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

[GermanyChris]

After I just had my time out for a quarter for offending some people who loved "music" it's going to be great offending some oldcodger's in this thread PERFECT timing.

OC unlike 99% of the liberals in here I don't want to know what drive's you, I don't care why you feel the way you do, nor do I care how you became a super genius who's IQ dips below a 3 year old I only take pleasure in victory.

You think the ACA is tyrannical and Obummer is bad you just wait it's really come to come hard and fast.

I'm not your huckleberry, I'm your Gabdula and your Flavius all wrapped into one package.

 

[citizenzen]

One small point about your post - there is no such thing as "society". It is a false construct (like many such), designed to fool people into falling in line with the noisiest voice.

Change "society" to "self" and OLDCODGER becomes a Buddhist.

Cool.

 

[Websnapx2]

I should be more angry at the homophobia, sexism and racism I see on this thread, but, I'm just too tired to be angry. I'm sorry that you're angry/afraid that your privilege is fading before your eyes, but trust me, the world will be better for your descendants. I'm sure of it.

Exactly right

 

[ElectronGuru]

The problem seems to be that we spent 50 years fighting a [cold] war of ideology (our ideas and philosophies are stronger and more worthy than their ideas and philosophies). That war is now over, but the ideologies remain, as do the fears that not following them will still lead to loosing. It's a powerful concern and one that isn't going away anytime soon.

Currently, there are two prevailing ideologies - Left and Right, only one will end up the victor in the next major conflict. Barring the pandemic plague of Islam, my money is on the one with the guns.

This is what I'm on about. Right = righteous and when the old left fell (communism), the new left took their place as the enemy (social capitalists). Now as then, weakness is the ultimate sin and no price is to high to prevent it.

How is leaving more money in your pocket considered '… at your expense'? And with better outcomes to boot, eh?

People I know who are against single payer would rather pay double for their own care than half, if it meant preventing any of that money from giving care to others. In this view, not forcing others to 'carry' themselves, creates weakness for everyone.

We do not live in the jungle where we leave the weakest behind. How do they catch up if we keep stepping on them while they are down?

You're trying to explain the virtues of positive reinforcement to people who only understand negative reinforcement.

They're not supposed to catch up. They are supposed to get dragged under the tires - serving as examples for everyone else. This is what happens when you fail, when you're not strong enough on your own.

 

[69650]

I accept you have the right to believe gay marriage is wrong. It is a free society, and it should protect your right to your beliefs. I may still debate you on the pros and cons, but I accept that you have that right.

The difficult question is... can you accept it for other people? When the laws against gay marriage were repealed (where appropriate) it didn't affect you at all. It doesn't mean you had to have a gay marriage at all. You could still forbid your child from having one (if appropriate) and they would still ignore you as all children have for all time. In other words, your rights to do things and to believe things were not changed at all when the law was repealed. Though you may have to put up with some experiences that you find distasteful.

However, people's rights were seriously infringed by the law being in place. Other people's lives were negatively impacted in a fundamental way by not having access to marriage. On balance, their fundamental rights trump your distasteful experiences.

I think that is a fair assessment. As with many debates on here I think my initial point was lost by some people. I have no objection to people living their lives as they wish. I don't wish to push my beliefs on to anyone else. I can understand the need for equality and if gay people feel they are being discriminated against then they have the right to express that and peacefully push for reform without resorting to criticising everyone who disagrees or calling them racists. That only demeans them and their arguments.

All I ask is that people respect both sides of the argument. There are many people who hold certain beliefs based on their faith. Those beliefs should not be the subject of ridicule or abuse just because they hold a different view. I don't try to impose my Christian beliefs on people of other faiths and in the main they don't try to impose their beliefs on me. We coexist peacefully.

Gay people need to recognise that they have the right to equality and so forth but they absolutely do not have the right to expect everyone else in society to agree with them. I honestly don't know why a gay person would be bothered what my view is. It doesn't affect them and their ability to live their life as they chose. I'm not a politician.

Freedom of expression cuts both ways and can be difficult sometimes but would we really rather live in a totalitarian regime like China where people are not free to say and do as they wish.

This will be my last post on this subject as I think I've suffered enough abuse on this thread.

 

[snberk103]

The free market, for all its faults, is optional. Its customers agree to enter into a contract, knowing the costs, benefits, etc. (or should, at least).

I want military defence, etc, therefore I must be prepared to pay for it. What I don't want is money taken from me for the express purpose of benefitting others - if they can't afford it, they can't have it....

