Tim Cook Calls 'Religious Freedom' Legislation 'Very Dangerous'

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by MacRumors, Mar 30, 2015.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. MacRumors macrumors bot

    MacRumors

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2001
    #1
    [​IMG]


    Apple CEO Tim Cook has called recent "religious freedom" legislation passed in Indiana and Arkansas "very dangerous" in a public op-ed letter published by The Washington Post. Cook argues that there are nearly 100 pro-discrimination bills in the United States that "go against the very principles" the country was founded on and "have the potential to undo decades of progress towards greater equality."

    [​IMG]
    Cook's letter comes in response to Indiana governor Mike Pence passing the controversial Religious Freedom Restoration Act last week, following intense opposition from opponents that believe the bill supports discrimination, particularly against gays and lesbians. The bill, based on the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act, signed by President Bill Clinton in 1993, takes effect July 1st.
    Cook believes that the recently passed legislation in Indiana and Arkansas, and similar bills being considered in other states, draw comparisons to the days of segregation in the United States, adding that Apple will never tolerate discrimination regardless of the laws passed. "This isn't a political issue. It isn't a religious issue," he said. "This is about how we treat each other as human beings."
    Cook tweeted last week that Apple is "open for everyone" and "deeply disappointed in Indiana's new law," calling on Arkansas to veto its similar HB1228 bill. Indiana has received a lot of backlash for signing the bill, with several organizations and companies throughout the United States vowing to stop supporting the state.
    Cook has remained committed to equality in the workplace as chief executive at Apple. In November 2013, he publicly supported the U.S. Employment Nondiscrimination Act, legislation proposed to prohibit many civilian, nonreligious employers from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity for the purposes of hiring or other employment practices.

    Note: Due to the political nature of the discussion regarding this topic, the discussion thread is located in our Politics, Religion, Social Issues forum. All forum members and site visitors are welcome to read and follow the thread, but posting is limited to forum members with at least 100 posts.

    Article Link: Tim Cook Calls 'Religious Freedom' Legislation 'Very Dangerous'
     
  2. aerok macrumors 65816

    aerok

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2011
    #2
    ...with money.

    But in all seriousness, good for him to come out against this bigoted legislation.
     
  3. KPOM macrumors G5

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2010
    #3
    Supposedly Indiana is already looking at legislation to "clarify" (i.e. walk back) the new law.
     
  4. mrxak macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2004
    Location:
    Drifting through space in a broken escape pod
    #4
    I really don't have a problem with companies turning away any customers they want to. They're private businesses they can do what they want.

    In the same vein, if there's a company that's run by bigots then customers are free to boycott and put those companies out of business.

    Wouldn't we all rather know exactly where we stand with one another?
     
  5. saha-med macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2012
    #5
    Good job using apple to promote your personal agendas.

    Rainbow colored logo is next :D
     
  6. KPOM macrumors G5

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2010
    #6
    Retro! #
     
  7. AppleFan360 macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    #7
    Oh geesh! Here we go again:

    "That’s why, on behalf of Apple, I’m standing up to oppose this new wave of legislation — wherever it emerges."

    BAD BAD BAD idea to bring the company and it's shareholders into this controversy. If he doesn't do anything about it (like pulling Apple from states that support the legislation), it makes him look like a hypocrite.
     
  8. technopimp macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2009
    #8
    And this is my problem with Cook. It's not "his" company. If I started tweeting stuff like this I would be fired. I don't begrude him any personal beliefs/etc., but he needs to stop speaking on behalf of an entire public company with those agendas.
     
  9. Kissaragi macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2006
    #9
    Its about promoting the right agenda. This one is clear cut.
     
  10. mdelvecchio macrumors 68040

    mdelvecchio

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2010
  11. SBlue1 macrumors 65816

    SBlue1

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2008
    #11
    Next thing is they can turn away black people, then jews, then whoever is next... Sad to hear how things are working in the US.
     
  12. MacrumoursUser macrumors 6502

    MacrumoursUser

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2014
    Location:
    Denmark
    #12
    Exactly. Im all for this. At least you would know what or who you are dealing with. Now they make laws that tell one or the other when the people they are supposed to apply to think god knows what.
     
