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

[5aga]

Rand Paul's comment isn't calling for a Theocracy nor does he wish to move towards such.

In my opinion, it would behoove you to study our founding history, especially as it pertains to the First Amendment and religious expression.

I recognize that there is a very small segment in our society that wants to move towards such. However, the law in question, as well as Paul's stance, is not close to a Theocracy nor are they moving towards such.

I have read/studied the Constitution and understand it clearly. Perhaps all these religious bigots skipped over the first amendment?

The problem is we now have politicians stoking the flames of these "small segments" which legitimizes their efforts - hence these discriminatory laws exists. Like i said Indiana isn't the only state trying this kind of stuff.

And whether people admit it or not bigotry certainly does exist, esp. against gay people (trust me I know) and its almost always from the far right, "Christian" populace.

It will be interesting, and humorous, to see how all these zealots react when Muslims, or any other religious systems excise these laws.

 

[Meister]

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.

I didn't know that it is different elsewhere.
What other countries have anti-discrimination laws? Except for maybe the Uk.

 

[dustinsc]

Seeing the video of Pence's performance on ABC's news talk show yesterday was really a trip to bizarro land...

He squawked repeatedly that 'this is not about discrimination', and yet there is no other way to see the law.

It made me wonder who forced him into this, and what they have on him. There was no defense, no matter how much he sighed and rolled his eyes.

Allowing someone, in the pretense of 'religious freedom' to not serve, or provide services to anyone (gays) IS discrimination. The person, or entity, is singling our a group, or sub group and refusing to serve or sell to them. That's not 'sharing the love' now, is it...

The law doesn't target anti-discrimination laws. It's that simple. True, anti-discrimination laws would be included, but that's only because it's a law. RFRA applies to EVERYTHING. So no, this is not about discrimination. This is about burdens on religious practice generally.

 

[iBlazed]

I'm sick of this idiot bringing his liberal politics into everything, and now he's doing even worse by jumping into unsubstantiated controversy.

Suck it up, buttercup.

And tell it to the republican CEO of Angie's list who supported gov. Pence's election campaign but now halted plans for a huge expansion in Indiana because he's concerned that gay executives in the company won't want to live in such a hostile envoronment. Gay rights are not a liberal value, they're a human value. Get used to this, the right wing social agenda is DEAD.

 

[scottsjack]

Let the click-baits and straw man arguments continue! It must be another slow day for real Apple news.

 

[KdParker]

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.

So you would be ok with NO JEWS/NO BLACKS/NO DANISH served signs in store windows?

 

[sransari]

The legislation gives businesses the freedom to put themselves out of business and whither away for being bigots. Isn't that a GOOD thing?

 

[JosephAW]

Please stop bullying Indiana and its people. Come on, It's the 21st century!

 

[peterdevries]

Not a bad idea at all. Apple has a very passionate consumer base. It makes sense for the company to speak on certain views, especially when those views are also the views of the majority of their consumers.

Quoted for truth.

You can't have it both ways. On the one hand people require Apple to be more socially engaged and responsible (sustainable, green, bringing production back to the US etc.) and on the other hand people want Apple to focus on the product.

What most don't understand is that these two are tightly connected and that Apple's clear social and corporate stance will affect the public image of Apple in a positive way, from which the shareholders and consumers will benefit.

A concrete example? -> Many government tenders all over the world require certain social and sustainable positions from companies in order to qualify. Apple is positioning itself favourably in competition for such tenders.

 

[yaxomoxay]

The minute any group, or subgroup of our society tries to set themselves above others, there is going to be trouble. Some people will read this as carte blanch to openly discriminate and the people that wrote this, and the other, bills know that.

You have to be careful, that's all I am saying. Suppose that you're a webmaster, and you enter into contract with a social group for a website + 12 months of updates/upgrades/maintenance. Then, when they tell you what to put on the website you find out that what they want is an anti-whatever, racial-charged product. Would it be right for you to be forced to fullfill the duties, and get associated with such group? It's not just religion guys, there's much more behind any policy.

 

[shk718]

So Tim Cook says I can't tell him who he can or cannot 'love,' but HE can tell ME what I can or cannot believe?

you can believe any moron thing you want - you CANNOT, however, hurt, damage, discriminate, kill or otherwise harm someone you personally deem unworthy simply because they do not hold the same beliefs as you.

 

[iBlazed]

So you would be ok with NO JEWS/NO BLACKS/NO DANISH served signs in store windows?

I'm ok with the NO DANISH part.

 

[technosix]

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?

I'm with you.

Sadly the head golfer, orator, lover of the brotherhood is destroying all that is American.

He doesn't care "where we stand with one another" he's too busy with nefarious actions.

Embarrassed to be the head of a once great nation, the apology tour continues.

 

[sransari]

So you would be ok with NO JEWS/NO BLACKS/NO DANISH served signs in store windows?