Ahhh - now we're getting somewhere. I'm not so keen on the massive amount of waste in the military and that way it benefits private companies ... so, you are stealing money from me through this socialist tax scheme to support your need for military defence. So lets put the military on a free-market basis as well. I'm not in a place that is likely to be attacked - so I'll take my chances...

----------

I think that is a fair assessment. As with many debates on here I think my initial point was lost by some people. I have no objection to people living their lives as they wish. I don't wish to push my beliefs on to anyone else....
All I ask is that people respect both sides of the argument. ...
... I honestly don't know why a gay person would be bothered what my view is. It doesn't affect them and their ability to live their life as they chose. I'm not a politician.
...
This will be my last post on this subject as I think I've suffered enough abuse on this thread.

I hope I haven't been one of those abusing or ridiculing. As I said before, you have the right to your opinion. However, by sharing your opinions in a public forum you have also agreed to have your opinions challenged. Sometimes politely - and sometimes not so much. But my participating in a public forum you are also trying to push your beliefs onto to others. And people are going to push back. So either participate or not. But to push your beliefs and then complain when people push back is, well ... not going to go far.

 

[Websnapx2]

I think that is a fair assessment. As with many debates on here I think my initial point was lost by some people. I have no objection to people living their lives as they wish. I don't wish to push my beliefs on to anyone else. I can understand the need for equality and if gay people feel they are being discriminated against then they have the right to express that and peacefully push for reform without resorting to criticising everyone who disagrees or calling them racists. That only demeans them and their arguments.

All I ask is that people respect both sides of the argument. There are many people who hold certain beliefs based on their faith. Those beliefs should not be the subject of ridicule or abuse just because they hold a different view. I don't try to impose my Christian beliefs on people of other faiths and in the main they don't try to impose their beliefs on me. We coexist peacefully.

Gay people need to recognise that they have the right to equality and so forth but they absolutely do not have the right to expect everyone else in society to agree with them. I honestly don't know why a gay person would be bothered what my view is. It doesn't affect them and their ability to live their life as they chose. I'm not a politician.

Freedom of expression cuts both ways and can be difficult sometimes but would we really rather live in a totalitarian regime like China where people are not free to say and do as they wish.

This will be my last post on this subject as I think I've suffered enough abuse on this thread.

Great post. My one comment I would extend is Gay people are less concerned about your view as they are about your vote on the matter. Such I personally am not a fan of hunting for sport, but I am not voting or asking for a vote to be raised against it. It sounds like you aren't (anymore?) either and that's awesome. I personally apologize if any of my comments seemed personally abusive.

 

[elistan]

Originally Posted by elistan
No. Letting people suffer is evil.
Compelling a child to take their medicine is not evil. Compelling a selfish person to help others is not evil.

Oh, yes it is! You would be denying free will to a segment of a population. You are attempting to force your opinion onto others - that's tyranny.

You are incorrect about understanding of the definition of the word "tyranny." Tyranny is not just ruling over other people, it's the selfish, cruel, oppressive and arbitrary rule over other people, unrestrained by law or constitution, and without legal right.

Plato and Aristotle define a tyrant as, "one who rules without law, looks to his own advantage rather than that of his subjects, and uses extreme and cruel tactics—against his own people as well as others".[3]

Taxing somebody to help others because they are too selfish to do it on their own is not tyranny. Compelling others to comply with laws against inflicting harm is not tyranny.

You even still have free will - if you choose to, you are able to punch a person unknown to you in the face. You are not conditioned via Ludovico aversion therapy to avoid violence and Beethoven - you yourself make the choice between the benefits to you of punching a stranger in the face and the costs of the action (such as fines, imprisonment, retaliation, etc.) If you choose to, you can not pay the taxes that are prescribed by law - you'll simply have to deal with the repercussions of other people's free-will reactions to you actions.

So no, not evil, not even in the slightest. Knowingly letting people suffer, and actively causing people to suffer, those are evil. Wanting to lower your own taxes so that you might benefit at the expense of others, that is evil. Wanting to lower your own taxes so that you might benefit without realizing that you might actually be less well-off ultimately, that is unwise.

 

[Websnapx2]

Ahhh - now we're getting somewhere. I'm not so keen on the massive amount of waste in the military and that way it benefits private companies ... so, you are stealing money from me through this socialist tax scheme to support your need for military defence. So lets put the military on a free-market basis as well. I'm not in a place that is likely to be attacked - so I'll take my chances...

Yep.

----------

But my participating in a public forum you are also trying to push your beliefs onto to others.

