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

[oliversl]

I hope Apple Inc does not become a political force.

I applaud the effort Tim is making toward equality and freedom.

He should continue that fight, but not as Apple. Because Apple exists only to make good products.

If Apple becomes political, then people will want to fix their problems too, around USA and around the world.

 

[5aga]

Again, another person that repeating opinions. Read and investigate the Bible for yourself. Don't rely on other people's opinions and views.

this is not a Christian nation, at least according to the constitution.

 

[fenderbass146]

But Jesus could hang out with the thieves and prostitutes and everyone else society deemed worthless at the time and it didn't seem to bother him. Too bad his followers are nothing like him. Supposing for a moment that there's any truth to the silliness that is religion, if Jesus did come back to Earth, given his track record, he'd probably be brunching with the gays in West Hollywood. He definitely would NOT be hanging around with all of the good (bigoted) Christians who lay claim to him.

I agree, Jesus did hang out with those and love those the same as he would love the LGBT community today, True Christians are suppose to love everyone. I personally have lots of gay friends that know I am a Christian and I don't treat them any differently however he/we don't have to agree with or help their lifestyle, you wouldn't see Jesus helping the theif rob people, or give condoms to the prostitutes so they continue there lifestyle, I know that is a little more extreme, but taking photos for a gay wedding it helping there encourage their lifestyle.

 

[robbyx]

In reality, it should be the opposite. People should be embarrassed to believe in imaginary sky daddies, and zombies and virgin births. And wear funny clothes and speak in different languages in a special building once a week and not eat foods or eat foods based on desert nomads from 2000 years ago. Yet for some whacked out reason, those who don't are considered the weird ones. Go figure.

People should not be embarrassed to say, I don't base my life on fables of mostly illiterate bronze age people, lacking basic scientific knowledge we have today.

We should not automatically respect "faith" or "religion" any more than we automatically respect the ravings of lunatics. Please. The only reason people believe this nonsense is because their parents told them so. If you were born in Saudi Arabia, you would be muslim, not whatever religion you are. So that goes to show you how ridiculous religion it is. Generally its how you were brainwashed as a kid.

God = Santa Claus for grown ups, keeping his list of who's been naughty or nice...

Great post. Couldn't agree more.

 

[peterdevries]

Again, another person that repeating opinions. Read and investigate the Bible for yourself. Don't rely on other people's opinions and views.

I have read the bible (albeit almost 15 years ago) and had religious class in school. Still I understand the difference between religion and the law and that much of what is written in the Bible is not to be taken literally. Time has moved on since the old and new testaments were written and we should take that progression into account. That's why we are where we are now. If we wouldn't have done that we would be in the same place as the Middle East is now.

So, why don't you respond to some of these comments in a more constructive manner, than just by the generic "you don't understand the Bible" stuff. Some of us are able to respond to you in a civil manner, so come on.

 

[flat five]

Well, I respect your opinion, but if I were you, I would seriously, I mean seriously read and investigate the Bible for myself instead of repeating the opinions of others.

you can't use the bible to prove the bible.
you get that, right?

 

[iBlazed]

Again, another person that repeating opinions. Read and investigate the Bible for yourself. Don't rely on other people's opinions and views.

The bible is subjective and open to interpretation. So is all religion. Many Christians believe the opposite of what you do. Are they less Christian than you? Are people who think like you the only "real" Christians in existence? Don't be so full of yourself. Your view of the bible is YOUR opinion.

 

[gnasher729]

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.

He is the CEO of Apple. He has the right and the duty to speak on behalf of an entire public company.

 

[webbuzz]

I love it when people interpret laws to fit a narrative.

Faux outrage.

 

[flat five]

I hope Apple Inc does not become a political force.

I applaud the effort Tim is making toward equality and freedom.

He should continue that fight, but not as Apple. Because Apple exists only to make good products.

If Apple becomes political, then people will want to fix their problems too, around USA and around the world.

calling for equal rights is a political issue?
hmm

 

[iBlazed]

Facts > Opinions & Insults

You haven't brought any facts to the table, only your opinion.

 

[linkgx1]

How long have businesses had the right to post the signs that read "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone"? It's been around forever. "No shirt, no shoes, no come in"? So homeless people are discriminated, or even myself, who, on a warm sunny day, choose to go shirtless or barefoot, and just wants to buy a meal?

As so many have said here, what's the difference?

