Apple CEO Tim Cook Writes Op-Ed in Support of U.S. Employment Nondiscrimination Act

[quagmire]

What goes around, comes around. We will return to a more stable era - after the bottom drops out of this one.

All because women are allowed to work and have equal rights to men?

 

[lifeinhd]

The obvious counter to that would be the ban of smoking in pubs and bars. Before the ban no-where had a smoking ban, after the ban no-one smokes in pubs and bars.

And you don't think there are smokers who resent not being able to smoke in pubs and bars? I personally know more than a few. And I don't know many smokers.

 

[jnpy!$4g3cwk]

As for Obama, I'll let future history answer that.

As I thought, you don't have an answer, or, evidence.

I should be able to set whatever wages I can get away with. Don't like the pay? Don't take the job.

A mob can band together and write any law they wish - that doesn't make it right and proper. The more such laws are imposed, the more likely they will be circumvented/ignored by those who are intent upon making a life for themselves.

Being the boss/owner is being the king - and is a full-time commitment. The laxity of the masses doesn't (or shouldn't) control the efficiency of a business.

Are you referring to job rights or personal rights? If the former, they don't have any such.

As for your point about the aristocracy being in charge - they always have been, and always will. Even the French and Russian revolutions merely changed one set for another.

No, it works fine now - as it always has. Men hunt, women nurture.

Thanks for making your antediluvian viewpoint clear. I only ask one thing -- please make these views known to people before you hire them. TIA.

 

[elistan]

I'm old-fashioned. My view on work is - total commitment. For women, that would mean: work, then family, then work, if desired.

Why do you work? What is your purpose, such that work comes before everything else?

 

[mrsir2009]

Funny coming from a company that seems to have nothing but white guys in their 40s and 50's in senior positions.

Those people are best for their jobs - nothing discriminating about that.

 

[snberk103]

No, it works fine now - as it always has. Men hunt, women nurture.

Light duties, if available, would be the only fair solution. If none are available, tough. Life can be a female dog at times, but that shouldn't put the onus on the owner.

I"m just glad I live in a Social Democracy where we've moved on from the early 1900s.

 

[OLDCODGER]

As I thought, you don't have an answer, or, evidence.

Typical Lib. No, I won't get into an off-topic rant against Obama - I have neither the time nor the interest. The very fact that you posed the question is evidence that I would be wasting key-strokes.

----------

All because women are allowed to work and have equal rights to men?

If only!

----------

Why do you work? What is your purpose, such that work comes before everything else?

Why does that bother you?

----------

I"m just glad I live in a Social Democracy where we've moved on from the early 1900s.

You like stealing from others, then?

 

[citizenzen]

No, I won't get into an off-topic rant against Obama - I have neither the time nor the interest.

You may not have the time, but I get the impression you have a great deal of interest in it.

It's pretty obvious.

 

[OLDCODGER]

You may not have the time, but I get the impression you have a great deal of interest in it.

It's pretty obvious.

Of course - he's having a detrimental effect on my holdings! I'm just not interested in debating it.

 

[Eraserhead]

What goes around, comes around. We will return to a more stable era - after the bottom drops out of this one.

China treats its women well...

That's why, for example, Africa is still on subsistence farming.

Not these days.

Sorry, should not have been so obtuse. By proactive harm, I mean when one sets out to inflict harm on someone - without just cause.

Reactive harm is better defined as defense/reaction to perceived harm caused by someone. In this particular case, the bar owner felt slighted by the confrontation, and took reactive measures.

Unless his employee got off with her girlfriend in front of him he's got to put up with it. Just like he would if he was racist and one of his employees had a black girlfriend/boyfriend.

As for your point about the aristocracy being in charge - they always have been, and always will. Even the French and Russian revolutions merely changed one set for another.

Just think of all the talent we are wasting, its hardly efficient.

And you don't think there are smokers who resent not being able to smoke in pubs and bars? I personally know more than a few. And I don't know many smokers.

I think at this point the law could probably be reversed and the private sector would have some bars with smoking and some without - that said before the ban the private sector didn't do that.

 

[OLDCODGER]

Not these days.

Unless his employee got off with her girlfriend in front of him he's got to put up with it. Just like he would if he was racist and one of his employees had a black girlfriend/boyfriend.

So, no problems with Ethiopia, Niger, Somalia, etc feeding themselves? Good to hear it, we can stop feeding them then.

No, he wouldn't have to put up with it - just use another reason, although it wouldn't be instant. You can take a horse to water ....

 

[Eraserhead]

So, no problems with Ethiopia, Niger, Somalia, etc feeding themselves? Good to hear it, we can stop feeding them then.

Ethiopia has achieved huge economic growth in recent years. And US food aid may actually be harmful anyway - http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/us-food-aid-is-wrecking-africa-claims-charity-461903.html

No, he wouldn't have to put up with it - just use another reason, although it wouldn't be instant. You can take a horse to water ....

