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
My opinion is this legislation can only help lawyers and unqualified candidates who happen to fit into the LGBT category. I've been in the software design business for a long time. The current nondiscrimination laws have caused me to have to turn away more qualified candidates simply because they were white males. I have not once ever seen a qualified LGBT candidate rejected. I have seen people sue their way into a job based on their own ethnicity, then be completely ineffective - there was a reason they did not get hired for the job in the first place. I have also worked alongside folks who happened to be gay, transgendered, ethnicities and genders other than my own, who also happened to be absolutely brilliant. I personally enjoy working with brilliant people regardless of their gender, ethnicity or dating preferences. Sure there are people who make snide comments or feel uncomfortable, but you can't legislate "like".
He was saying that to these cops a law "no beating people" evidently wasn't enough to stop them from beating up gay people, even though it stopped them from beating up non-gay people.
I appreciate your thoughts. Here are some troubles I have with your line of reasoning.
Explicitly stated is that LGBT individuals demand "special help" and "special treatment" (often described also as special privileges, special rights, etc.). Also generally there is at least an implicit suggestion that the issues being discussed are frivolous, unfair, unreasonable, extraordinary, and so on.
So let's talk specifically about what's so "special" about the following (not an all-encompassing list, but a few biggies):
- The right to seek and hold gainful employment that is decoupled from your employer's sense of propriety concerning your sexual preference or your employer's sense of rectitude regarding the (consenting, adult, human!!!) individual you choose as a mate
- The right to have your legally performed marriage be recognized, no matter what community or state you are in
- The right to equal and fair access to all benefits and privileges afforded to married couples — including but not limited to the right to file taxes as a single entity, the right to bequeath and inherit property as married spouses do, the right to access to an ill or injured spouse in a hospital (no matter what state the illness or injury might occur in), etc.
- The right to raise and nurture a family without impingement of other's religious and moral objections to your family's composition
What is so special about those things? What is unfair, or disadvantageous to anyone else? How does it diminish or otherwise impact the rights traditionally enjoyed by any heterosexual individual or couple?
So much of the reaction seems to be based on a perception that LGBT people want to impose themselves on and strip something away from straight people. And justifications seem to fall back on familiar patterns (some of which are evident in this admittedly mild thread): gays "demand special treatment," they're anti-WASP, they're "throwing it in our faces," they're crying "WAAAH," they're distracting us when we "have more important things to worry about," the children are going to be misguided and confused, equal rights for LGBT is the downfall of democracy, the decline of western civilization, the beginning of apocalypse, a step away from pedophilia and bestiality, blah blah blah blah BLAH.
I've sat on the sidelines most of my life and not said anything while all this unsubstantiated and unjustified stuff was spewed and widely accepted as irrefutable fact. I now refuse to continuing doing so. I am a productive, law-abiding, tax-paying, decent member of American society, and I'm ready to enjoy the full privileges and rights appertaining thereunto, dammit! I am also unwilling to play any part in another generation of American citizens growing up feeling unequal and undeserving of equality for something that bears no shame.
Last edited:
if he had any guts they would start talking about discrimination against people with weight problems. If your unfortunately overweight, you'll face hidden discrimination much more than some weirdo who dresses in women's clothing
I would have thought that this kind of policy was already in place. Not sure what that says about Apple, or why it is just now being made policy.
The problem with this kind of blanket statement, of course is that it can lead to hiring someone because they are black, or oriental, or native, or whatever. That, IMHO, is just as wrong. Hiring MUST be done strictly on the basis of getting the best possible person for the job, period. Be they white, black, or green.
The problem with this kind of blanket statement, of course is that it can lead to hiring someone because they are black, or oriental, or native, or whatever. That, IMHO, is just as wrong. Hiring MUST be done strictly on the basis of getting the best possible person for the job, period. Be they white, black, or green.
