Wow, I don't think I've ever seen a more inane analogy. People's rights vs. a ****ing phone OS. What is wrong with people?
Last edited:
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
Wow, I don't think I've ever seen a more inane analogy. People's rights vs. a ****ing phone OS. What is wrong with people?
Answer: Yes, this actually DOES make you a bigot. Marriage is about significantly more than religious freedom, as it entails specific rights, responsibilities, and economic realities. If you believe that gay people are not entitled to these in the way straight people are... yep, that's exactly what being bigoted is.
The fact is, we should simply SPLIT legal marriage from religious marriage ALTOGETHER. The state should ONLY be in the business of legally marrying (call it domestic partnership if you like), totally devoid of religious consideration at all. Then if someone wants a purely religious, ceremonial marriage, in accordance with their belief system, let them handle that separately, and let churches do whatever they want. This would be the totally rational way of handling this issue in a fair manner.
Also, mixed race couples offend my religion.
And when asked why he kicked the couple of the restaurant, the owner says, because they are gay and it offends my religion.
The misunderstanding and flat out lies surrounding this bill are astonishing. There is so much misinformation to debunk that it's hard to know where to start. How about with the fact that it is already legal to discriminate based on sexual orientation in Indiana. The fact that people don't know that seems to indicate that such discrimination will not be a problem with or without this bill. Second, this law has only a potential, tangential relationship to LGBT discrimination. It is aimed at restoring the analytical framework in religious liberty cases that was in place until the Supreme Court changed course in Smith. Third, the bill does not guarantee victory for the party asserting a religious objection. The state can demonstrate that a particular law is the least restrictive means of accomplishing a compelling state interest, which would eliminate most of the parade of horrible a presented by opponents.
I would not want them to make the cake because it was made by a retard. They can't even make a proper swastika.
Then I hope my wife and I, and our children are stuck in an elevator with you one day, so you can explain why you do not have a right to be offended, regardless of your religion.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 would disagree with you.
So would that make you bigoted, segregationist, racist, or all of the above?
BL.
You know who also supports this anti-American law they passed in Indiana legalizing discrimination against Gay people. Al Qaeda, ISIS, Vladimir Putin, Boko Haram, Hitler....
I know, it's kind-of contrary the definition of "business".
If these so-called "businesses" operate in a thoroughly un-businesslike manner, perhaps the IRS should withdraw all tax advantages granted to businesses?
They can 'sell it' because it promises that greatest payoff of all for a living organism. That being eternal existence.
Wow! Sure has made a lot of religious clergy and associated trinket sellers rich over the centuries and supported thousands of feuds, wars and associated torture and killings.
I have no hope of convincing these bigots, only outvoting them. Anyone under the age of 50 who votes Republican is an idiot. You're deluding yourself if you think the free-market/bootstraps stuff is anything more than window-dressing for the bigotry.
You serve the public. you are already under regulation by your running of a business. Or do you not know how many that you are under?
For example, The Americans With Disabilities Act: You are 'forced' to allot for accommodations for anyone with a disability. That means you must have seating for someone who is in a wheelchair. You must have the doors to your establishment handicap-accessible. You must have ample room for those with disabilities to move about in your establishment.
You must allow service animals to enter your establishment, regardless of how you feel about them.
Your rules? You may want to check that. And seeing that the building comes under public code, you don't want to be kicked out of that.
Your rules? Your ignorance abounds.
BL.
Fyi, adding the word "agenda" to the term "gay rights" doesn't make it sound any scarier. If you're anti-equality, just say so.
followed by
lol
Partisans on both sides do this. It's part of what makes them partisans. That being said, it's sad that you appear to view not discriminating against gay people as being forced to accept a belief. Believe what you want, but that, under US law, doesn't allow you to treat people in a prejudiced way. All of your other strawmen and justifications are just blather.
Uh, open up your mind for just a moment. These laws don't just encode discrimination against gays by Christians. The law can be extrapolated to allow people of one religion to discriminate against essentially anyone else at any time for any reason. You should be just as worried about being discriminated against, thanks to this type of crappy law. It's a downward spiral.
If a customer has the right to refuse to shop somewhere, the business should have the right to refuse service.
You've never lived in a small town I see. Often, there's only one of everything in a small town. If a gay couple living in a small, rural town in the middle of nowhere in Indiana is planning a wedding, and there is only one bakery for 100 miles, why the hell should they have to travel 2 hours to buy a wedding cake because the owner is a homophobic bigot?
So a law already in the 1st amendment that has been passed in most other states and Indiana is finally catching up and everyone flips their lid.
This law says a business can take the state to court if the state tries to force them to do something against their religion.
It does not allow discrimination. Period. And no business has ever used RFRA to justify discrimination. It is a tool for the individual to use against the state to ensure the state does not overly burden any of us. Businesses still have to follow all the laws.
Think jewish kid being forced to remove a yamaka in school because it is not part of their uniform. Or a Christian t-shirt maker refusing to make nazi t-shirts. The state can't force you to break your religion unless the state can prove it in court and the individual can use this law to force the state to have to prove themselves in court.