That makes him a bad boss then. But at least he has to go to a lot of effort.

 

[niuniu]

Opportunity being the operative word - not compulsion.

The former doesn't exist without the latter.

Hurr durr.

 

[69650]

Why should someone be denied a job due to their sexuality when they have no control over it? Are you OK with denying someone a job simply because they're black even though they are otherwise qualified for the position?

Stop confusing the issue. Would you employ someone who was openly racist or sexist? No? That's a form of discrimination isn't it? I wouldn't employ them because I believe that is wrong not because of any laws.

Christian teaching says that homosexuality is wrong. I don't discriminate against anyone but I have the right to live my life according to my beliefs. And that means no I wouldn't employ anyone who was openly gay. If they want to pass a law fine I won't take any notice. Let them try and prove it. Fortunately I don't live in a country where you get sued for every little thing.

I'm sick and tired of this entitlement culture where people think they have a right to everything. You earn it in my view. If you don't like my views fine go set up your own company and you can employ as many gay people as you want. Just don't tell me what I can and can't do. I work 12 hours a day every day. I provide employment, pensions, healthcare and the self respect of knowing they have have earned their pay. What do you do apart from criticise others?

 

[niuniu]

Christian teaching says that homosexuality is wrong.

I'm sick and tired of this entitlement culture where people think they have a right to everything.

Are you talking about the entitlement culture where people feel entitled to be racist, sexist, bigoted?

Christians can take their discriminatory teaching and shove it up their collective arse. The law is not here to enforce woo woo.

If you don't like the UK's equal opportunities Acts you can get out of the country. I'd rather have 100 non-bigoted unemployed immigrants living off my taxes than 1 employed bigoted, racist, or sexist Brit.

 

[Happybunny]

What goes around, comes around. We will return to a more stable era - after the bottom drops out of this one.

You sound like a dinosaur, and like all dinosaurs are due to pass away very shortly, taking your outdated ideas of hate and bigotry to the grave. All you have left in your world is the past, the future is leaving you and your ideas of hate and discrimination in the dust. There is a new world coming, and your reactionary ideas will not stop it. Education has opened the flood gates of equality, the work force is becoming more female, woman are reaching for the stars, and getting there.

As one who did live through the 1950’s, I’m am thankful that my two daughter did not have to put up with the crap that women did back then.

I look at my two granddaughters and know that they will inherent a world, far different and much better, thanks to equality. For their generation the sky is truly the limit, and old people and old ideas like yours, will not hold them back.

Stop confusing the issue. Would you employ someone who was openly racist or sexist? No? That's a form of discrimination isn't it? I wouldn't employ them because I believe that is wrong not because of any laws.

Christian teaching says that homosexuality is wrong. I don't discriminate against anyone but I have the right to live my life according to my beliefs. And that means no I wouldn't employ anyone who was openly gay. If they want to pass a law fine I won't take any notice. Let them try and prove it. Fortunately I don't live in a country where you get sued for every little thing.

I'm sick and tired of this entitlement culture where people think they have a right to everything. You earn it in my view. If you don't like my views fine go set up your own company and you can employ as many gay people as you want. Just don't tell me what I can and can't do. I work 12 hours a day every day. I provide employment, pensions, healthcare and the self respect of knowing they have have earned their pay. What do you do apart from criticise others?

First off you sound just like a typical “Daily Mail” reader, full of hate and pettiness. But as luck would have it your ideas are slowly dying, and the law across most of Europe, would make your discrimination very costly.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-23240113

 

[yg17]

Stop confusing the issue. Would you employ someone who was openly racist or sexist? No? That's a form of discrimination isn't it? I wouldn't employ them because I believe that is wrong not because of any laws.

Christian teaching says that homosexuality is wrong. I don't discriminate against anyone but I have the right to live my life according to my beliefs. And that means no I wouldn't employ anyone who was openly gay. If they want to pass a law fine I won't take any notice. Let them try and prove it. Fortunately I don't live in a country where you get sued for every little thing.

I'm sick and tired of this entitlement culture where people think they have a right to everything. You earn it in my view. If you don't like my views fine go set up your own company and you can employ as many gay people as you want. Just don't tell me what I can and can't do. I work 12 hours a day every day. I provide employment, pensions, healthcare and the self respect of knowing they have have earned their pay. What do you do apart from criticise others?

It's absolutely not confusing the issue. Gay people don't choose to be gay any more than black people choose to be black, so refusing to hire someone because of their sexuality is the exact same thing as refusing to hire someone because of the color of their skin, and if you think that refusing to hire someone because they're gay is acceptable, then I can only assume you think that refusing to hire someone because they're black is acceptable.

 

[Eraserhead]

It's absolutely not confusing the issue. Gay people don't choose to be gay any more than black people choose to be black, so refusing to hire someone because of their sexuality is the exact same thing as refusing to hire someone because of the color of their skin, and if you think that refusing to hire someone because they're gay is acceptable, then I can only assume you think that refusing to hire someone because they're black is acceptable.

