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

[quagmire]

Rubbish - I'm not protected, nor can I sue if I feel slighted.

So you have less rights or more rights than a female, gay person, blacks, Chinese, etc?

Discriminating against a person just because of how they were born is wrong. That should not be a factor in whether you hire them or not. If a gay person is the best for the job, then that person should be hired. But, to not hire him just because that person is gay is wrong. You don't choose to be straight just as much as that person did not choose to be gay.

 

[Binarymix]

They were free to make or not make those choices, and accept the consequences. Legislation forcing them to go a certain way is not freedom.

Exhibit A: Obamacare.

----------



Respect has to be earned. Should I respect a thief, for example, if I think that theft is wrong?

No you don't have to respect a thief.

That's basing judgement on a person who has acted illegally. Not just because they are a thief of another race/creed/religion/sexual orientation.

 

[citizenzen]

At that time, slavery was rampant around the world, and, even today, it is still rampant in many non-western countries.

Not true.

Slavery in Western Europe (and much of the world)—the source of many colonists—was largely outlawed well before the United States wrote its Constitution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolition_of_slavery_timeline#1500.E2.80.931700

 

[ScoobyMcDoo]

Because they invalidated everything you said prior to them.

You are like the kid who puts their hands over their ears yelling La-la-la-la.

Jesus - it was two words chosen before finishing my first cup of coffee. And you tell my my entire opinion and experience is invalided by them? You, who rarely actually contributes any actual thoughts, but seems to prefer spending time criticizing others.

 

[elistan]

Well the Supreme Court struck down a University of Michigan admission policy that quota'd minorities and gave them "bonus points" for being able to check a box. The Supreme Court has also struck down varying implementations of Affirmative Action associated with quota based hiring.

For what it's worth, I think citizenzen "source please" post is not about the evils of preferential hiring, rather it's a rather vague way of saying "you're wrong about what 'affirmative action' is."

All of you should read this write-up published on the Stanford Ecyclopedia of Philosophy.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/affirmative-action/
It presents the origin of the phrase "affirmative action" (LBJ's 1965 executive order 11246 - http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/codification/executive-order/11246.html) that specifically forbids any consideration of race, etc.

"The contractor will take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, color, religion, sex or national origin."

It wasn't until 1972, during the Nixon administration, that Revised Order 4 was released by the Secretary of Labor, which required companies take "affirmative action" to "correct the deficiencies" in their employment of minorities and women.

So depending on which era of "affirmative action" a person or regulation is from, they can mean two very different things.

 

[Jeremy1026]

By the way, when Tim going to open up Apple retail stores in low income areas like southeast Washington DC.

This makes no financial sense. Apple products are by no means inexpensive. So why open a retail space which costs money in lease, utilities, employees, etc. to try to sell products to a community that by and large can not afford them. There is a reason Apple stores are only in affluent neighborhoods, because those who reside there can afford to pay the Apple premium.

 

[citizenzen]

They were free to make or not make those choices, and accept the consequences. Legislation forcing them to go a certain way is not freedom.

Exhibit A: Obamacare.

Who's "they"?

Oh. You mean just the "white men".

Over 50% of the population was not free to make any choice.

 

[gopnick]

Not true.

Slavery in Western Europe (and much of the world)—the source of many colonists—was largely outlawed well before the United States wrote its Constitution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolition_of_slavery_timeline#1500.E2.80.931700

And, if you figure in human trafficking (mostly for the sex trade) there are more slaves in the United States today than at the height of chattel slavery. Google it - but prepare to be horrified.

 

[hudson1]

I don't think people are against this intent of this bill going through the Senate but it's not the intent that matters when writing law, it's that actual text. Has anyone here read the entire bill?

All legislation should be very thoroughly vetted for the possibility of unintended consequences to insure that those are very minor in relation to what a new law will achieve that otherwise can't be achieved. This bill has all kinds of dubious things in it like "perceived gender identity". That's saying a guy has the right to walk into a women's locker room because he perceives himself to be a woman that day. Is that what we really want out of legislation?

 

[MyMac1976]

You are like the kid who puts their hands over their ears yelling La-la-la-la.

Jesus - it was two words chosen before finishing my first cup of coffee. And you tell my my entire opinion and experience is invalided by them? You, who rarely actually contributes any actual thoughts, but seems to prefer spending time criticizing others.

Because you are reducing homosexuality to a "dating preference" there is nothing preferential about being gay.

I included my thought's, things like this need to be codified because people think it's a "dating preference"

 

[nfl46]

Great job, Tim!

 

[citizenzen]

For what it's worth, I think citizenzen "source please" post is not about the evils of preferential hiring, rather it's a rather vague way of saying "you're wrong about what 'affirmative action' is."

All of you should read this write-up published on the Stanford Ecyclopedia of Philosophy.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/affirmative-action/
It presents the origin of the phrase "affirmative action" (LBJ's 1965 executive order 11246 - http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/codification/executive-order/11246.html) that specifically forbids any consideration of race, etc.

"The contractor will take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, color, religion, sex or national origin."

It wasn't until 1972, during the Nixon administration, that Revised Order 4 was released by the Secretary of Labor, which required companies take "affirmative action" to "correct the deficiencies" in their employment of minorities and women.