I disagree. I think "pushing" is in tone, not in action (in this case, participation) and I think most people were introducing their ideas to others, at least that's how I took all of this. These debate are great in the sense that I get an idea of how people feel about situations in a manner I may not have approached it before and it will add to my "life experience". I've had my mind changed (or at the very least evolved) with the new information an alternative view can provide. I only hope to provide that same to others for better coexistence.

 

[Happybunny]

I think that is a fair assessment. As with many debates on here I think my initial point was lost by some people. I have no objection to people living their lives as they wish. I don't wish to push my beliefs on to anyone else. I can understand the need for equality and if gay people feel they are being discriminated against then they have the right to express that and peacefully push for reform without resorting to criticising everyone who disagrees or calling them racists. That only demeans them and their arguments.

All I ask is that people respect both sides of the argument. There are many people who hold certain beliefs based on their faith. Those beliefs should not be the subject of ridicule or abuse just because they hold a different view. I don't try to impose my Christian beliefs on people of other faiths and in the main they don't try to impose their beliefs on me. We coexist peacefully.

Gay people need to recognise that they have the right to equality and so forth but they absolutely do not have the right to expect everyone else in society to agree with them. I honestly don't know why a gay person would be bothered what my view is. It doesn't affect them and their ability to live their life as they chose. I'm not a politician.

Freedom of expression cuts both ways and can be difficult sometimes but would we really rather live in a totalitarian regime like China where people are not free to say and do as they wish.

This will be my last post on this subject as I think I've suffered enough abuse on this thread.

You may have what ever beliefs that you want, and so long as those beliefs do not infringe on the rights of others you are OK. But if by any action, your beliefs do discriminate or infringe on the rights of others, the full measure of the law will be used against you, and like mind people.
This about human rights, these rights trump all other rights.

 

[snberk103]

Yep.
...
I disagree. I think "pushing" is in tone, not in action (in this case, participation) and I think most people were introducing their ideas to others, at least that's how I took all of this. These debate are great in the sense that I get an idea of how people feel about situations in a manner I may not have approached it before and it will add to my "life experience". I've had my mind changed (or at the very least evolved) with the new information an alternative view can provide. I only hope to provide that same to others for better coexistence.

With respect, but I think it is 'pushing'. It may be a very mild form of 'push', and certainly adding a more 'pushy tone' makes it more of a push. But I'm definitely 'pushing' an agenda anytime I post here. My posts (I hope!) are calm and rational - and I try to see both sides of the an issue even though I don't agree with the other side. But I am definitely trying to influence how someone (singular or plural) sees an issue. It is a very mild form of 'pushing' my beliefs.. but it is a push nonetheless.

I think it may not be seen 'pushing' by people who share the same beliefs simply because it doesn't require any movement in their thinking. But for someone who does not share my thinking…they're going to see it as 'pushing' my beliefs.. and I think they'd be correct. I just hope I can express myself in such a way that they will at least think about what has been said.. even if they don't change their minds. Though to be fair, by the time someone is committed enough to start posting then they are mostly likely already settled into their way of thinking. Mostly I post for the silent readers who are curious about a subject and have not yet made up their minds.

The exception of course are those posters who ask a simple question. They are not pushing, nor have they already made up their minds on a subject.

 

[Websnapx2]

With respect, but I think it is 'pushing'. It may be a very mild form of 'push', and certainly adding a more 'pushy tone' makes it more of a push. But I'm definitely 'pushing' an agenda anytime I post here. My posts (I hope!) are calm and rational - and I try to see both sides of the an issue even though I don't agree with the other side. But I am definitely trying to influence how someone (singular or plural) sees an issue. It is a very mild form of 'pushing' my beliefs.. but it is a push nonetheless.

I think it may not be seen 'pushing' by people who share the same beliefs simply because it doesn't require any movement in their thinking. But for someone who does not share my thinking…they're going to see it as 'pushing' my beliefs.. and I think they'd be correct. I just hope I can express myself in such a way that they will at least think about what has been said.. even if they don't change their minds. Though to be fair, by the time someone is committed enough to start posting then they are mostly likely already settled into their way of thinking. Mostly I post for the silent readers who are curious about a subject and have not yet made up their minds.

The exception of course are those posters who ask a simple question. They are not pushing, nor have they already made up their minds on a subject.

That's fair – not how I see it personally but I get your point.

 

[lifeinhd]

She's a liability because she wants to be treated equally?

Do you even read your responses before you hit submit?

I choose my words very carefully.

Try to place yourself in the shoes of a business owner. Business owners generally don't want lawsuits against them. Laws such as this Employment Nondiscrimination Act make it easier for those who are "protected" to file suits against their employers, citing discrimination, regardless of whether or not an instance of discrimination actually occurred. Thus, the most rational response for an employer is to avoid hiring "protected" people, lowering their chances of being on the receiving end of a lawsuit.