Or any more than not hiring someone because they are Catholic or because they are Irish.

 

[rdowns]

Stop confusing the issue. Would you employ someone who was openly racist or sexist? No? That's a form of discrimination isn't it? I wouldn't employ them because I believe that is wrong not because of any laws.

There is no confusion here. You are either for civil rights for all or you're not.

Christian teaching says that homosexuality is wrong. I don't discriminate against anyone but I have the right to live my life according to my beliefs. And that means no I wouldn't employ anyone who was openly gay. If they want to pass a law fine I won't take any notice. Let them try and prove it. Fortunately I don't live in a country where you get sued for every little thing.

You are clearly not paying attention to your Christian teachings.

I'm sick and tired of this entitlement culture where people think they have a right to everything. You earn it in my view. If you don't like my views fine go set up your own company and you can employ as many gay people as you want. Just don't tell me what I can and can't do. I work 12 hours a day every day. I provide employment, pensions, healthcare and the self respect of knowing they have have earned their pay. What do you do apart from criticise others?

Again, this isn't about entitlement, it's about equal rights. You are either for equal rights for all or you're not. Which is it?

 

[macmesser]

The problem with this assumption is that gay people are a relatively small minority; an employer rejecting all gay applicants can still pick the best from 95% of the applicants. If they hire 20 people and select perfectly, the could get 20 of the 21 best.

As far as it goes, your point is valid, But I don't think the issue is that simple. Truly homophobic employers might ultimately hire a disproportionate number of highly qualified straights but as this occurred the total pool of applicants would have a disproportionately high number of very qualified gays and less qualified straights. Among all but hardcore homophobic employers there would be a tradeoff between an applicant's ability and his sexual orientation, or any other disfavored qualities. This tradeoff would increasingly favor talent as more discriminatory hiring choices were made. A free labor market would tend to compensate for discrimination in hiring practices. IMO, it would probably take some serious research to definitively answer this complex question.

 

[OLDCODGER]

You sound like a dinosaur, and like all dinosaurs are due to pass away very shortly, taking your outdated ideas of hate and bigotry to the grave. All you have left in your world is the past, the future is leaving you and your ideas of hate and discrimination in the dust. There is a new world coming, and your reactionary ideas will not stop it. Education has opened the flood gates of equality, the work force is becoming more female, woman are reaching for the stars, and getting there.

As one who did live through the 1950’s, I’m am thankful that my two daughter did not have to put up with the crap that women did back then.

I look at my two granddaughters and know that they will inherent a world, far different and much better, thanks to equality. For their generation the sky is truly the limit, and old people and old ideas like yours, will not hold them back.

Pushing the unicorns and skittles aside, the next major war will put a stop to this socialist nonsense. It's coming, because of Western weakness, and it will be much worse than WWII. The aftermath will be such that any thoughts of egality will be wiped clean by whichever new masters take control. This time, there will be no American might and money to save the West - they will be hard pressed to look after themselves.

 

[Eraserhead]

Pushing the unicorns and skittles aside, the next major war will put a stop to this socialist nonsense. It's coming, because of Western weakness, and it will be much worse than WWII. The aftermath will be such that any thoughts of egality will be wiped clean by whichever new masters take control. This time, there will be no American might and money to save the West - they will be hard pressed to look after themselves.

So who is going to win this war?

 

[niuniu]

Now we get to the crux of the thing.

Socialist agenda!

OLDCODGER, you've pushed it too far. I'm callin' shenanigans on your parody account

 

[OLDCODGER]

So who is going to win this war?

Depends upon who starts it, and why. If it's over energy, I suspect the Chinese will take control of most of the resource nations - they have already started to insert their influence around the oil-producing nations.

If it's over power, then I suspect that the embryonic Russian Empire will be the culprit.

However, if Islam gets its act together, we're all in the poo.

----------

Now we get to the crux of the thing.

Socialist agenda!

OLDCODGER, you've pushed it too far. I'm callin' shenanigans on your parody account

Your idea of Socialism, and mine, seem to differ. Europe is socialist, and America is barreling down the hill towards it.

But you are free to continue your emulation of the ostrich.

 

[69650]

But as luck would have it your ideas are slowly dying, and the law across most of Europe, would make your discrimination very costly.

You think I'm going to take any notice of the thought police? No way. I'll continue to do what I want and there's not a damn thing you liberal socialist clowns can do about it. Discrimination against gays? Prove it. Pass as many laws as you want, you can't pass a law to stop people thinking and believing what they want. And you can't pass a law against me for expressing my faith.

----------

There is no confusion here. You are either for civil rights for all or you're not.

Civil rights yes, gay rights no. Just my opinion. You don't have to agree with me but I'm entitled to express my view.