Crazy right? These people are parroting the same talking points as David ****ing Duke. What a time we are living in.
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 Pulls Apple Pay Support From Websites Selling White Nationalist and Nazi Apparel [Updated]
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Crazy right? These people are parroting the same talking points as David ****ing Duke. What a time we are living in.
It was stated that a cake baker had to bake a cake for a gay couple because the gay couple was protected under race, gender, and religion.
Being gay isn't a race or religion so I was asking if it was now considered to be a gender ?
the last week or so has really taken its toll on me emotionally. I've had a really ****** few weeks, and then topping it off by having literal Nazi's marching and protesting the death and destruction of me and my kin again,
I'm still in shock to be honest. After the last 6 months or so of Trump rule, and now the Nazi's being given a voice again, I'm done with the US. I will not travel or visit until **** gets turned around.
At least my country has the balls to tell Nazi's to go away and refuse to give them voice
As I said earlier, I think Apple made the right move but that I also think that the cake baker should also get to decide who they serve.
I lean libertarian so I believe that all businesses should have the right to make the choice.
To paraphrase Theodor Seuss Geisel, "And what happened, then? Well, in MacRumors they say – that ck2875’s 'Ignore' list grew three sizes that day."
You could have just as well asked if being gay was a new religion as it's not considered to be a gender.
Anyway, I went back and found the post you were referring to and I agree it was a bit vague.
I took "for many things" to mean there are more than these three basis for discrimination. Is it possible to be discriminated against because of political affiliation though?
I respectfully disagree. I think if you choose to have a business that serves the public, that should include all the public.
I find that some of the same ones that think it's okay to pick n choose who to serve, are also the same ones that are against non-english storefront signs on Asian, Arabic, and Hispanic shops. It's kind of hypocritical to force shops to be english friendly, when they themselves feel they can pick n choose who they serve.
I'm familiar with the odd society treating some people as being a defacto third (or 4th, 5th, 6th) gender. I'm also familiar with the fact that many people today make a distinction between psychological gender and biological gender. That these ideas are around does not make them right (or wrong if we want to be fair).
I'm also familiar with the peculiar genetics and phenotypic expressions of genitalia that can and do occur. The question is how should society be ordered in terms of gender/sex and why?
Since you claim it's OK, are you personally going to "take measures against them"? No, you and others probably will hire some goons to do the bloody work for you, the same way crime families operate. The hypocrisy here is overwhelming -- we are either a nation of laws, laws that protect individual rights, or we devolve to a tribal society of where might makes right.
The President pointed out the fact that two opposing tribal groups faced off and committed acts of hate and violence. Now we have the spectacle of people feigning outrage, and some like you, even claiming that violence against others "is alright" because you don't agree with their political views? Un-frikken-believable.
I've just skimmed through all of the above links and they are all about the same traditions or at least similar ones. I wonder why it is in fact a tradition in those eras and regions? That would suggest that an external third party had an influence on these people to "make them a different gender". If a person who was a different gender in one of those tribes, do you think the exact same person would feel the exact same way if they were born in a completely different country where this wasn't even a concept?
This is almost the same as the religion debate. If you're born in one of the middle eastern countries you're much more likely to become a Muslim, but if you're born in one of the 50 American states, you're very likely to be brought up as a christian.
If you're born in this day and age and you feel like you're born into the wrong body, I'm sorry to say but you have a mental illness and the world health organisation lists it as such.
I think you should have the right to be whoever you want to be and express yourself in anyway you wish. Just don't attempt to normalise it. Rather you should try and fund medical research which would help in treating gender dysphoria and most importantly don't try and legislate speech based on your mental illness.
There literally is no limit to human depravity. The concept of unalienable rights, an idea disavowed by so-called free thinkers and Marxists, was an attempt to put the brakes on our bad tendencies.
[doublepost=1502976979][/doublepost]
Yes, there is that annoying "law" thing, due process and all. Ignore it at your peril.
I understand your point but I disagree since I lean libertarian. Other than race, gender, and religion, I believe a business should have the right to serve whomever they want. I'm also in favor of a business putting up whatever sign they want in whatever language they want as long as it's legal. The business will do well or not based on their own actions.
When people can't move somewhere without being harassed/bullied,
post on social media without being harassed/bullied,
apply for a job without bias against them,
can't be in an interracial relationship without being harassed/bullied,
are more likely to get stopped by police and treated with aggression,
I mean I can go on & on & on & on ......