So depending on which era of "affirmative action" a person or regulation is from, they can mean two very different things.

I think Affirmative Action is a lot like Welfare in that peoples' understanding of the program is rooted in past policy and aren't aware that the policy has changed.

This is what I'm hoping to make people aware of here.

Affirmative Action may not be the bogeyman you think it is.

Look again.

 

[OLDCODGER]

Not true.

Slavery in Western Europe (and much of the world)—the source of many colonists—was largely outlawed well before the United States wrote its Constitution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolition_of_slavery_timeline#1500.E2.80.931700

Many things have been outlawed throughout history - yet still carry on. As you noted, it was mainly Westerners who outlawed slavery, but nascent America was not too enamoured of the West at that time. They went their own way - to their eventual great cost.

----------

No you don't have to respect a thief.

That's basing judgement on a person who has acted illegally. Not just because they are a thief of another race/creed/religion/sexual orientation.

And, if I think that perversion/ deviance is wrong?

 

[MyMac1976]

Many things have been outlawed throughout history - yet still carry on. As you noted, it was mainly Westerners who outlawed slavery, but nascent America was not too enamoured of the West at that time. They went their own way - to their eventual great cost.

----------



And, if I think that perversion/ deviance is wrong?

If you equate being gay with perversion/deviance then you are not worthy of respect either.

 

[OLDCODGER]

Who's "they"?

Oh. You mean just the "white men".

Over 50% of the population was not free to make any choice.

Which group founded the country? It it had been founded by Chinese, they would have set the rules. (To the victor go the spoils).

 

[GoldenJoe]

This is just affirmative action. First, what businesses are supposedly necessitating this? Second, we've already seen that AA CREATES discrimination, but it's the kind of discrimination liberals like (against white males).

 

[OLDCODGER]

If you equate being gay with perversion/deviance then you are not worthy of respect either.

You're joking, right!?

Deviance - to deviate from the norm.

 

[scbn]

Does Mr. Cook have more things to worry about than making a political statement? How about telling us when Apple can release a bigger iPhone?

 

[quagmire]

If you equate being gay with perversion/deviance then you are not worthy of respect either.

That's the wrong stance. He has every right to think that. Just as much as a racist has the rights to be racist.

The issue is when that belief denies a gay person or black person their rights.

The issue here is just because he believes being gay is wrong, he believes his rights are being trampled by this law somehow.

 

[MyMac1976]

You're joking, right!?

Deviance - to deviate from the norm.

Being gay is part of nature i.e. normal so it's not a deviation, hence you are undeserving of my or anyones respect.

----------

That's the wrong stance. He has every right to think that. Just as much as a racist has the rights to be racist.

The issue is when that belief denies a gay person or black person their rights.

The issue here is just because he believes being gay is wrong, he believes his rights are being trampled by this law somehow.

But I needn't respect him for it.

 

[OLDCODGER]

That's the wrong stance. He has every right to think that. Just as much as a racist has the rights to be racist.

The issue is when that belief denies a gay person or black person their rights.

The issue here is just because he believes being gay is wrong, he believes his rights are being trampled by this law somehow.

Any law which tramples on my moral code is unacceptable to me. The real pity is that, until recently, it was possible to interact with others without knowing their personal proclivities. Now, they are in my face - And I object to that.

 

[macmesser]

There is discrimination against everybody including heterosexual white males.

Completely agree. The day all women, homosexuals and minority people are treated justly will be the day all white males are. IMHO the best thing we can do to hasten that day is work to change minds and hearts, not try to impose yet more government regulation.

 

[trainwrecka]

I wholeheartedly agree that there should be absolutely zero discrimination at all in this country. I pray that one day we won't need to legislate non discrimination and that we all will respect each other's differences.

Impossible. You are discriminating against anyone who discriminates against the differences you think make people different.

There are other people who would think other differences are what make people different.

 

[citizenzen]

Which group founded the country? It it had been founded by Chinese, they would have set the rules. (To the victor go the spoils).

Oookay.

But when "the victor" denies over 50% of the population their freedom, then I question why you would point to "the victor" and say that the society they created is your model of what freedom should be.

 

[elistan]

I think Affirmative Action is a lot like Welfare in that people understanding of the program is rooted in past policy and aren't aware that the policy has changed.

This is what I'm hoping to make people aware of here.

Affirmative Action may not be the bogeyman you think it is.

Look again.

Which meaning of "affirmative action" do you mean? There are two to choose from.

1) Executive Order 11246, 1965. "The contractor will take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, color, religion, sex or national origin."

2) As implemented by the DOL, starting with Revised Rule No. 4, 1972: "The AAP [affirmative action plan] identifies those areas, if any, in the contractor’s workforce that reflect under-utilization of women and minorities. The regulations at 41 CFR 60-2.11 (b) define under-utilization as having fewer minorities or women in a particular job group than would reasonably be expected by their availability. When determining availability of women and minorities, contractors consider, among other factors, the presence of minorities and women having requisite skills in an area in which the contractor can reasonable recruit.
Based on the utilization analyses under Executive Order 11246 and the availability of qualified individuals, the contractors establish goals to reduce or overcome the under-utilization."

As first stated, there was to be no regard to race, etc. As implemented, there was to be specific regard to race, etc.