover it. Despite that, there still are laws out there that people believe very honestly. I have no problem with peoples own personal beliefs, but I do have a problem when people try to impose laws that try to use religion as a basis for implementation. I dont care about Jewish dietary laws. I am not Jewish. Now if I went to a Jewish Deli I shouldnt expect to be served any pork based product, but thats because the owner of said deli doesnt offer it to me.
I dont care where the laws came from. It doesnt matter when secular groups perform the same function without all the extra baggage religion carries around with it. The USDA can provide some sane regulation around pork that doesnt need to be encoded in a holy book.
Weeeeeeeeel, I don't know if I would go that far.
But I'm happy to live in a country where we can debate this. And lets face it, topics like these are going to push everybody's hot buttons; 680+ posts and counting...
If by total annihilation you mean forbidding their opponents to deny a cup of coffee or sandwich to a gay couple, then yes. The government is not burdening a business by forcing them to sell a sandwich to a homosexual. I'm sure you would feel differently of a homosexual business owner denied service to a Christian couple. Would the government be burdening the gay guy by forcing him to serve Christians?
Around the world, we strive to treat every customer the same -- regardless of where they come from, how they worship or who they love. - Tim Cook
Capitalism at its best!
Translation: We will take your money no matter what color you happen to be.
But if you're looking for diversity in Silicon Valley: pack sand...unless you're a caucasian LGBT--then you'll get a shot.
Capitalism at its best!
Translation: We will take your money no matter what color you happen to be.
But if you're looking for diversity in Silicon Valley: pack sand...unless you're a caucasian LGBT--then you'll get a shot.
Weeeeeeeeel, I don't know if I would go that far.
One can never accuse MacRumors of avoiding controversial, click-bait articles on their front page.
----------
Why do people keep coming up with this lunch counter stuff? I think you're about a half a century too late on the lunch counter discrimination bandwagon.
This won't happen.
The legislation currently pending in Indiana is exactly analogous to the Federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act that was enacted in 1993. You were aware of the Federal RFRA law, right?
For those who don't know, that law was passed unanimously (435-0) in the House and 97-3 in the Senate. Notable "Yes" votes included hardcore liberal stalwarts Sens. Ted Kennedy (D-MA), John Kerry (D-MA), Pat Leahy (D-VT), Harry Reid (D-NV), Barbara Boxer (D-CA), and Patty Murray (D-WA). The original bill was sponsored in the House by big-time liberal Charles Schumer of New York. The legislation was signed by President Clinton (a Democrat).
In 1997, the federal law was held to only apply to the federal government, but states were free to enact their own state-level RFRA laws. And that's what has been done in 21 states, with legislation pending in many others.
These laws protect people who have religious convictions from being coerced by the power of government to act in a manner incompatible with their deeply held religious convictions. The law mandates that the courts protect religious liberty by stating religious freedom can only be limited by the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling government interest. The federal law was recently used in the Hobby Lobby decision, where it was held that the mandate to provide certain forms of abortofacient birth control drugs infringed on the religious convictions of the owners of the business who could not provide them due to their religious beliefs.
The law as has nothing to do, and does not support, any form of racial discrimination that people here have been mindlessly blabbering about. The Supreme Court made that crystal clear last term.
Our resident constitutional scholar Ruth Bader iBlazed may have additional commentary, and I look forward to his largely wrongheaded but always entertaining views.
We don't have to come up with it. It's exactly what this bill legalizes. It's currently legal in Indiana to deny a gay person food at a lunch counter. You don't like that inconvenient truth do you? Kinda hurts your whole argument.
I was making a point that we don't need to follow stuff cause people did it thousands of years ago. I wasn't being literal. You can get diseases from all kinds of meats that are not properly cooked. So what. We have thermometers now and refrigerators.
I suppose we should segregate women like Orthodox Jews and Muslims do. After all, they did it for a reason 2000 years ago. Religion is a farce.
Wait, does that mean the openly gay couple that own the restaurant where I eat breakfast every morning can't get served at their own place?
The law as has nothing to do, and does not support, any form of racial discrimination that people here have been mindlessly blabbering about. The Supreme Court made that crystal clear last term.
Our resident constitutional scholar Ruth Bader iBlazed may have additional commentary, and I look forward to his largely wrongheaded but always entertaining views.
