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 Issues Statement in Support of Supreme Court Gay Marriage Rulings
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
- Status
While I applaud the rulings today, I agree completely that my "brands" do not need to have an opinion (A human trait) on such matters. Once a corporation does an opinion can quickly become an agenda. Release a statement internally if you must.
http://www.tuaw.com/2008/10/24/apple-opposes-calif-prop-8-donates-100k-to-no-campaign/
Check the date on the article and then look up the date Steve stepped down.
I've undoubtedly read more history than you. In any case, I'm through with this thread. I participated mainly to see how much courtesy and respect people would show and got my answer.
I guess I can say "hate" has a new face?
Not parallel comparisons but whatever, no point continuing this charade.
Thread has played out just as i envisioned.
I was speaking from a purely business perspective, and not any legalistic one. And besides, Apple didn't need to let people know that it was LGBT friendly, it has always been pretty obvious.
Amazing how you contradicted yourself within one sentence. Bigots are often clueless about their bigotry because they really don't want to admit to themselves that they have a problem.
These posts are about as credible as a Digitimes rumor. Apple, long before Jobs death, has been a staunch supporter of gay rights. Under Jobs, Apple donated $100,000 in 2008 to fight Prop 8. This was on their web site:
Perhaps you remember this, long before the "gay CEO" was at Apple.
More here
http://www.networkworld.com/community/blog/apple-and-steve-jobs-have-long-been-champions-gay-rights
Just to make it clear, the logo was MacRumors' choice, not Apple's. Apple (via a spokesperson) simply provided the two-sentence statement to AllThingsD.
MacRumors has also busted out this old logo a time or two in the past for similar occasions.
http://www.npr.org/2011/08/24/139927531/apple-ceo-steve-jobs-to-step-down
He stepped down in August of 2011, nearly 3 years later. Your point?
Edit: Ooops, I think you were saying the same thing....I thought you were refuting the point of the person who said Steve was still around!
Not hate but I do have strong feelings on this subject. This really has nothing to do with Apple. If Tim Cook wants to come out publicly on this subject and face the media then he should do that. Stand up and be counted rather than hiding behind the Apple corporate blanket to protect himself. He's a coward. If you believe in something stand up and say so. I believe gay marriage is wrong and I'm willing to put my head up and say so in public.
It's an emotional issue. I imagine if your rights were being violated you would be as passionate as some of us are. It's easy to judge and be a backseat driver when your life isn't being effected. It's a little harder for us whose lives are being effected.
Today was an amazing day for civil rights. I do find some comfort, however, in those who are genuinely upset about something that has absolutely nothing to do with them. It's pathetic really.
Uh, when Chick-Fil-A released that message, at least here in the south, the lines stretched down the street and people waited for hours to get a chicken sandwich in support.
No, they are made up of people, but the collective whole exists to make provide products that produce a profit. Religion, politics, etc, need to be left out of that. Individuals are free to have their own opinions though. Take the military for example, we're not allowed to endorse ANY political candidate or cause publicly while representing the U.S. military (as in, in uniform, on duty, etc). Companies should be the same way.
Obviously, you don't fully understand the concept of a company's BRAND identity. It includes culture and philosophy as well. What is Aveda known for? Natural products and environmental responsibility. That's their BRAND.
Apple do not need a law to do this. For example, if they think women are unfairly paid or unfairly represented they can pay them more or employ more of them. They don't need a law to coerce or encourage good behaviour, they should have done that anyway and let that action be their political stance.
I believe people have the right to choose. I also believe that this isn't any of the fed's business. If the people of a state choose to ban gay marriage, that's their decision, but many states are for it and the feds shouldn't be deciding this kind of thing for the entire nation. I suppose federalism is the new fad... Tyranny of the majority is all that'll ensue.
- Status