Apple Pulls Apple Pay Support From Websites Selling White Nationalist and Nazi Apparel [Updated]

[LordVic]

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.

I will agree, that I do not like the forcing of business to do work with anyone. And do support a businesses free decision to serve or not.

I also think that anyone denying services for discriminatory reasons are *******s that don't deserve my business.

But, if you're a business who does decide to deny based on discriminatory basis, you have no defense should protestors show up to prostest your behaviour. Or recourse should your business fail due to crappy business decisions based on prejudice. That's the free market.


but I draw the line at Nazis. Literal Nazis. They do not deserve any fair treatment under the law. (and I don't mean just throwing the term around, I mean people who actually claim to be nazis)

 

[ksnell]

Excellent, now do Antifa (probably the most violent domestic terrorist organization I've seen since 2016), BLM and some of those "holy" islamic sites that advocate Sharia in the West and the irrecoverable destruction of Israel.

Oh wait, this is Apple we're talking about, sorry.

Bravo. Hit the nail on the head.

 

[Jimmy James]

Good move. If you're going to take a stand against such hate groups you really need to include certain religions in your ban based on the same reasoning. Not that such a politically incorrect move would ever materialize.

 

[0098386]

Surprised this thread is still going. So I’ll take this chance to yet again say that bigots are horrible, they shouldn’t be that way.

Good move. If you're going to take a stand against such hate groups you really need to include certain religions in your ban based on the same reasoning. Not that such a politically incorrect move would ever materialize.

I don’t think an American company would ever ban Christianity.

 

[gnasher729]

While I think white supremacist groups are deplorable and disgusting, I am concerned when people start denying access to things based on what that individual believes to be morally repugnant.

It's not just what an individual believes is morally repugnant. It _is_ morally repugnant. It's not just morally repugnant. In Germany, a country that knows more about Nazis then the rest of the world, these people would go straight to jail. Which is right where they belong.
[doublepost=1502997619][/doublepost]

Trump was not wrong when he said both sides were at fault.

In some states in the USA, when a burglar enters your home, you are legally allowed to shoot them. Lots of Americans agree with this, and they won't say that both sides are at fault. Only the burglar is at fault.

Same here. When neo-Nazis enter a town, any violence against them is totally justified. There is no fault involved.

 

[MrX8503]

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.

You're comparing Nazism to sexual orientation.

"The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a landmark civil rights and US labor law in the United States that outlaws discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_discrimination_law_in_the_United_States

I understand that this applies to employment, but the reason why people support businesses having to sell services to gays is because of the Civil Rights Act. Nazism is the very definition of ANTI civil rights, so I don't think you can draw the conclusion that people are hypocrites for supporting services be sold to gays and not sold to Nazis.

 

[LordVic]

Ok that’s fine. Just do the same for other hate groups (Antifa, BLM.....).

Trump was not wrong when he said both sides were at fault.

so if I show up to protest Nazism, i'm at fault?

gotcha. Good to know where your opinion falls on the spectrum. and that's with the Nazi's

 

[gnasher729]

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.

The USA today seems to be in the same place as Germany in 1923. Nazis trying to intimidate everyone, and some people trying to fight back. Yes, violence against neo-Nazis _is_ alright. Every single one is full of hatred, wanting to destroy the lives of people who don't agree with them. Anything that stops them is alright.

 

[LordVic]

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.

This is bad and bad thinking and isn't just hypocrisy.

Lets break this down.

The President pointed out the fact that two opposing tribal groups faced off and committed acts of hate and violence.

This is patently incorrect and false. one Tribal group, Nazi's showed up in order to speak hate speach. a second, large showing of a mixture of different people showed up to shout down the Nazis.

Violence is not acceptible by anyone, Nazi's or Not. But only ONE of these two groups of people showed up with the message of Genocide, racial purity, and eradication through violence of others.

you can denounce violence on both sides. But if you don't immediately denounce Nazism, than you're openly giving them a voice.

Nazism isn't just a "political" view. Nazism, is in fact, an ideology rooted in destruction of democracy. Eradication of capitalism. and the systematic destruction of entire groups of people.

Feigned outrage? This isn't feigned. These were literally nazi's. People who agree with Nazism and wish to bring it back. It's a direct attack on me. Its a direct THREAT to me. Entire branches of my family tree were cut off at the heads by these people (yes, Literal beheadment).

this isn't just a "political view". The president refusing to call them for what they are, and playing the "both sides are bad" card means that he himself, is approving that Nazis deserve to be heard.

I'm a bloody moderate and I typically don't believe in most things being black and white or obsolutes. Nazism is one of those times that you either shut down immediately, or you're complicit.

even stating that you think they have merit that should be listened too is damning for you. THERE IS NO LOGICAL DEFENSE OF NAZISM

 

[gnasher729]

Ok i’ve about had enough. I want a damn good explanation as to why both sides cannot be held responsible for this.

