Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Status
Not open for further replies.
In theory, correct. In practice, almost certainly not. The law does not say "Religious defense always wins." It applies a balancing test. There are two parts to the test. First, in order for the business to claim the religious freedom defense, it must demonstrate that the law being applied presents a substantial burden on the practice of religion. This won't apply to most businesses, because most businesses (especially large one's) cannot realistically claim a religious identity. They would have to be closely held (like Hobby Lobby), or have some explicitly stated religious mission. Even if the business could be said to have a religious identity, it would have to be demonstrated that the law substantially burdens their practice of religion. I can think of no religion in which it violates a religious principle to serve a gay couple in a restaurant or to sell some commodity or good to someone who is gay.

But we're not done yet. Even if the law places a substantial burden on religion, the state can still demonstrate that the law is the least restrictive means of accomplishing a compelling governmental interest. This is known as strict scrutiny. Some commentators note that this level of scrutiny is "strict in theory; fatal in fact," but the worst of the parade of horribles brought out by critics would not get past this step in the analysis. Critics have warned that doctors or EMTs could refuse to treat gay patients. That's preposterous because such a law requiring doctors to treat patients would certainly pass this test.

Now, when it comes to photographers, bakers, florists, etc., at gay weddings, the law may protect them. But do we really want to be forcing people to support something they find wrong? If I go into a gay person's T-shirt shop and ask for 2,000 T-shirts saying "Homosexuality Is a Sin," do we want to force the shop owner to make those T-shirts? If I went to a photographer who refused to photograph my wedding because (in her eyes) my wedding would be a cult ritual, I would prefer to know that rather than have her forced to photograph a wedding she objects to, and therefore do a worse job because of it.

As a Christian conservative it boggles my mind how serving anyone who is gay affects my relationship with my God. I rub shoulders with all manner of people everyday... Some are gay, bigots, adulterers, liers, haters, etc...

If having to serve those who do not adhere to Christian principles affects you that much. Then It seems the only way to have a relationship with God would be to stop going outside.
 
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?

Those signs are symbolic. They don't overrule federal or state laws. Businesses that have signs have the same power to refuse as those that don't have those signs.

You can refuse service to somebody because they're barefoot or shirtless on your premises. Nobody is saying you can't.

What you can't and/or should not be able to do is discriminate against particular classes of people. And no, "barefoot persons" or "shirtless customers" are not classes of people.
 
Firing someone for their beliefs is a form of discrimination. Prejudice is shown again the person being fired. That's the definition of discrimination. Now, at least in the U.S. just because an employer discriminates agains an employee in this way doesn't necessarily mean it was illegal unless the employer was a government entity.

I see your point, but the situation here is different. As a lobbyist the person has a public function for Apple and as such his outspoken views cannot be opposite of those of Apple. Granted, he should not have been hired in the first place, but he so clearly opposes Apple's values (and likely code of conduct) that it likely wasn't an issue, because I don't see reports of him suing Apple for anything.

Again, I do not believe Apple would fire any "normal" employee for having an opinion and would be opposed to such a thing.
 
I'm sure I'll get flamed for this, but I'm not a fan of cook being so open about his personal feelings. I understand the issues is controversial, but I do not think that it's a company's purpose to always have to be the one to be so politically correct.

be quiet. no one cares about your feelings.
:rolleyes:

or are you suggesting that once someone gains a certain level of notoriety, they should no longer have feelings or they should no longer be able to express their feelings?

the dude is gay.. he's probably been victim to heavy discrimination in some form or another his whole life.. and you're suggesting even though he's now in a strong position to stand up for his rights, he should just shut up about it?

-----
edit- oh.. the first sentence.. i wasn't really trying to be an a_hole to you.. just trying to make a point though i suppose i could of done a better job using better words.. oh well ;)
 
Last edited:
Since Tim Cook is going there... As a black man, I find it interesting when I go into an Apple Store that I don't see much black people employed by Apple.

There's this one article stating one manager saying "black employees don't reach management." Now I agree that majority of white people shop in Apple Stores. And, I'm not attacking Apple of being a racist company... But I'd rather it be discussed openly to address the situation.

Not to mention the Apple executive team.
 
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.
 
Looking at some of their decisions, I think we are headed to a very dark place...