Everything up above is what these white supremacy groups are feeding. You have police, teachers, executives, and etc, that are apart of these groups or the ideology of hate that these groups spew out. Children are being breed by this ideology into new generations of white supremacists.
This is more than just a group voicing their unpopular opinion. This is hate rhetoric that's been affecting real people's lives since USA's existence.
So while I personally don't agree people should just bash the heads of white supremacists, I also wouldn't blame anyone that does.
If the law was upheld in the highest regards, these white supremacists wouldn't even be white supremacists. But it's obvious they only care about law when it only suits them.
The bold is where the trouble starts. I would guess that almost everyone that doesn't want to serve someone of the LGBT, would also have an issue serving a specific race or religion. I never meet anyone in my life that's been bias or partial against just one specific group of people.
IMO, it's all or nothing. Ethier let someone pick n choose all the way, or not at all.
The issue isn't about freedom of speech, it's about the tolerance of Nazism. In Trump's latest press conference he was defending white supremacists and the alt-right, so no, it's not case closed.
And I said people should be able to protest as long it's legal.
People have a legal right to use Apple Pay? I must have missed that part in the EULA...
You pose a ridiculous hypothetical. Today slavery is illegal because as a nation we agreed that it is wrong. In 200 years people's morals will have shifted so that things we accept today will be considered completely wrong.
But to answer your question in a reasonable context, if I had been born in 1850 and a slave owner came into my store to buy merchandise, I would sell him merchandise, not because I support slavery, but because he is legally entitled to buy and I believe it to be morally wrong to try to economically punish someone who disagrees with my morals.
At the same time, I would be working to make slavery illegal.
Maybe that's what people should be doing; trying to make the sale of hate related merchandise against the law, I would be completely in support of that, just not individuals trying to punish other individuals for believing differently than they do.
[doublepost=1502982877][/doublepost]
Every bit as much as lesbians have a legal right to buy a wedding cake.
[doublepost=1502983550][/doublepost]
Slippery Slope CAN be a logical fallacy just like Appeal to Authority can. That doesn't mean that in any given circumstance there isn't a slippery slope, because there may be, just like you can appeal to an authority to support an idea that is 100% correct. A logical fallacy means that just because you present the fallacy doesn't mean what you say is true.
Last edited:
Sorry I don't agree with this. It's a private company making the decision, not the federal government. They have terms and conditions that I assume these businesses agreed to. They have every right to revoke access to the services.
[doublepost=1502984698][/doublepost]
There aren't even enough black people in the country to support black nationalist groups, let alone use Apple Pay. I don't know why everything needs to transcend racial lines, be a tit-for-tat and call for false equivalence when everyone knows what groups are more prominent and destructive to society.
So, does that mean that you were outraged that the Christian bakers were put out of business for not selling to the lesbian couple? As long as you are consistent then I have no issue with people disagreeing. I just despise inconsistency in thought.
Why is it that I see people, including here, implicitly defendending neo-Nazis even if they don't intend to. We fought a long and bloody war against the people they worship, and I'm sure many people here lost friends and family over it.
Of course these people have the right to say what they want, but we can't and shouldn't compare them to "BLM" and radical Islamic terrorism when both are pretty insignificant in this country.
[doublepost=1502985471][/doublepost]
And if you think this is inconsistent or illogical thinking, I'd like to know why. I'll admit, I'm not white, so it's hard for me to sit here and be outraged at places that would either give me poor service or outright deny it to me just based on how I look and not who I actually am.
Of course these people have the right to say what they want, but we can't and shouldn't compare them to "BLM" and radical Islamic terrorism when both are pretty insignificant in this country.
[doublepost=1502985471][/doublepost]
I wasn't aware of this. But if that's the case I would suppose I don't really have sympathy for them. They control their own actions. I think they can deny service to people, including different races/ethnicities/genders whenever they please. Society determines what businesses succeed, and apparently the majority of people that support this business don't support their social views.
And if you think this is inconsistent or illogical thinking, I'd like to know why. I'll admit, I'm not white, so it's hard for me to sit here and be outraged at places that would either give me poor service or outright deny it to me just based on how I look and not who I actually am.
