I think we are about par for the course. Wish we could ask Mr. Jefferson as to what he thought the proper role of the corporations should be.
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
I think we are about par for the course. Wish we could ask Mr. Jefferson as to what he thought the proper role of the corporations should be.
That picture of Tim Cook is so ominous looking. Stop using it!
I don't know, he's kind of sexy in that picture.
Given that corporations are merely constructs, not actual people, they should not have the same rights. They may be owned by people, but that does not mean the rights of individuals should extend to their possessions, speaking of which, it wasn't within the law. I wouldn't have such an issue with this if you weren't so disingenuous. You should at least consistently own your bigotry.
Not sure what your censored word is. How has this country been trashed, as you put it? Did you mean white men when you said qualified workers?
I agree with your entire post. It seems now that even calm, reasoned, and tolerant people are being demonized because they disagree with homosexuality from a moral perspective.
Your morals are abhorrent and I won't tolerate them for creating public policy or a lack of action on public policy.
----------
Not a big fan of TJ.
----------
Not a big fan of TJ.
Last edited:
Early on in the thread I posted how Apple's new hiring policy echoed much of Affirmative Action's guidelines.
As an employer I should be allowed to spend my money to employ whoever I want without political interference.
Tim Cook might want to look inside his own company before making comments like this. Just look at their current leadership site... http://www.apple.com/uk/pr/bios/
Notice anything? They are all white males. No women (I know that will change next year), no people of colour, no latinos, etc, etc.
Sort your own house out before lecturing the rest of us Tim.
Tim Cook might want to look inside his own company before making comments like this. Just look at their current leadership site... http://www.apple.com/uk/pr/bios/
Notice anything? They are all white males. No women (I know that will change next year), no people of colour, no latinos, etc, etc.
Sort your own house out before lecturing the rest of us Tim.
It's a shame you don't post in PRSI more often.
You should hang a round a while.
Share some more of your opinions.
At least for me, my problem is they think their rights to believe homosexuality being wrong gives them the power to trump a homosexuals rights for equal opportunity to get a job.
I don't care that they believe homosexuality is wrong. But, to deny them the equal opportunity to get a job is what I have a problem with. Hire them because they are the most qualified. Don't hire them because they are not. But, to not hire a well qualified gay person because they are gay is wrong. I'm not looking to force companies to hire gay people just because they are gay. I'm just saying they shouldn't be turned down because they are gay.
There is no government interference so long as you're not contracting with the government.
If you are contracting with the federal government, then they just ask you to make a self-assessed "goof-faith effort" not to discriminate based on sex, age, race, etc.
At the most draconian—if you're a government contracted construction company—you have to have at least 6.9% of your employees be women.
Brutal, eh?
Your South does sound like a nice place. When I visited Georgia a few years ago it must have been a different South. The racism was hostile and nasty and cut both ways. I'm white and I won't be back there, and I would agree if you said black people have it worse there. Interestingly Seattle seemed very friendly and open to all cultures and yet doesn't have strong anti-discrimination laws. Maybe it's being told to play nice that offends everyone and transcends race?
Where do you draw the line? You can't force me to have physical interaction with anyone I don't want to. What happened to "no means no"? Just because I'm willing to touch some people doesn't mean I have to touch anyone.
Prostitution is legal in Canada, should there be a law that prostitutes who are straight have to take on same-sex clients so they don't discriminate against gay people?
It shouldn't matter if your business is prostitution, cutting hair or anything else, you shouldn't be legally forced to touch people you don't want to or close down your business.
And I don't mean to limit myself to gender and homosexuality here, the same argument applies to any group or division.
Does this law force you to hire gay people? No it doesn't. All it is says is that you can't use their sexual orientation as a reason why they didn't get hired. If a gay person is the best person for the job, are you really not going to hire them because he is gay and will hire a less qualified straight person?
Agreed. Unless the job position is in direct contravention with the moral position, like say, a teacher at a Christian private school.
Which this law wouldn't get in the way of since the christian private school is a religious institution.
