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

[2457282]

I am missing something here. Below is what I got on what this bill says -

Senate Bill 101 prohibits state or local governments from substantially burdening a person's ability to exercise their religion — unless the government can show that it has a compelling interest and that the action is the least-restrictive means of achieving it. It takes effect July 1.

Where does this give me the right to discriminate for any reason? Discrimination for any reason is bad and if it were put into law it would be very bad. It just that I don't see it here. At work we have a room where our Muslim employees can pray which seems to be supported by this bill. What I don't see is anything saying that "if you are not like me, I will kick you out."

Not being a politician I guess I am not reading this right.

 

[Nicky G]

Name one religion anywhere in the world that teaches colour discrimination.

The KKK and neo-Nazi movements DEFINITELY lay claim to the belief that Christianity as interpreted by them allows for such behaviors. Considering there are dozens and dozens of sects within each major religion, and lots of additional smaller religions, it's very easy for anybody to claim essentially any belief as being religious in nature.

 

[NT1440]

Your move, Tim. Action, not just words. Close the Indiana Apple Stores.

I don't think throwing arguably the best paid retail jobs out there (though the Apple store employees work/life balance is atrocious) out of work would be a fair thing to do without some type of significant severance pay.

I wouldn't mind a big "F#$ YOU" type of campaign through apple store signage though. Perhaps make a point of converting the Indiana Apple store logos back to the rainbow ones as a message of inclusion?

 

[WestonHarvey1]

It's not uncommon for 1st generation immigrants to associate with "conservative" ideas (or the basic dogma that comes with it) in the US. I see conservatives jump to the "use of force" or "coercion" talking point without prompting all the time, I suspect that's what happened here so don't take it personally.

All law and regulation is backed by the monopoly on violence claimed by government. This is in fact totally necessary to enforce laws - any law. Notice the "force" within "enforce". There are no laws that use the "honor system" to enforce themselves.

 

[Robisan]

The definition of "democracy" does not include a no-holds-barred approach allowing anybody to doing any thing at any time for any reason, as long as it's backed by their personal beliefs. If you really think that's what "democracy" means, I strongly encourage you to take some classes on civics.

If you think the Constitution allows ANYTHING a majority of people (or their elected representatives) want I strongly encourage you to take some classes on civics, history ... and basic reading comprehension.

 

[Chupa Chupa]

I may have missed it, but did TC also send a similar message to King Salman in Saudi Arabia? Or Maybe PM of UAE? It's easy to take a stand when you know you are safe

 

[Nicky G]

This isn't an Establishment Clause issue, it's related to Free Exercise.

Yes, free to personally exercise a religion of their choice. HOW does this have to do with allowing discrimination of others due to THEIR differing religious beliefs?! Religion is a personal matter. If you feel your religion dictates that you live in a particular way, live your life that way. Doesn't mean you have to screw over others who have a differing view. Where int he Bible does it say that a practicing Christian has to avoid doing business with non-Christians, for instance?

And really, at the end of the day, let's just acknowledge that the idea that being anti-gay is even related to religion is total BS. Because if you believe that, and make the argument that the Bible states this, you MUST inherently also wear a beard, avoid tattoos, avoid eating shellfish, and LOTS of other ridiculous stuff that makes no sense in 21st century society.

 

[oneMadRssn]

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

No.

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.

I agree, that is not what is happening. What is happening is that businesses are refusing service based on sexual orientation. Sexual orientation is not an ideology.

 

[kobalap]

I am missing something here. Below is what I got on what this bill says -



Where does this give me the right to discriminate for any reason? Discrimination for any reason is bad and if it were put into law it would be very bad. It just that I don't see it here. At work we have a room where our Muslim employees can pray which seems to be supported by this bill. What I don't see is anything saying that "if you are not like me, I will kick you out."

Not being a politician I guess I am not reading this right.

It doesn't give you the right to discriminate. It does however, prevent the government from taking any punitive or coercive actions if you do something under the basis of religious beliefs. Except paying taxes. You always have to pay taxes, irrespective of your religious beliefs

 

[rickdollar]

This governor is making Christians look like hypocritical asses.

 

[DougTheImpaler]

Thank you. For the record, I'm an atheist.

If I was observing the church today as an outsider, I might be too. But it's a good reminder to My People (heh) that we're doing a poor job stewarding our message.

 

[WestonHarvey1]

Where does it end? Can a gas station refuse to sell gas to a gay couple? How about groceries, can a grocery store refuse to sell to a gay couple?

Keep in mind these may be the only gas and grocery store in the area. It would effectively run gay couples out of town, which is ultimately what these bigots want.

No, and let me know when a successful RFRA defense for any of these actions ever occurs.

This law is mainly intended to provide weak injunctive relief for business owners who do not want to materially participate in a form of marriage they morally object to.

It would not have been necessary if everyone had simply allowed Yelp and the free market to put these people out of business, but lawyers and courts decided to step in and force the issue.

These people just want a chance to see if they can survive as religious minority business owners in a world that now embraces gay marriage. They probably can't, but because people like you wouldn't let them be put out of business gracefully by market forces, you now have RFRA. You asked for it.

 

[Robisan]

I don't think throwing arguably the best paid retail jobs out there (though the Apple store employees work/life balance is atrocious) out of work would be a fair thing to do without some type of significant severance pay.

I wouldn't mind a big "F#$ YOU" type of campaign through apple store signage though. Perhaps make a point of converting the Indiana Apple store logos back to the rainbow ones as a message of inclusion?

So, pay them generous severance. I hear Apple is sitting on a pile of cash. They can afford it.