 

[citizenzen]

I choose my words very carefully.

Try to place yourself in the shoes of a business owner. Business owners generally don't want lawsuits against them.

An excellent way to prevent them is by not discriminating unfairly and unlawfully terminating employees.

 

[CalWizrd]

An excellent way to prevent them is by not discriminating unfairly and unlawfully terminating employees.

Did you notice where the poster pointed out "... regardless of whether or not an instance of discrimination actually occurred..."?

Do you think that this can be the case at times? Would you grant the fact that there are some slightly less than forthright individuals who attempt (and sometimes succeed in) gaming the system?

If so, then it still might be a prudent move for a business owner to try to minimize the possibility of this occurring.

Or do you not think this could ever be the case?

 

[citizenzen]

Did you notice where the poster pointed out "... regardless of whether or not an instance of discrimination actually occurred..."?

Do you think that this can be the case at times? Would you grant the fact that there are some slightly less than forthright individuals who attempt (and sometimes succeed in) gaming the system?

If so, then it still might be a prudent move for a business owner to try to minimize the possibility of this occurring.

Or do you not think this could ever be the case?

First off I want to applaud you for asking these questions in such a polite manner. We haven't agreed on much in the past and I appreciate your ability to engage without giving into hostility. We need to see more of this on all sides — me included.

Are there people who game the system? Yes. I'm sure there are.

But rather than trying to prevent that—by not hiring women, or minorities, or whatever—I think the better method is to do one's due diligence in the hiring search.

In the search committees I've taken part in we go to great lengths to try to understand the person "inside and out" by means of their resume, portfolio, interview and references. Even with all that there's still some degree of uncertainty involved. However, hiring without making that effort would be a risk I wouldn't want to take.

Putting the effort in at the beginning will go a long ways toward preventing giving a job to someone just out to game the system.

 

[CalWizrd]

... do one's due diligence in the hiring search.

In the search committees I've taken part in we go to great lengths to try to understand the person "inside and out" by means of their resume, portfolio, interview and references...

As one who has interviewed and made hiring decisions in many, many instances, I will tell you that you can find yourself in the proverbial "rock and hard place" situation.

Just having initial contact with a prospective employee can potentially put you "in the cross hairs". Once you've gone as far as an interview, you can most definitely have the target painted on your back, independent of any actions you take subsequent to that.

Sadly, life is never easy, and sometimes just trying to simplify can end up punching you squarely in the face.

 

[localoid]

... Laws such as this Employment Nondiscrimination Act make it easier for those who are "protected" to file suits against their employers, citing discrimination, regardless of whether or not an instance of discrimination actually occurred. Thus, the most rational response for an employer is to avoid hiring "protected" people, lowering their chances of being on the receiving end of a lawsuit.

That's absurd.

Under the laws enforced by EEOC, it is illegal to discriminate against someone (applicant or employee) because of that person's race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy), national origin, age (40 or older), disability or genetic information.

Good luck on finding a job candidate who has "none of the above" characteristics.

 

[citizenzen]

Once you've gone as far as an interview, you can most definitely have the target painted on your back ...

Totally agree. That's why in the process of hiring we document substantive reasons why candidate 'A' got the job and candidate 'B' did not.

There are practices the employer can put in place to minimize [not avoid entirely] and protect themselves from the pitfalls you're referring to.

 

[OLDCODGER]

"We" is the society we live in – wether it be civic, state/province, country or the world. We chose it be part of an ecosystem of people, business, government and services on all of those levels. We co-exist and majority rules. It sucks sometimes but that is something we all have to deal with at some point or another.

Can we not bring Islam into this? It has nothing to do with the topic at all. Islam has no influence in law or society of western culture. Respect on an international scale, sure – as we share this world but Islam does not come into consideration on a civic, state/province or country level. These are the rules and the people we are speaking about future/possible was do not dictate how we run out day-to-day lives.

I agree with your point about Islam not being part of this topic - currently. My point was to indicate some examples where all this raging for new "rights" can be taken away in the near future.

 

[quagmire]

I agree with your point about Islam not being part of this topic - currently. My point was to indicate some examples where all this raging for new "rights" can be taken away in the near future.

And you probably won't care because you won't suffer from it.....