Interesting, my views and predictions of Supreme Court actions are usually spot on. Care to place bets on King v Burwell and the gay marriage case whose name is too long for me to remember?
Anyway, do you honestly thing SCOTUS would use RFRA to rule in favor of a Christian business owner who turns away a gay customer at a lunch counter? If they won't allow RFRA to be used against racial minorities, what makes you think they will allow it to be used as a basis for discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation? Especially if in April the SCOTUS determines that sexual orientation requires heightened legal scrutiny, these RFRA laws will basically be neutered in regards to sexual orientation.
----------
Wait, does that mean the openly gay couple that own the restaurant where I eat breakfast every morning can't get served at their own place?
If they choose to not serve themselves, then sure! But I'm not sure if you can sue yourself for discrimination. And even if you could, there's a chance Indiana's new RFRA might protect them from discrimination lawsuits against themselves.
But to put a more moderate spin on it, RFRA laws don't guarantee that a religious person would win a discrimination lawsuit against anyone. They would have to show that they are being substantially burdened by having to serve someone who sleeps with the same sex in the privacy of their own bedroom. Good luck with that at the Supreme Court!
there's a chance Indiana's new RFRA might protect them from discrimination lawsuits against themselves.
Too funny! They make a damn good French Toast though.
That just goes to show how those gays feel about 'Merica. It should be called freedom toast, damnit. Prancing around making "french" toast in Indiana, no wonder this law was needed, because gays don't appreciate their freedom to be discriminated against!
Would Apple have made this statement if it was still under the late Steve Jobs?
Theres so much other forms of discrimination and immoral stuff going on, why did Apple make a comment on this specifically?
It wouldnt be that nice if Tim Cook, or anyone else as a matter of fact, uses the company they lead to spread their own views
Theres so much other forms of discrimination and immoral stuff going on, why did Apple make a comment on this specifically?
It wouldnt be that nice if Tim Cook, or anyone else as a matter of fact, uses the company they lead to spread their own views
This seems to be the trend among company leaderships, as of late, to comment on issues they perceive as socially relevant. The question I have is whether the views expressed by Mr. Cook are his, or Apple, Inc.?
Just asking, BTW.
shop owner: "You are black, an ex-slave. Enter at servants entrance in back"
(see Leviticus Chapter 25, verse 44 ( God shows that the children of slaves are slaves themselves)
(see Leviticus Chapter 25, verse 44 ( God shows that the children of slaves are slaves themselves)
Well according to conservatives, corporations can even have religious beliefs these days, so social commentary is certainly permissible.
My first question is if those religious people would be okay with being denied service at gay-friendly establishments, or if they would be okay with being kicked out of such places?
My second question is if this is really what America is all about and if this is really the mark of a great country? It astounds me that the very people who want to be able to refuse service to certain people based on their chosen beliefs, can still say that America is the greatest country in the world. You know "Let me take your huddled masses, yearning to breathe free". If this is the best version of "freedom" that humans can come up with, then humanity is a pretty failed race.
If this is the way it's got to be, so that those who have chosen their beliefs can use them against other people to satisfy their own need to use control over others, then it should be an absolute requirement that they display a large sign at the entrance to their establishment so that others could know and not even enter. I would enter every one of them just to make their lives hell. And man, would I have fun doing it.
My second question is if this is really what America is all about and if this is really the mark of a great country? It astounds me that the very people who want to be able to refuse service to certain people based on their chosen beliefs, can still say that America is the greatest country in the world. You know "Let me take your huddled masses, yearning to breathe free". If this is the best version of "freedom" that humans can come up with, then humanity is a pretty failed race.
If this is the way it's got to be, so that those who have chosen their beliefs can use them against other people to satisfy their own need to use control over others, then it should be an absolute requirement that they display a large sign at the entrance to their establishment so that others could know and not even enter. I would enter every one of them just to make their lives hell. And man, would I have fun doing it.
He he is roping apple in, a company that he leads. It ends up looking like a statement made by apple.
The government already does force a gay person to serve Christians. It's called the Civil Rights Act. You can be sued for saying "I don't like your dead-guy-fetish jewelry" before refusing service, but not for "I don't like how light your loafers are".
Of course, to hear the anti-gay Christians tell it, it's the homosexuals who want special treatment under the law.