If it’s not a good and intellectual answer, don’t even bother. All were doing is attacking each other on here.

As I said, it's like a violent burglar breaking into your home and threatening you and your family, and you defending yourself. They were not "attacking each other". There was attack and defence.
[doublepost=1502998801][/doublepost]

That’s not what we were talking about. These Nazis are not WWII nazis. I guarantee I know more about nazis and what lead to their rise to power than you do. I’m 100% pro liberty and they are definitely against my beliefs. But shutting down offensive speech is why we have a 1st amendment. Fight their ideas with your ideas not with clubs.

But they came to Charlotteville with guns and clubs. Fighting them with ideas doesn't quite work. You try, and they start killing people.

 

[btrach144]

I’ve yet to find a store in Canada that doesn’t accept Apple Pay

Again, I said sites. Hardly any online sites accept Apple Pay.

 

[CarlJ]

Didn't you get the memo? We're living in the upside-down now. Those who oppose hate are the real hate groups.

Yep, and anybody who says anything they don't like (including legit news media reporting what actually happened) are FAAAAKE NEWWWWS, and apparently the only real news comes from white-supremacist-supporting conspiracy sites. Smh.

 

[Nunyabinez]

You're comparing Nazism to sexual orientation.

"The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a landmark civil rights and US labor law in the United States that outlaws discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_discrimination_law_in_the_United_States

I understand that this applies to employment, but the reason why people support businesses having to sell services to gays is because of the Civil Rights Act. Nazism is the very definition of ANTI civil rights, so I don't think you can draw the conclusion that people are hypocrites for supporting services be sold to gays and not sold to Nazis.

I wish this would just go away.

First of all sexual orientation is not a federal protected class. Period. The Civil rights act is in no way relevant to homosexuality.

Second, believing that white people are superior is also not illegal regardless of how repugnant it is.

In the United States of America we allow people to believe whatever they want to believe, because telling someone what they are allowed to believe is actual Fascism.

If people don't want services to go to Nazis, then pass a law making it illegal. Why is it legal in the US to be a Nazi? Because the US is not a fascist state.

I hate Nazis and everything they stand for, but people are flailing at themselves to justify denying services to people based on their beliefs just because their beliefs are disgusting.

Either you believe in the principles that this country was founded on or you don't and those principles allow people to be Nazis.

 

[CarlJ]

To paraphrase Theodor Seuss Geisel, "And what happened, then? Well, in MacRumors they say – that ck2875’s 'Ignore' list grew three sizes that day."

I know the feeling. I kind of wish the ignore list system had some sort of tagging mechanism, so I could keep track of who is "merely" a relentless unfunny anti-Apple basher, and the vile ones that try to make excuses for (or even support or practice) white supremacist, xenophobic, homophobic, and/or misogynistic behavior. The former group has a chance for reform, if, say, they make a series of witty insightful posts; the latter group I'd prefer to never interact with again.

 

[Mansu944]

As I said, it's like a violent burglar breaking into your home and threatening you and your family, and you defending yourself. They were not "attacking each other". There was attack and defence.
[doublepost=1502998801][/doublepost]
But they came to Charlotteville with guns and clubs. Fighting them with ideas doesn't quite work. You try, and they start killing people.

Why do they need to be fought physically? Is what they were doing illegal? Even if it was, that;s the cops job not a bunch of masked 20 year old's playing vigilantes. Why does the left feel the need to attack anyone they deem offensive?

 

[Hedwigg]

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.

Ahem. First, you should avoid jumping on forum boards and pretending like you know the first thing about anyone

Second, I stated that "taking action against them is alright". Did you read the article in the first place? Apple removing support for ApplePay is the "action" that I deemed "alright". Nowhere did I condone violence... and if you read my entire response in the first place, you would understand that.

Third, the president made a false equivalency between white supremacists and those arguing against hatred, racism, and prejudice. Those two groups of people are not the same thing. White supremacy isn't a "political view", but nice try. By all means, though, feel free to continue criticizing those you don't know as if you have any idea who they are in the first place... seems fitting for a conversation about racists and nazi sympathizers.

 

[mariusignorello]

so if I show up to protest Nazism, i'm at fault?

gotcha. Good to know where your opinion falls on the spectrum. and that's with the Nazi's

Oh that’s not where it falls, so don’t go and update your national database of Nazis quite yet...

 

[LordVic]

Oh that’s not where it falls, so don’t go and update your national database of Nazis quite yet...

So where does it fall so I don't unfairly lump you with some group.

What is your opinion on Nazis. Do you support their right to hate speech?

 

[JustThinkin']

Based on the top rated comments, it's clear that MR readers have a better moral compass than Tim Cook.

How embarrassing, Mr. CEO!

 

[mdlooker]

I wish this would just go away....