...adding, Apple has huge market clout that they wield every day. Maybe they ought to use it for something other than grifting and profit once in a while.

 

[Chatter]

So you're saying two gay people agreeing to spend their remaining days together and build a life is the same as a group that actually tried to kill an entire race of people? Your comparison is both juvenile and disgusting, as well as incredibly offensive to Jews.

Havent you heard - when you have no valid point, bring up Hitler!
Par for the course in many of these discussions

 

[Nicky G]

Do you think a police owned t-shirt printing company will produce shirts that say F the police and has a picture of a dead police officer who got shot by a sniper at a protest rally?

This is about peoples not being punished for refusing service that violates their beliefs. It is not about race.

This argument has as much validity as people who say that if we allow gays to marry, the next step will be people marrying dogs and cats.

 

[ThisIsNotMe]

So Tim Cook only strives for equality when it comes to perceived discrimination against homosexuals but supports discrimination against religion. Got it.

 

[runebinder]

I think it's fine as long as these shop owners who turn customers away for being gay also turn away customers who eat shell fish, wear mixed fabrics and anyone they suspect as having had sex when the woman is having her period. Otherwise they're not showing true commitment to their beliefs.

 

[Intelligent]

So Tim Cook only strives for equality when it comes to perceived discrimination against homosexuals but supports discrimination against religion. Got it.

Yes he does, because he's in America, and the first line of the American constitution clearly says:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion".

 

[WestonHarvey1]

This argument has as much validity as people who say that if we allow gays to marry, the next step will be people marrying dogs and cats.

How is it invalid? Bakers who have refused to sell cakes for gay weddings are objecting to the message it sends, in violation of their conscience. They are the first to point out they don't refuse to sell birthday cakes, cup cakes, or any other product to gay people.

The example of a shirt maker refusing to print messages they don't like is right on.

 

[britboyj]

So Tim Cook only strives for equality when it comes to perceived discrimination against homosexuals but supports discrimination against religion. Got it.

The United States was founded as a place free from religious persecution, and one without a state religion. A government entity passing a rule that SUPPORTS the discrimination of ANY group on the grounds of religion is supporting that religion's viewpoints - It's unconstitutional in the extreme.

Imagine, for a moment, the situation reversed - your wife, sister, daughter, mother, unable to enter the grocery store because they weren't wearing a hijab, and that the government protects that discrimination. It's the exact same situation.

 

[WestonHarvey1]

Yes he does, because he's in America, and the first line of the American constitution clearly says:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion".

Nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof. You forgot that part.

 

[NT1440]

...adding, Apple has huge market clout that they wield every day. Maybe they ought to use it for something other than grifting and profit once in a while.

Say perhaps, dumping an absurd amount of money into Solar plants?

Or over $100 million to date into AIDS charities?

Or $50 million into Stanford Hospitals?

Or $50,000 to the SF Gives anti-poverty program?

Or bumping up the matched donation pledge for every employee that donates their time to charity?

Granted, they could do ALOT more with their horde of cash...but don't make it out like Apple does nothing in the charitable donations realm.

 

[Websnapx2]

I would just take my business elsewhere. How many businesses in Indiana are refusing to serve gay people? You can probably count them on one hand. I'm all for freedom of association let people associate with whoever they want to and deal with the consequences in the marketplace.

That is very easy to say if the consequences don’t effect you specially. What if the business discriminating against you has a monopoly on what you want or need? Those are usually the ones who like to flex their power because they can. What if other market alternatives are unable to meet your needs (say a specific date for a wedding or a party, or dietary need) and the one that can decides it just doesn’t want to? Are people supposed to postpone their wedding or movie it to another date just because some jerk doesn’t want to place a groom doll beside another groom on a stupid cake? People need to educate themselves – just because a gay couple may want a cake doesn’t mean they will be ordering a penis cake. There are adult shop bakers for that, not the mom and pop shop on the corner. The real point to all of this is the president it sets –*this is a freedom to be a bigot law, not a freedom of religion law. Pry for them when you get home, heck –*pray fro them while you make the cake! Baking a gay couple a cake doesn’t assist or reward sin, it just gives someone a cake while you do honest work for honest pay. Anything beyond that is nonsense. Besides, those without sin feel free to cast the first stone. BTW - picking up a stone makes you a liar – I’m pretty sure that’s a sin too.

 

[Swift]

Interesting debate to be a part of.

My initial reaction is "they can turn away gay customers? That's terrible!" but that's only because turning someone away is against what I believe.

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.

Christians who believe, quietly, privately and without spreading hate, that homosexuality is wrong, are still forced to perform gay marriage ceremonies.

Anyway, that's a slight deviation.

Jesus is quite clear in the bible: Everyone sins.

If you want to debate whether homosexuality is right or wrong, fine. But if your business is going to turn away all potential customers who have sinned, you won't be able to sell to anyone.

You can refuse to work Sunday in the US, and Christian holidays are the default. I wouldn't try to get a Muslim holiday off in Kansas, though it might come in under "Personal Time Off" in some states. Jewish delicatessens advertise "Kosher" and as a nominal Christian, I'll eat anything because Kosher and non-Kosher are both tasty. A little flexibility is all that's required. I'd never expect a Jewish or Muslim restaurant to offer bacon, of course. But that's kind of trivial. To be refused service because you're gay, that would be of an entirely different order.

 

[kobalap]

So if I don't agree with gay marriage I should be forced to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple just because I'm the only bakery in town? What is this the USSR?

Yeah, if you don't like mixed couple marriages, you shouldn't be forced to bake them a cake either. This not being the USSR and all.