Anyone can get new clothes. People can't chose their gender or race.

 

[robbyx]

you can't use the bible to prove the bible.
you get that, right?

Of course he doesn't get that! If religious people got that, there wouldn't be religion.

 

[flat five]

Of course he doesn't get that! If religious people got that, there wouldn't be religion.

ha. right
my bad

 

[bbyrdhouse]

@Starflyer, you are my hero

WHAT YOU SHOULD KNOW ABOUT RELIGIOUS FREEDOM RESTORATION ACTS

Yesterday Governor Mike Pence of Indiana signed into law the state’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The action has drawn sharp criticism by people and politicians who directly oppose religious freedoms and by those who are simply unaware of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the federal model for Indiana’s new law.

Here is what you should know about these types of religious freedom legislation:

What is the Religious Freedom Restoration Act?

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) is a federal law passed in 1993 which is intended to prevent other federal laws from substantially burdening a person’s free exercise of religion. The legislation was introduced by Rep. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) on March 11, 1993 and passed by a unanimous U.S. House and a near unanimous U.S. Senate with three dissenting votes. The bill was signed into law by President Bill Clinton.

According to the text of the law, the purposes of the RFRA are:

(1) to restore the compelling interest test as set forth in Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963) and Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972) and to guarantee its application in all cases where free exercise of religion is substantially burdened; and

(2) to provide a claim or defense to persons whose religious exercise is substantially burdened by government.

Currently, 19 states have a Religious Freedom Restoration Act (AL, CT, FL, ID, IN, IL, KS, KY, LA, MO, MS, NM, OK, PA, RI, SC, TN, TX, and VA). Ten other states have religious liberty protections that state courts have interpreted to provide a similar (strict scrutiny) level of protection (AK, MA, ME, MI, MN, MT, NC, OH, WA, and WI). With some exceptions (such as Mississippi), the state versions are almost exactly the same as the federal version.

University of Notre Dame law professor Rick Garnett:

The act is a moderate measure that tracks a well-established federal law and the laws of several dozen other states. Contrary to what some critics have suggested, it does not give anyone a "license to discriminate," it would not undermine our important civil-rights commitments, and it would not impose excessive burdens on Indiana’s courts. . . .

The act’s standard is applied in many jurisdictions across the land and it has long enjoyed support from across the political spectrum. This standard is not new; we have plenty of evidence about how it works. We know that courts have not applied it to require excessive accommodations or exemptions from anti-discrimination laws and civil-rights protections. Fighting invidious public discrimination is, American courts agree, a public interest of the highest order. Contrary to the concern quoted in the recent Tribune piece, a business owner or medical professional who invoked the act as a "license" to engage in such discrimination would and should lose. The act creates a balancing test, not a blank check.

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

https://youtu.be/4YtyUXnBhXU

Thank you for posting this!

 

[iBlazed]

calling for equal rights is a political issue?
hmm

Only on the right...

 

[linkgx1]

Right, why would a same-sex couple hire a photographer who disagrees with there lifestyle, why would they want that? However there have been multiple lawsuits were such situations have come up. One such was a baker wanting to not bake a cake for a same-sex couple and the couple tried to bring a lawsuit to the baker. Now this does vary between Christians. I am one, but personally believe that it is our job to love everyone including the LGBT community, that doesn't mean we have to agree with there lifestyle. Jesus hung out with prostitutes and thieves yet still loved them, however I don't know if he would have helped support their lifestyle by helping in their wedding. I honestly could be wrong it is a very tricky subject. I am not trying to start a war, but just because a Christian doesn't want to photograph a gay wedding, doesn't mean he is a bigot.

But then why don't they have signs on their windows saying ''no gays''. BRIGHT NEON SIGNS!

 

[slb]

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?

We know the notion that the market will self-filter bigotry via customer boycotts is wrong because segregation persisted until federal intervention.

 

[gnasher729]

A person's race or sex does not go against Bible principles. Homosexuality does. As does Adultery committed by man/woman couples. The issues are not in the same vein. Laws can be made for issues that go against Bible principles. There are laws against, stealing, smoking, etc.

Well, Jesus' mother was certainly not married to his father.

And whatever bible quotes have been posted that declare homosexuality to be against what the bible says, none of these seem to come from Jesus, but are based on the opinion and prejudices of some author. I can't quite see how the fact that some bloke in the second century didn't like gay people should give anyone an excuse for bad behaviour today.