In the United States of America we allow people to believe whatever they want to believe, because telling someone what they are allowed to believe is actual Fascism.

If people don't want services to go to Nazis, then pass a law making it illegal. Why is it legal in the US to be a Nazi? Because the US is not a fascist state.

I hate Nazis and everything they stand for, but people are flailing at themselves to justify denying services to people based on their beliefs just because their beliefs are disgusting.

Either you believe in the principles that this country was founded on or you don't and those principles allow people to be Nazis.

While I agree with some of what you're saying, I juust don't know about the bolded part. Obviously, imo, ppl are totally disregarding causation. Though the Civil War ended 152yrs ago, the most recent legislation passed to further quail the white supremacist groups was enacted just 53yrs ago (Civil Rights Act)--- just about in my lifetime. Their heinous acts against anyone NOT their skin tone and ethnicity is the some of the most horrific in the worlds history and by far the worst in our nation's history.

Fast forward it to now.. Something just as seeing white supremacy groups mass and march as they did in the 1920s, 30s and other pre-dates, crimes against humanity and voting obstruction resonates today as if it was yesterday. We still have churches getting burned to the ground and "Dillons" in the 2000s still going into churches and killing AAs, same as back then. So to say that it's disgusting to deny them the freedoms as a progressive element that our nation is "supposed" to represent and treat them as a parallel citizen today is even more disgusting. Beliefs are beliefs, believe what you want..but to expect a normal acceptance of a nation still recovering from those heinous acts and and expectation of allowance to prance spewing that same yesteryear hate is a reach--a far reach.

 

[poloponies]

I agree with Apple's decision but I also think that the cake baker should be able to say "no". It could be argued that you are discriminating against the cake baker's religion by forcing them to bake the cake.

Your religion is not a defense to violation of the law. You can't say "my religion precludes me from stopping at red lights" or "my church believes in child rape [talkin' to you, Warren Jeffs]." That's how things work here. You have freedom to worship as you see fit, but once worship intersects with violation of US laws, then the freedom of the one who's oppressed under law takes priority. In any case the "I won't bake for gays" religious argument is just pretext, because if they truly believed in serving only the "righteous" then they wouldn't bake for adulterers, child abusers or any number of genuinely morally reprehensible persons, but somehow "gay" is their litmus test.

 

[Nunyabinez]

While I agree with some of what you're saying, I juust don't know about the bolded part. Obviously, imo, ppl are totally disregarding causation. Though the Civil War ended 152yrs ago, the most recent legislation passed to further quail the white supremacist groups was enacted just 53yrs ago (Civil Rights Act)--- just about in my lifetime. Their heinous acts against anyone NOT their skin tone and ethnicity is the some of the most horrific in the worlds history and by far the worst in our nation's history.

Fast forward it to now.. Something just as seeing white supremacy groups mass and march as they did in the 1920s, 30s and other pre-dates, crimes against humanity and voting obstruction resonates today as if it was yesterday. We still have churches getting burned to the ground and "Dillons" in the 2000s still going into churches and killing AAs, same as back then. So to say that it's disgusting to deny them the freedoms as a progressive element that our nation is "supposed" to represent and treat them as a parallel citizen today is even more disgusting. Beliefs are beliefs, believe what you want..but to expect a normal acceptance of a nation still recovering from those heinous acts and and expectation of allowance to prance spewing that same yesteryear hate is a reach--a far reach.

And I agree with most of what you say. When people DO THINGS they should be punished, but not when they THINK or SAY things unless the things they say are illegal.

And I don't think anyone should accept anything a Nazi says. Counter it, show how disgusting it is. I'm just uncomfortable with private citizens trying to economically punish someone based on their ideologies. Because next time it might be mine.

So, as long as we punish people for what they have done and not on what they might do, I'm right with you.

 

[LordVic]

And I agree with most of what you say. When people DO THINGS they should be punished, but not when they THINK or SAY things unless the things they say are illegal.

And I don't think anyone should accept anything a Nazi says. Counter it, show how disgusting it is. I'm just uncomfortable with private citizens trying to economically punish someone based on their ideologies. Because next time it might be mine.

So, as long as we punish people for what they have done and not on what they might do, I'm right with you.

 

[Mansu944]

So where does it fall so I don't unfairly lump you with some group.

What is your opinion on Nazis. Do you support their right to hate speech?

I support EVERYONES right to hate speech. Do I condone it or like it? No, but the 1st amendment is not there to protect nice speech.

 

[LordVic]

I support EVERYONES right to hate speech. Do I condone it or like it? No, but the 1st amendment is not there to protect nice speech.

then you support Nazi's spreading their message?

Check. Gotcha.

this thread has been really enlightening to see where peoples lines are. And for a lot of you, you're perfectly ok with hate speech and inciting of violence when it's Nazi's...