That's not the issue. The issue is my money equals my choice. Government has no business telling me who I can and can't hire.
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 Writes Op-Ed in Support of U.S. Employment Nondiscrimination Act
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
That's not the issue. The issue is my money equals my choice. Government has no business telling me who I can and can't hire.
Why do you have the right to tell someone else, the CEO of one of the largest, most profitable and most innovative companies in the world, how to run his business? He's doing this to advance his business, not retard it like you obviously must be doing with yours if you have such a strong anti gay bias.
Last edited:
It sounded good at first, but then I realized it would add more "protected groups"... Think about how it would be enforced, and it's so blatantly obvious how this could be problematic. Certain racial groups, or should I say skin colors, are already "protected".
----------
That's also a valid point. Seems a little too authoritarian to me. I don't have a bias, but I'd be really mad if I did. And in some cases, the sexuality or gender actually matters, but not at Apple.
Tim Cook thinks it's good to avoid discrimination when hiring for Apple. I agree. Can't Tim Cook and other CEOs just hire people without discrimination? If it makes them the most money, they should do it. No need for a law. If some of the commenters here are correct, Tim Cook is gay, so someone supposedly less qualified would be CEO if Jobs discriminated based on that. If I was running the business, I'd pick whoever would make the most money, of course!
----------
That's also a valid point. Seems a little too authoritarian to me. I don't have a bias, but I'd be really mad if I did. And in some cases, the sexuality or gender actually matters, but not at Apple.
Tim Cook thinks it's good to avoid discrimination when hiring for Apple. I agree. Can't Tim Cook and other CEOs just hire people without discrimination? If it makes them the most money, they should do it. No need for a law. If some of the commenters here are correct, Tim Cook is gay, so someone supposedly less qualified would be CEO if Jobs discriminated based on that. If I was running the business, I'd pick whoever would make the most money, of course!
Last edited:
You're quoting wikipedia references to British and Canadian law.
In post #159 I excerpted (and linked back to) U.S. regulations according to the Department of Labor.
It's not surprising to hear that Canada and the U.K. implement their policy somewhat differently than the U.S.
Good for Tim!!!
I would hope that as a species we are evolving away from at least flat out discrimination. That said, there will always be some residual discrimination.
You put two people of the same race, religion, and sexual orientation on an island and they will find something to pick at each other about.
Small steps long journey.
I would hope that as a species we are evolving away from at least flat out discrimination. That said, there will always be some residual discrimination.
You put two people of the same race, religion, and sexual orientation on an island and they will find something to pick at each other about.
Small steps long journey.
Likewise the federal government doesn't force Affirmative Action on the private sector.
You need to contract with the federal government to fall under their regulations.
You're making the point for the other side. You are a "business owner". What role does and employees sexual orientation have in their ability to diligiently perform their job. In a modern society your personal view as to what is moral or immoral does not get to come into play. Discrimination in any form is wrong, end of story. Your status as a business owner does not afford you the right to decide write and wrong based on your own religious beliefs.
[written by a straight white guy]
No, but I am saying that don't build in areas where ROI will be significantly lower due to your pricing strategy.
Actually you're the idiot if you think gay is a choice and that that gives you the right to discriminate against others.
What business do you own? I want to make sure to never give you money. Being gay is hard enough without people like you, you just make it worse.
You are surprisingly critical of the person who, on the financial/operations side, was the person most responsible for Apple prospering, both at the beginning of the real Apple recovery, and again during the Great Recession. I would think a capitalist such as yourself would be in awe of him.
Haha, yeah that would be fun. "Hi new boss, because you believe in god, I'll surpress my homosexual urges. Can I have the job, if your god agrees?".
Tim Cook isn't the idiot.
You guys are a broken record. So, you have money. So you can obviously have the right to do whatever you please because you have money. What a stupid belief system you have there.
If 50 people apply for a job, and the person who gets it is gay, is that horrible? You and/or your employees decided, this is the best guy. Or woman. Problem so far? The best employee, as far as your money is concerned, is the smartest and hardest working. With me?
Now, this person can be fired. If he is not doing a good job. Who says your money makes you able to fire somebody just because he's gay?
You may not know this, but this is nothing new in the United States. The same things apply to blacks because of the civil rights acts, and other people who tend to be vulnerable to hate.
So you're saying if, in your wonderful business -- give me the address will you, I really want to patronize someone with your extreme libertarian views -- not -- if a gay or lesbian finds himself in your employ, does a good job but is otherwise gay, and you find out, you want to fire him because you don't like pooftas, right? Nice guy.
Frankly, that's the only way.
Or, if you're into praying, pray for social change. Legislation can't fix the underlying problem.