Last edited:
I held back on commenting on this yesterday as I wanted to give it more thought before I spoke. My initial reaction was that this made me uneasy. Nazi's have to be the easiest group in the world to demonize and there's nothing redeeming about their world-view, they're at best terribly misguided and at worst patently evil. That said, a lot of bad policy gets made during highly emotional times when the focus is on easy targets. Apple (and others) are private entities and can make whatever policy they want but I think it's a bad precedent to start banning people from important aspects of society over their views and if that approach of shunning and removal becomes wide spread enough it runs up against first amendment protections despite the private nature of these organizations. Bottom line, I see this as a slippery slope.
I do see the value in denying funding and access to mainstream society to dangerous groups. Let's take Hamas as an example. They have several wings to their organization. One is a military organization that via word and action has shown goals of eliminating the Jewish people. I have no problem with putting obstacles in place - public and private - to their funding, recruitment, and any other access to mainstream society. Hamas also has a social services wing and a political party that won power through popular elections. If there's proper separation between the former and the latter I don't think that the social and political voices should be silenced even though I disagree with their message.
I do believe that there are Nazi groups in our country intent on doing real harm to innocent people just because of their race or religion. Those people should be treated just as violent factions of Hamas, they are enemies to a peaceful society and should be opposed using all legal methods. Where I have a problem is when some misguided but harmless (physically) idiot gets swept up in this and suddenly can't get a place to stay (AirBnB) or transportation (Uber) or social access and voice (Facebook). Apple's response here is less impactful that other technology companies when taken in isolation but what happens when all the payment processors decide to ban products and services they find distasteful? It's a sweeping response if WWII history buffs can't purchase any memorabilia anymore. Likewise if someone wants to purchase an ISIS flag so be it.
I'm sure my opinion won't be popular and I'll probably be accused of sympathizing with various movements from both sides but our protections of individual thoughts, opinions, and speech weren't intended to protect the popular - they don't need the protection - they were intended to protect the outsider from being silenced by the masses. The private sector isn't immune from those protections either, we've declared private property to be "public square" for purposes of free speech demonstration in the past and if we're in danger of eliminating dissenting voices (even when their ideas are horrific) that causes me pause and concern.
I do see the value in denying funding and access to mainstream society to dangerous groups. Let's take Hamas as an example. They have several wings to their organization. One is a military organization that via word and action has shown goals of eliminating the Jewish people. I have no problem with putting obstacles in place - public and private - to their funding, recruitment, and any other access to mainstream society. Hamas also has a social services wing and a political party that won power through popular elections. If there's proper separation between the former and the latter I don't think that the social and political voices should be silenced even though I disagree with their message.
I do believe that there are Nazi groups in our country intent on doing real harm to innocent people just because of their race or religion. Those people should be treated just as violent factions of Hamas, they are enemies to a peaceful society and should be opposed using all legal methods. Where I have a problem is when some misguided but harmless (physically) idiot gets swept up in this and suddenly can't get a place to stay (AirBnB) or transportation (Uber) or social access and voice (Facebook). Apple's response here is less impactful that other technology companies when taken in isolation but what happens when all the payment processors decide to ban products and services they find distasteful? It's a sweeping response if WWII history buffs can't purchase any memorabilia anymore. Likewise if someone wants to purchase an ISIS flag so be it.
I'm sure my opinion won't be popular and I'll probably be accused of sympathizing with various movements from both sides but our protections of individual thoughts, opinions, and speech weren't intended to protect the popular - they don't need the protection - they were intended to protect the outsider from being silenced by the masses. The private sector isn't immune from those protections either, we've declared private property to be "public square" for purposes of free speech demonstration in the past and if we're in danger of eliminating dissenting voices (even when their ideas are horrific) that causes me pause and concern.
This may not have necessarily applied to you, but many people here take the position that the Christian bakers should have had to bake the cake for lesbians despite their believe that homosexuality is wrong, and then applaud Apple for denying access to racists to use Apple pay.
And let me say one more time, I'm not trying to compare these two in terms of levels of rightness or anything, I'm just saying that either you allow anyone to use your services regardless of who and what they are, or you pass moral judgement on people.
The problem with passing moral judgement is that few people are willing to go 100% and say I will deny everyone who doesn't match my morals, which to me makes them a hypocrite.
For the record, I don't understand how selling a cake to lesbians would taint people anymore than I think that allowing racists to use your technology taints Apple.
But, I don't say that my view is right, I just say that it is my view and at least it is logically and internally consistent as opposed to the emotion-laden views of some.