Yes, because this will instantly drive that business to bankruptcy, and that business will be gone forever. I am ok with that. Aren't you?

On the flip side, if a bigot could NOT show their true colors, they would stay in business, and people would end up patronizing them when they wouldn't have had they know that the business was run by bigots. That, I have a problem with.

 

[Huntn]

This IS the issue, religious freedom laws are not about religious freedom, ie, to worship how you see fit, but to ALLOW discrimination and exemptions from the law based on your religion, (may I add whatever that religion might be), that fall outside the realm of worship. Example: the Hobby Lobby case.

The real problem for Christians short of declaring Christianity the official religion or turning the US into a theocracy, is the slippery slope they are happy to slide down, or they just are not thinking about the "end" their means are enabling. Its about time we had some Satanic studies in Elementary school.

 

[ninethirty]

The world needs more decent people like you.

Good for Tim Cook. This is clearly not a business decision and it might cost Apple financially but as a shareholder I am ok with that. On big issues like that it's more important to do what's right than worrying about the bottom line.

 

[peterdevries]

It might not be legal discrimination, but someone who fires an individual because of his opinion should not teach about the decision of not providing a service (such as a cake) based on opinion.

It is not discrimination at all.

When you sign a contract with a company such as Apple, you also sign a code of conduct that stipulates that you adhere to the values of that company. Apple is very clear about those values.

For a very public position such as a lobbyist, a clear disagreement with Apple's values would be harmful. Apple cannot condone a public spokesperson for the company to communicate positions different to those of the company.

I'm very doubtful that someone in production or an Apple store would be fired if he or she personally would oppose gay marriage.

 

[monaarts]

APPLE TREATS EVERYONE THE SAME

**except if you have 17K to blow on a watch... then you get longer appointment, in a private room with an speciailist***

***or else you have to make an appointment, you aren't allowed to try out every watch, and you don't get to swap the bands***



BUT EVERYONE IS THE SAME I TELL YA

Everyone has the opportunity to buy the $17k watch and a longer appointment that comes with it....

Everyone has the same opportunity to make an appointment and try out watches and no one is allowed to swap the bands...

The same rules apply to everyone so I don't see what your point is? Completely different.

 

[0007776]

Sad that he is coming out as bigoted against religion. These laws have already existed in many states without causing problems. All the backlash against this law tells me that now that gays are getting very close to having equal rights, they are going to want to push it the other way to where they get to discriminate against religious people and try to get retaliation for any wrongs that they feel have been committed against them whether they get someone who is personally guilty or not.

 

[yaxomoxay]

Its about time we had some Satanic studies in Elementary school.

Talk to any 8yo kid and you'll understand that they don't need such studies

 

[peterdevries]

Yes, because this will instantly drive that business to bankruptcy, and that business will be gone forever.

Not if it is in a region where that kind of behaviour is applauded. There are many parts in the US where this would be welcomed and a business such as this could actually do quite well.

 

[oneMadRssn]

You have to be careful, that's all I am saying. Suppose that you're a webmaster, and you enter into contract with a social group for a website + 12 months of updates/upgrades/maintenance. Then, when they tell you what to put on the website you find out that what they want is an anti-whatever, racial-charged product. Would it be right for you to be forced to fullfill the duties, and get associated with such group? It's not just religion guys, there's much more behind any policy.

Do you really not understand the difference between discriminating against someone based on their innate natural characteristics and discriminating against someone based on their chosen bad behavior?

Everyone in this country is free to discriminate against jerks. Jerks are not a a protected class, and jerkiness is not an innate characteristic.

You don't need a law to tell you that you are free to not do business with jerks.

 

[yaxomoxay]

It is not discrimination at all.

When you sign a contract with a company such as Apple, you also sign a code of conduct that stipulates that you adhere to the values of that company. Apple is very clear about those values.

For a very public position such as a lobbyist, a clear disagreement with Apple's values would be harmful. Apple cannot condone a public spokesperson for the company to communicate positions different to those of the company.

I'm very doubtful that someone in production or an Apple store would be fired if he or she personally would oppose gay marriage.

Same might go for a bakery then. Before entering beginning the contract (the order etc.), you sign a code of conduct. Why can Apple discriminate against some people, while a bakery can't? They are both private entities.

 

[rdowns]

Sad that he is coming out as bigoted against religion. These laws have already existed in many states without causing problems. All the backlash against this law tells me that now that gays are getting very close to having equal rights, they are going to want to push it the other way to where they get to discriminate against religious people and try to get retaliation for any wrongs that they feel have been committed against them whether they get someone who is personally guilty or not.

Wow. Just wow.

 

[Rogifan]

So your issue is that Tim isn't getting involved in more issues or are you still anti-gay? Hard to keep up with your posts.

No just pointing out the hypocrisy. And the fact that Cook speaks out where it's safe to do so. In the end it's all about $$$.