  13. philipk macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2008
    #13
    Good for Tim.

    If you believe that Woolworth's had the right to refuse "Negros" the right to eat at their lunch counters then you would agree with Gov. Pence. Freedom of business trumps freedom of individuals.

    If you believe it was wrong for Woolworth's to deny service based on skin color then you would agree with Tim Cook. Individual freedom trumps business freedom.

    Janis Ian said it well when she said that her concerts in Indiana were in jeopardy. Ushers could refuse to work, caterers could refuse to work, security guards could refuse to work. Then there would be no concert.

    Go, Tim, Go!
     
  14. Bending Pixels macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2010
    #14
    Mr. Cook (and others) should take time to listen to Al Mohler's morning briefing and understand that he, and the media, has skewed what the actual law says.
     
  15. BigBeast macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2009
    #15
    I'm so glad that I gave up religion a few years back. As a consequence, I'm free to be open to, and not discriminate against, others with different beliefs, sexual identities, etc. It really is freeing. :D
     
  16. mdelvecchio macrumors 68040

    mdelvecchio

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2010
    #16
    Wrong. Companies arent always free to do what they want to -- for example, turn away blacks because they don't like blacks. Or Jews. Or women. Etc.. in the US we have certain rights that are "inalienable", which if you look it up means they are natural rights and not optional. The protected classes of the U.S. constitution defines which attributes are covered -- race, gender, religion, etc...meaning equal treatment is required based on those attributes alone. This is decades old case law here, little thing called the civil rights movement in the 1960s.
     
  17. fenderbass146, Mar 30, 2015
    Last edited: Mar 30, 2015

    fenderbass146 macrumors 65816

    fenderbass146

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2009
    Location:
    Northwest Indiana
    #17
    I'm sorry and I am sure I will get flamed for this, but religious freedom goes both ways. You shouldn't make a Christian photographer take photos for a same-sex wedding. IMO. This law isn't giving a free pass to anyone to deny service for the hell of it. There are more stipulations.
     
  18. Rogifan macrumors P6

    Rogifan

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2011
    #18
    Liberals misreporting things. You don't say. :eek:
     
  19. zin macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 5, 2010
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    #19
    The media has skewed nothing.

    There is a provision in the Indiana law that enables private litigation participants to claim "religious freedom" defence for refusal of service. This extends to discriminating against classes of individuals, including gay people (which is not a protected class in Indiana).

    Religious freedom is about preventing the Government from imposing restrictions on your beliefs, not letting you use it as a defence in a lawsuit between a bakery and a customer, for instance.
     
  20. mdelvecchio macrumors 68040

    mdelvecchio

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2010
    #20
    I think Cook knows what's good or bad for the company better than you do. Since he, you know, has been running it into record success, growth, and profit for years.
     
  21. Rogifan macrumors P6

    Rogifan

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2011
    #21
    Is gay marriage (or any marriage for that matter) an "inalienable" right?
     
  22. mdelvecchio macrumors 68040

    mdelvecchio

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2010
    #22
    Funny - here in New Orleans the woolworths were the counter was was just torn down.
     
  23. bbeagle macrumors 68040

    bbeagle

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2010
    Location:
    Buffalo, NY
    #23
    Become rich and famous and you can do it too.

    This is how the world works. The most intelligent people don't necessarily have their views heard - the people most in the public eye do. (Tim Cook is both to me, regardless)
     
  24. mdelvecchio macrumors 68040

    mdelvecchio

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2010
    #24
    My point was on the mistaken idea that a business is free to do whatever it wants. That is not the case in the US. you can wiki the protected classes yourself and see what's included.
     
  25. Starflyer macrumors 6502a

    Starflyer

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2003
    #25
    WHAT YOU SHOULD KNOW ABOUT RELIGIOUS FREEDOM RESTORATION ACTS


    University of Notre Dame law professor Rick Garnett:

    Here are the remarks Al Gore and Bill Clinton made on signing the 1993 legislation

    https://youtu.be/4YtyUXnBhXU
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page