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

[Swift]

Just to be clear

You have a right to have your church not accept gay members -- that's religious freedom. You have a right to hold to stupid beliefs (my word) about homosexuality.

You don't have a right to refuse service to anyone based on their sexual orientation. As long as they're not actually having sex when they're in your restaurant, gays and lesbians and transgendered can buy a cup of coffee from you, and you are FORCED to take their money.

Oh, the humanity!

 

[Robisan]

I particularly like the part where he said Apple would no longer do business there and ordered all Apple Stores in Indiana closed. Oh, wait...

 

[69650]

Reading and understanding are two different things. You think it would be reasonable if a restaurant manager said "sorry, you two are fine customers, but because you are gay, you offend my religion, so you have to leave"??

Yes I do and if you don't like it go eat somewhere else. If enough people don't like he'll go out of business. If enough people agree with he will continue to trade. It's called freedom of choice.

 

[kobalap]

Props to the governor for not following the herd only doing what is politically correct. If I have objections to making a wedding cake for a gay couple government should have the right to force me to do it. Go someplace else where I'm sure another baker would be more than happy to satisfy the request. The marketplace should decide these things not government.

Actually, in conservative circles, the politically correct thing to do is to discriminate against gay people. So in this case, Indiana did what is politically correct in their context.

 

[oneMadRssn]

Image

A private business has the right to do what they want with their business. If you don't like it, go spend your money elsewhere. If enough people do it, the business will go under. That is how the free market works.

Let's also remember that businesses likely won't turn down somebody just for being gay, but they might refuse to make a cake that supports/promotes the lifestyle.

Should a shirt company owned by anti-gun individuals be forced to make shirts for an open carry rally? No, they shouldn't because those individuals have the freedom to do what they want with their business.

The logic is quite simple, should somebody be forced to support an ideology they disagree with? It is a simple yes or no question.

It's different. Business can certainly discriminate based on content. Shirt companies owned by anti-gun people don't have to print pro-gun shirts, and jewish bakers don't have to make nazi cakes. Because nazis and pro-gun nuts aren't an innate human characteristic, but rather a choice the person has made about themselves.

Businesses shouldn't be allowed to discriminate based on innate human characteristics that are no fault or choice of the individual - such as race, religion, sexual orientation, disability, etc.

Let's see someone in Indiana try to use this law to get around the ADA by saying wheelchair ramps offend their religion.

 

[Swift]

Not that it's right, but 19 other states have this same law:

Alabama
Connecticut
Florida
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Mississippi
Missouri
New Mexico
Oklahoma
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
Tennessee
Texas
Virginia

Bible belt and old confederacy, not surprising. Connecticut?

 

[byke]

Does Apple own any business extensions that operate on occupied territory?

 

[strausd]

gays and lesbians and transgendered can buy a cup of coffee from you, and you are FORCED to take their money.

Businesses don't refuse to take money from somebody because of their ideology. Businesses refuse service when a customer says "hey, make this thing that promotes my ideology and is against your ideology."

 

[Yr Blues]

Freedom.

It makes business sense to sell to peaceful customers. I would not discriminate, but I want the freedom to do what I please with my property.

People should be allowed to discriminate as long as they are non-violent about it.

Using government to threaten people with guns is never a moral solution. Especially "thought-crimes".

The government can never supply freedom. It can only take it away. It can't even protect freedom without infringing on other people's freedom.

On that note, liberals discriminate at colleges in the hiring process all of the time. Liberals discriminate against conservative or libertarian students by giving them poor grades.

 

[strausd]

It's different. Business can certainly discriminate based on content. Shirt companies owned by anti-gun people don't have to print pro-gun shirts, and jewish bakers don't have to make nazi cakes. Because nazis and pro-gun nuts aren't an innate human characteristic, but rather a choice the person has made about themselves.

Businesses shouldn't be allowed to discriminate based on innate human characteristics that are no fault or choice of the individual - such as race, religion, sexual orientation, disability, etc.

Let's see someone in Indiana try to use this law to get around the ADA by saying wheelchair ramps offend their religion.