 

[anewman143]

Trying to tease out where I stand on this - I get that a business owner can't, for example, say "No blacks or Jews in my shop". It's bigoted and ugly and can't be defended.

But let me pose this question - if, in one of the current examples, the baker says "I don't want to make a cake for a Lesbian couple's wedding because I object to the idea of gay marriage on religious/moral/personal grounds". That is not the same as saying "Lesbians can't come into my bakery and buy baked goods".

My personal example - I'm an OBGYN. I deliver babies for a living. Abortion is legal in this country. But my personal beliefs don't allow me to perform that procedure. And the law is on my side - I can't be compelled to perform any medical procedure that I find morally or ethically unacceptable. That doesn't mean that I don't take care of women who have had abortions. It means that I won't perform one.

Yes - I get that baking a cake and performing an abortion are different (not suggesting any parity there) - but is the underlying principle of who gets to choose what they do/don't similar?

 

[linkgx1]

A person's race or sex does not go against Bible principles. Homosexuality does. As does Adultery committed by man/woman couples. The issues are not in the same vein. Laws can be made for issues that go against Bible principles. There are laws against, stealing, smoking, etc.

.....what....in...the...world.

You know the bible does mention certain races being cursed.

 

[Bobby Corwen]

My mother and father are Christians.

They believe in what they believe in because that is how they deal with life and mortality. It's their right to bury themselves in that fear to stop the pain of death and live a more comfortable happy life.

Homosexuals believe what they believe, that we should be treated the same, because they are in pain because they were born with a genetic malfunction as per biological mutation and they spend a lot of time being vocal about that chip on their shoulder and it's their right to try to gain respect as relative equals outside their sickness.

So the existence of gays actually goes against one of the beliefs that God created us, and marriage is a holy thing.

So you can't give gays equality for their sickness without taking it away from the sickness that helped American families and business build this great country.

You can't give one without taking another's dignity and freedom to go on acting as though God created us so they can feel safe.

Meanwhile the people with real diseases living a whole life in wheel chairs aren't nearly as vocal and they truly don't offend anyone.

I always liken gay rights to a guy in a wheelchair complaining he can't join the NBA because he was born handicapped.

The truth is, stuff like that freaks people out and feel like laws are against them in their own country.

It's not so black and white, good and evil. The gay/minority/anti-white male agenda is very subtle and sneaky.

Don't be so quick to agree with liberals about everything. They are usually right but not always. Not when it comes to business and equality.

 

[linkgx1]

You should go to Iran or Saudi Arabia for a bit to get an idea of what a theocracy is actually like, and then you might realize that we are nowhere close. If anything we are on the very beginning of a swing in the opposite direction. I wouldn't be surprised if within 10 years as it becomes more socially acceptable to admit you are atheist the US goes up to over 50% atheist or agnostic, I'm pretty sure we are already close as far as what people actually practice, but a large number of people still claim to be religious because up until recently there was a lot of social pressure to do that.

No, Saudi Arabia is the perfect example of what happens when religious ideas go unchecked. We're limited because of our founding fathers.

 

[slb]

Right, why would a same-sex couple hire a photographer who disagrees with there lifestyle, why would they want that? However there have been multiple lawsuits were such situations have come up. One such was a baker wanting to not bake a cake for a same-sex couple and the couple tried to bring a lawsuit to the baker. Now this does vary between Christians. I am one, but personally believe that it is our job to love everyone including the LGBT community, that doesn't mean we have to agree with there lifestyle. Jesus hung out with prostitutes and thieves yet still loved them, however I don't know if he would have helped support their lifestyle by helping in their wedding. I honestly could be wrong it is a very tricky subject. I am not trying to start a war, but just because a Christian doesn't want to photograph a gay wedding, doesn't mean he is a bigot.

Bigotry is a prejudiced intolerance of others; a Christian who chooses to do business with the public yet discriminates against certain individuals is a bigot. As religiosity continues its decline in the U.S., Christianity's biggest hurdle will be its association with positions considered bigoted and old-fashioned, as well as its cherry-picking of Leviticus.

 

[Huracan]

I think these laws are very dangerous, they can be used to discriminate against all sorts of people. This doesn't apply to a particular religion and it just encourages religious groups and individuals to exercised the most bigoted and discriminatory portions of their religious beliefs. What we need is more human rights that apply to everyone, and not more religious rights that can be used to discriminate or limit these human rights.