 

[OLDCODGER]

Sorry, my friend, but that's crazy. You live in a society if you at all live in an area with other people. You agree who's in charge with elections (even if your candidate lost, going through that in Canada right now and have been for a few years), laws and rules to follow, what traffic lights mean, state taxes, how to behave in line at the checkout, what's civil behaviour in general (changes from area to area) and many, many other social constructs to prevent chaos and to propel us forward. You may not like where it's going be you did like how we got here. And with all due respect, in this instance – what you "lose" (the right to not hire gays or fire them after the fact is – in the scope of society – nothing compared to justice in equality to not be fearful at work or in an interview.

Still nothing to do with a society, which would include a core common bond (society of engineers, for example). As is the case with many other words, these days, the word has been prostituted by the Left to fool the people into subservience to its agenda. What you are describing is the legal and civil restrictions placed upon people, to avoid chaos.

Majority rule is not common core, since a large minority are in opposition to the prevailing ideology.

 

[thekev]

Just having initial contact with a prospective employee can potentially put you "in the cross hairs". Once you've gone as far as an interview, you can most definitely have the target painted on your back, independent of any actions you take subsequent to that.

That really sucks. I would like to see this overcome at a cultural level, so that people realize that as long as they can work together without harboring hostility, their private lives can be their own. I wouldn't personally care if someone being hired was a bigot (admittedly generic low hanging fruit example). They have to support themselves too. It's only an issue if it's toxic to the work environment or possibly diametrically opposed to the goals of the business, just to acknowledge the differing motives in non-profit businesses.

 

[OLDCODGER]

Ahhh - now we're getting somewhere. I'm not so keen on the massive amount of waste in the military and that way it benefits private companies ... so, you are stealing money from me through this socialist tax scheme to support your need for military defence. So lets put the military on a free-market basis as well. I'm not in a place that is likely to be attacked - so I'll take my chances...

First off, military is a core part of state, along with law and order, embassies, etc, unlike many of the areas which govt has increasingly empowered itself. However, they should be budgeted to suit a country's need.

If you live in a relatively safe country, as do I, then military spending should indeed be curtailed to that which is still necessary (I hate waste, too).

----------

You are incorrect about understanding of the definition of the word "tyranny." Tyranny is not just ruling over other people, it's the selfish, cruel, oppressive and arbitrary rule over other people, unrestrained by law or constitution, and without legal right.



Taxing somebody to help others because they are too selfish to do it on their own is not tyranny. Compelling others to comply with laws against inflicting harm is not tyranny.

You even still have free will - if you choose to, you are able to punch a person unknown to you in the face. You are not conditioned via Ludovico aversion therapy to avoid violence and Beethoven - you yourself make the choice between the benefits to you of punching a stranger in the face and the costs of the action (such as fines, imprisonment, retaliation, etc.) If you choose to, you can not pay the taxes that are prescribed by law - you'll simply have to deal with the repercussions of other people's free-will reactions to you actions.

So no, not evil, not even in the slightest. Knowingly letting people suffer, and actively causing people to suffer, those are evil. Wanting to lower your own taxes so that you might benefit at the expense of others, that is evil. Wanting to lower your own taxes so that you might benefit without realizing that you might actually be less well-off ultimately, that is unwise.

Tyranny, like most things, is in the eye of the beholder. Taking my hard-earned, simply to buy the votes of others, is cruel to me. We must agree to disagree on this.

----------

That really sucks. I would like to see this overcome at a cultural level, so that people realize that as long as they can work together without harboring hostility, their private lives can be their own. I wouldn't personally care if someone being hired was a bigot (admittedly generic low hanging fruit example). They have to support themselves too. It's only an issue if it's toxic to the work environment or possibly diametrically opposed to the goals of the business, just to acknowledge the differing motives in non-profit businesses.

Erm ... just a small point - most, if not all, people are bigoted in some way, otherwise they would hold no firm opinions/convictions whatsoever.

This term is vastly overused, and abused, merely to throw poo.

 

[thekev]

Erm ... just a small point - most, if not all, people are bigoted in some way, otherwise they would hold no firm opinions/convictions whatsoever.

This term is vastly overused, and abused, merely to throw poo.

I actually edited in a small detail that it was intended as a somewhat cliche example. Some people are intolerant of other races, or in relation to the topic homosexuals. It should only be a problem if it fundamentally compromises their ability to work together. My own issue with discrimination is partly that it burdens certain members of society through trivial belief systems. Things like stealing or murder directly impact the ability of a society to function, whereas many of these points of discrimination ostracize subsets of individuals over attributes that would not directly impact the people who have chosen to discriminate. It's likely that we'll always have some kind of problems, but I don't the issue with extending existing protections here as long as changes are properly implemented.

I didn't mean to use the term to distribute feces. I'm surprised you didn't catch the intentional ambiguity. I wanted something that implied intolerant views without compiling a list and driving further off topic.