In practice this requirement and its effects are not always clear cut. I think one also needs to realize that the size of a business should factor in. A small business could experience far greater problems than Apple, who have the space and resources to integrate any new hires with minimal disruption. As with any such requirement, enforcement would be problematic as well. There will be meretricious complaints filed with no way to easily identify them, which will necessitate trial-like investigations into nearly every case.
Quoted from the Article:
"The legislation would prohibit many civilian, nonreligious employers in the United States from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity for the purposes of hiring or other employment practices."
It won't affect religious organizations.
As for your comment on the blacks..... It's kinda hard to hide skin colour, not so much, mannerisms/sexual attractions.
Rest assured there is rampant discrimination against gays still taking place. I witness it all the time. In fact I am a recent victim of it; losing my job after coming out.
Luckily in Canada these laws are in place, and I am pursuing action with Human Rights Canada.
I believe Jean MacDonald, one of the managing partners at Smile Software, regularly attends Apple events.
What a bunch of BS. I can't even READ the article because I'm not a WSJ subscriber. 
This is totally unfair to be discussing when people can't even READ it to begin with.
This is totally unfair to be discussing when people can't even READ it to begin with.I think it is morally abhorrent to fire someone over something in their personal life that does not affect job performance.
I think it is morally abhorrent to force an employer to hire or continue to employ any person, for any reason. It is their business. If they discriminate, people can vote with their dollars and no longer do business with that evil person.
On a very practical level, I make an exception for blacks, since that level of discrimination is unlike anything most here have ever seen. I lived through it in the South as one of the few white kids in the black neighborhood. I now see the treatment of gays as I live in a neighborhood populated heavily by them. There. Is. No. Comparison. Comparing the two exposes horrific ignorance about the plight of African Americans.
--
The fact that Tim Cook and Apple are pushing this tells me they feel strongly about it, and it makes me want to do business with Apple even more. But I don't agree with his reasoning; I think he doesn't realize that liberty sometimes means having the liberty to be morally bankrupt.
I think it is morally abhorrent to force an employer to hire or continue to employ any person, for any reason. It is their business. If they discriminate, people can vote with their dollars and no longer do business with that evil person.
On a very practical level, I make an exception for blacks, since that level of discrimination is unlike anything most here have ever seen. I lived through it in the South as one of the few white kids in the black neighborhood. I now see the treatment of gays as I live in a neighborhood populated heavily by them. There. Is. No. Comparison. Comparing the two exposes horrific ignorance about the plight of African Americans.
--
The fact that Tim Cook and Apple are pushing this tells me they feel strongly about it, and it makes me want to do business with Apple even more. But I don't agree with his reasoning; I think he doesn't realize that liberty sometimes means having the liberty to be morally bankrupt.
Who said there wasn't?
This is about making Everyone Equal.
Unfortunately it can never happen, because discrimination is easily hidden behind other reasonings.
I would be curious to know how many transgender retail sales associates Apple has.
By the way, when Tim going to open up Apple retail stores in low income areas like southeast Washington DC.
It's easy to take a stand on something that has no effect on you.
By the way, when Tim going to open up Apple retail stores in low income areas like southeast Washington DC.
It's easy to take a stand on something that has no effect on you.
These anti discrimination laws are NOT good for equality. They always backfire and harm the very people they were designed to protect. These laws make it easier for minorities to sue employers if a minority is passed up for a promotion or fired. Therefore, these laws make minorities a rather large liability, making it more difficult to be hired.
The free market would punish discrimination much better than these types of laws. A bigoted employer would miss out on hiring qualified individuals and would be at a competitive disadvantage than those employees that do not discriminate. Unfortunately now for minorities, the government has made it more difficult for these minorities to get hired by increasing their liability.
These anti discrimination laws exist only for political purposes, and not to help actual minorities. These laws sound good on the surface, but when you actually take the time to think about them, you will see that these laws hurt minorities.
For some people, this is pure semantics and to them, Obama is the CEO of the United States of America... Or should I say "Corporate America"?