The logic is quite simple, should somebody be forced to support an ideology they disagree with? It is a simple yes or no question.

And lets not try and be deceptive here. Businesses aren't refusing service to someone for holding an ideology. That is not what is happening.

 

[AZREOSpecialist]

As a resident of Indiana, let me make it absolutely clear that the vast majority of hoosiers (including our Republican mayor of Indianapolis, christians, conservatives and all sorts of businesses) told Pence that we do not want this.

He's padding his resume for a future presidential run at our expense.

What's said is his thinking that doing this would actually help his cause in a general election when the majority of the electorate are steadfastly against what he just did.

 

[Nicky G]

"Coloreds use the door in the back."

Seriously, right? But in this case, it's actually WORSE, because it allows for an outright PROHIBITION of a specific class of people.

This will hit the SCOTUS before long, and THANKFULLY it seems that they're at least a little more progressive as a group than these backwards states.

 

[pdaholic]

First there was Bobby Knight, and now this. SMH, Indiana. SMH.

 

[kolax]

In the UK there is a fear that Christianity isn't covered by the same protection as other religions. For example, Muslims can refuse to serve certain types of meat at work, and their employers can't do anything. However, if I decided I refused to work Sundays - or Good Friday - because I'm a Christian, I doubt I would be protected.

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.

 

[phillipduran]

Apples and oranges.

No, it's a solid argument.

 

[kobalap]

Yes I do and if you don't like it go eat somewhere else. If enough people don't like he'll go out of business. If enough people agree with he will continue to trade. It's called freedom of choice.

Yep, I agree.

If its my business, I should have the freedom to refuse service on any basis I like. For example, if they are a person of color, the government should not be able to force me to serve that customer.

Its deja vu all over again.

 

[Nicky G]

For real?

Image

PLEASE understand that the USA is a very big and very diverse country, and we are NOT ALL LIKE THIS. Apparently, Indianans have more in common with the Saudis than they do New Yorkers.

 

[blackcrayon]

I don't know why it's an issue for churches to marry people that don't fit with their beliefs. As has been said, just take away the civil right of ALL churches to marry people. Then they can religiously bind whomever they want, and the couple then (or only) goes to a courthouse (or whatever local government with the power) for the legal part.

 

[hudson1]

Props to the governor for not following the herd only doing what is politically correct. If I have objections to making a wedding cake for a gay couple government should have the right to force me to do it. Go someplace else where I'm sure another baker would be more than happy to satisfy the request. The marketplace should decide these things not government.

I agree. This law is in response to the gay couple that sued a bakery for not baking them a wedding cake. Really... they needed to sue a bakery when there were probably 10 other bakeries around them that would have happily baked them a cake?

This isn't about gay rights. It's about protecting people who have chosen not to sign on to the gay rights agenda.

 

[0098386]

Can a more progressive country/state invade them? Is that possible? I think some people there need liberating and/or protecting.

 

[TsMkLg068426]

Religion YAWN! Instead of worrying about fiction Tim should get Beats to be part of iTunes Match now that is real faith.

 

[yg17]

I can't wait until a gay florist turns away a Christian couple planning a wedding because it goes against their beliefs, and the Christians start whining about how they're being persecuted.

 

[69650]

People who live their life for religion instead of living their life with religion are idiots and most are hypocrites.

Maybe but they should have the right to live their life as they please in a democracy. They're not denying you something you can't get elsewhere. They're just saying that they don't want to be forced to serve you. That will only breed resentment and division. Difference of opinion is the hallmark of a mature democracy. The opposite is called communism.

 

[Arran]

Ahh i won't even bother.

Why? Is it against your religion?

 

[bradl]

Maybe but they should have the right to live their life as they please in a democracy. They're not denying you something you can't get elsewhere. They're just saying that they don't want to be forced to serve you. That will only breed resentment and division. Difference of opinion is the hallmark of a mature democracy. The opposite is called communism.

So if it is something you don't tolerate, they should have to go elsewhere. Got it.

And what is intolerance, again?

BL.