And there are cases where it's a bad idea for the government to step in and say what has to be done. Should a conservative Christian church be forced to consider an openly gay or transvestite applicant when they are hiring their next pastor? This law would say they have to and leave them open to a lawsuit if they don't hire him, her, or him/her.
Should an LBGT organization be forced to equally consider an openly anti-gay applicant for a high-ranking administrative position? This law would say "yes".
No it doesn't. This law excludes religious institutions.
And while the LBGT org. will have to give the anti-gay person equal consideration, at the same time that person most likely won't be the most qualified person for the job considering the person won't help the organizations goals. But if he is the most qualified in helping with their goals( as strange as that would be), then yes he should have an equal opportunity for the job. It goes both ways.
Moot point as religious institutions are exempt from the law.
No it wouldn't. An openly anti-gay applicant is by definition not qualified for a position with an LBGT organization.
This new law would make it very hard for you to prove that. By letter of the law, his/her gender orientation (and be normal extension, opinions) can't be used as a basis for hiring.
That is a fairly extreme stretch of logic, as it does in a sense call the person's qualifications into question. You specifically chose a diametrically opposed example there. For example would your church hire someone as a pastor who endorses Satanic worship? That person would be positioning themselves in direct opposition to one of the goals of your organization. In your example it isn't really the case. Given the example used, I should probably clarify that it wasn't meant to be inflammatory. I just needed something that provided fundamental opposition within the appropriate context.
What are you talking about? Your opinions are not an extension of your gender orientation. In your example, he wouldn't be considered because his views are against the organization, not because he's straight.
Discrimination is a fact of life because it's human nature. Some people will employ the pretty secretary, some will not employ the fat guy or the short guy or the one with a beard. You going to ban that next? If I don't like gays or have a religious faith that teaches that homosexuality is wrong then I should not be forced to go against that.
I'm not against gay people - I'm against government interference in my business. Haven't they got enough to do with wrecking our economies, making millions unemployed, failing to educate our kids, failing to stop the spread of gang culture in our inner cities, racking up unimaginable debt that all has to be paid back some day. Quite frankly I think all of those issues are much more pressing problems in society today.
Fun bits of trivia; one about myself and one about ENDA.
About me, I was working at a bar as a bartender while putting myself through school, this was 2006. I was single when I was hired, then I met a girl in one of my design classes and we started dating. One day I ran into my manager while my GF and I were out and about, we were holding hands, and I introduced her as my girlfriend.
I knew my manager was a religious gentleman (belonging to the World Harvest Church here in Columbus), but I was floored when he called us "vile perverts" to our faces and told me I was no longer welcome back to work. AT A BAR.
I tried to go to work on my next scheduled day and was met at the door by the manager and two bouncers (both large men). He had the stuff in my locker in a box and told me I was banned from the premises.
Trivia about ENDA; of the 9 times it's been up for vote, it's been shot down by Congressional Republicans for the exact same reason every time; the Transgender protection clause. Which is disheartening and sad, as trans* people live with such an ugly stigma in the US. The concept of "lesser" women trying to be men, and men giving up their "manhood", seems to offend those with the most privilege in this country.
About me, I was working at a bar as a bartender while putting myself through school, this was 2006. I was single when I was hired, then I met a girl in one of my design classes and we started dating. One day I ran into my manager while my GF and I were out and about, we were holding hands, and I introduced her as my girlfriend.
I knew my manager was a religious gentleman (belonging to the World Harvest Church here in Columbus), but I was floored when he called us "vile perverts" to our faces and told me I was no longer welcome back to work. AT A BAR.
I tried to go to work on my next scheduled day and was met at the door by the manager and two bouncers (both large men). He had the stuff in my locker in a box and told me I was banned from the premises.
Trivia about ENDA; of the 9 times it's been up for vote, it's been shot down by Congressional Republicans for the exact same reason every time; the Transgender protection clause. Which is disheartening and sad, as trans* people live with such an ugly stigma in the US. The concept of "lesser" women trying to be men, and men giving up their "manhood", seems to offend those with the most privilege in this country.
One of them is gay, and that's Tim himself. I don't see what's your point exactly?
----------
Weirdoes?