In a theocratic society, you are either 'of the body' or you aren't. If you aren't, you are stoned, beaten, locked up, or discriminated against.

If these laws aren't stopped, we are headed for a theocratic society, and whatever 'god' is chosen to represent it will demand extreme devotion and adherence to 'it's' laws as handed down by men...

Just like the Taliban...

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.
 
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.

Just because something is in the Bible doesn't mean it can't be the subject of a law, but you better have a better reason than that if you want to pass it. Just like I don't want another religion's morals legally enforced on me, I wouldn't want to enforce mine on other people.
 
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.

Who cares about fables written in a book about 2000 years ago. Those fables are as relevant as greek mythology or Dr. Suess.

We are not desert nomads anymore, living in the bronze age.
 
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.

The Bible is not for everyone the gold standard of behaviour.

There is a reason why government and religion are separated. So, thankfully there is not a 1:1 relationship between what some religious documentation says about things and what the law says about the same.
 
Heaven forbid that we keep the United States as it was founded. Instead people want the government to tell people what to do instead.
 
I think this is a good thing, like in a food-label kinda way.
(This item contains x,y and z).

A sign on the door with the "nutrition facts" equivalent would be nice.
"This restaurant contains: Religious nuts (78%) Racists (22%)".

-Yeah, I´m trying to cut down on the negativity in my life so I might go somewhere else forever :)
 
The Bible is not for everyone the gold standard of behaviour.

There is a reason why government and religion are separated. So, there is not a 1:1 relationship between what the religious documentation says about things and what the law says about the same.

exactly. why is this so difficult for people to comprehend?
 
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.

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.
 
The products Apple has been designing during his time as CEO seem to agree with the adjective you used. So, don't be sick, it's a waste of time, the market will dump Apple just like it happened before. And don't be sad (that is, unless you like iToys), because all the good stuff came from the NeXT years, and they trashed it a few years ago. All that good stuff is not dead, it's arriving to the open source community, and we'll continue using it in the future.

In other words, Tim is talking on behalf of iwatch owners. Don't be sick, the world isn't looking at the iwatch. This guy found his glory minute in this moment, so he wants to shout out loud his political and ideology position. But it won't last much.

You are absolutely correct. I'm only in Apple's ecosystem because it makes me the most money right now. The second something better comes along, I'm out. I haven't exactly been a lifetime fan, but even I could see the difference once Jobs died and Cook took over. If you think the bugs in iOS are annoying as a user, try being a developer!

Tell me more about the NeXT stuff going open source. I haven't heard about that.
 
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.

America is not a Christian nation, your fairytale book is not relevant in our law. Besides, if homosexuality is against biblical principles, God would have never made gay people. Of course, I'm sure you're part of the "homosexuality is a choice" crowd. By the way, segregationists used to use the bible to support their stance as well, you're no different and America isn't stupid enough to fall for this again.

PS
Lots of things that you consider sinful are perfectly legal. Divorce, adultery, smoking, gambling, prostitution in some places, shellfish, etc. To say otherwise is just silly.
 
Who cares about fables written in a book about 2000 years ago. Those fables are as relevant as greek mythology or Dr. Suess.

We are not desert nomads anymore, living in the bronze age.

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.
 
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.

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.
 
You are absolutely correct. I'm only in Apple's ecosystem because it makes me the most money right now. The second something better comes along, I'm out. I haven't exactly been a lifetime fan, but even I could see the difference once Jobs died and Cook took over. If you think the bugs in iOS are annoying as a user, try being a developer!

Tell me more about the NeXT stuff going open source. I haven't heard about that.

Don't worry your pretty little head, I guarantee you that any tech company you choose to switch to will be just just as pro-gay as apple. May as well become Amish!

----------

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.

Your words to god's ears. ;)
 
America is not a Christian nation, your fairytale book is not relevant in our law. Besides, if homosexuality is against biblical principles, God would have never made gay people. Of course, I'm sure you're part of the "homosexuality is a choice" crowd. By the way, segregationists used to use the bible to support their stance as well, you're no different and America isn't stupid enough to fall for this again.

PS
Lots of things that you consider sinful are perfectly legal. Divorce, adultery, smoking, gambling, prostitution in some places, shellfish, etc. To say otherwise is just silly.

Again, another person that repeating opinions. Read and investigate the Bible for yourself. Don't rely on other people's opinions and views.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.