The concerns of companies you mentioned are understandable but are unfortunately not more important than the basic rights of workers everywhere. a tech worker who wants to apply to another job for which he is fully qualified should not be denied a fair chance like all other applicants just because he currently works at company X. This is Cartel like bahavior simply to avoid going into a salary war and keep wages down.
Never said hide who you are but if you don't tell anyone you're gay they'll never know.
And NO, people don't just assume you're straight until shown otherwise, I'm the perfect example of it. I go to work, do my job, don't talk about home (I have a wife and son) and one ignorant person assumed I was gay.
When asked why, she said because she's never seen me try to get at any of the ladies there and never heard me talk about a relationship. I told her I was happily married and she backed off.
Point is, people will assume whatever but just live your life.
I do agree that it should be illegal to fire someone for being gay or for their religion.
Why should a gay person feel like they have to hide it though in order to not risk being fired?
Why should two straight people be able to talk about home without fear from being fired because that talk will cause everyone to realize their straight? You're telling people here that straight people can live by this standard and gays on another. Gay peoples problems will all be solved if they simply stayed in the closet when in public. That's not confronting the problem of discrimination. That's running away from it.
Problem is, business owners have shown time and again that left entirely to their own devices they make decisions that are bad for society and the communities they exist in. Discrimination against people of another colour. Discrimination of women. Discrimination of people who belong to the wrong political party. The use of slaves. Using child labour. Expecting people to work 12 hour days, and 6 or 7 days a week. Working with no holidays. Getting fired for getting sick or injured. Expected to work dangerous jobs with little or no safety gear. Firing women for getting pregnant.
Here's a good one my grandfather was forced to whistle all day on the job, without stopping. He worked in a peanut shelling factory, and the whistling was to show he wasn't eating the peanuts.
The vast majority of rules that restrict an business owner's actions are there because they have shown that they can't actually be trusted to do the right thing when it comes to hiring and treating their employees. Yes, there are some stupid rules but we now take the vast majority of rules as just the way things should be. But they have not always been that way the rules had to be brought in to counter bad behaviour.
I absolutely agree. People often say "it's nobody's business what you do in your bedroom", but in reality limiting a gay life to the bedroom only is absolutely naive and clueless. At work people do small talk about their families, they ask "what did you do this weekend" - "my hubbys cousin came over for supper" (uh, he's gay and rubbing it in our face..
). Most gay people reach a point where they "out themselves", but even after you are "out", there are still so many day-to-day "outings" that follow just because of the context of small actions, conversations and situations. The other day we re-arranged our savings and business accounts on our debit cards, the clerk assumed we were dad and son (we're 15 years apart - redneck grandpas are barely 40 or 45, so thats ok), I told her that we're married. It was funny.
I never had or have an issue with them, if someone comes with "god" I laugh and everyone else has been pretty open minded so far. It's their loss, either as a friend or as a potential customer/client. But the point is: It's not all bedroom related, being gay affects everything and telling someone that you're gay does not mean that you want to rub the fact that you enjoy ******* **** (or **** ****** ***, and worse ******** ***) in his/her/their face. It just makes it easier to talk about your life in general.
Amazing! So, you won't mind if I ridicule your "lifestyle", I take it.
And ... before you get on the religion bashing, I'm an Atheist.
Well since the free market has done **** and all to help women, or any minority. I'll put my faith in legislation.
Of course you could ridicule my "lifestyle" if you feel like doing so. It's irrelevant - as long as it's not the legal system I'm living in and that affects my life, I pretty much am fine with anything what anyone finds about me. It makes it easy to distinguish between nice people and less useful people.
And yes, I find people who refer to a "religion" as base for their opinion on people and their lives extremely questionable. I don't even like the term "atheist" as it just appears to be another term for religious people to be able to classify others in some way within their whole concept of "belief / non-belief". It does have this undertone of "actively not believing in something".
It is basic anti-compete laws in action. If you work at company x that makes solutions for y then you will be in trouble if you leave company x to work at company z when company x and company z make the same set of solutions for y.
http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/iie/v5n2/affirmative.html
There's just one scholarly source, there are many more. Quota programs have been a key component of affirmative action since the beginning, they're starting to die, but not nearly quickly enough.
And yet under the Clinton administration the Justice Department did exactly that to then Chevy Chase (now CapitalOne) Bank.
The Justice Department, headed by Janet Reno, claimed that by choosing not to open branches in low income areas of Washington D.C., they were depriving people living in those areas from access to mortgages.
I guess Chevy Chase Bank didn't make enough campaign contributions to the right people like Tim Cook did. I don't recall the owner of Chevy Chase Bank ever getting invited to sit next to Hillary at a State of the Union Address.