Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
U.S. Senate Approves Anti-Discrimination Bill Endorsed by Tim Cook
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
EXCUSE ME??? Most of the persecution done in the last several centuries was committed by Christians. Unless you are now defining persecution as "not believing the exact same things we do"?
Last edited:
Straight out of the Keith O'Brien school on evading criticism.
Well, we saw how that worked out.
Its a real dilemma. The program from 2000 showed that giving religious conservatives some lip service would be enough to get votes to help business conservatives. But after more than a decade of missed promises, the RCs are loosing faith in the BCs and there doesn't seem to be a new strategy ready to go.
Sounds like we had similar upbringings. I can still remember arguing with the nuns at length in grade school. But while I also didn't respond to the fire and brimstone messages, there were worthy messages of care and service and forgiveness.
I also had the opportunity to combine my experiences with visits to churches and temples of friends (including Buddhist and Jewish). Learn what other's believe and you can better understand them. And sometimes take away more than what they expect you to learn.
I agree with others that when you create another protected group you just add to the backlog within the legal system. I think discrimination should just pertain to humans and their equal humane treatment, PERIOD.
I find it strange that discrimination is only considered in certain cases. The earlier study showed where EXXon was suspect, but as someone stated it could have been for completely unrelated reasons, yet they are labeled as discriminatory for this setup from a group with an agenda. Why is there no discrimination on race and sex, yet EEO quotas exists and this is not considered discrimination by law, why as you are telling the employer to hire the protected class for whatever reason??
As to the B&B owner that was sued and lost in the UK, why are the owners not allowed to choose whom to serve to? They admittedly also denied non-married heteros admittance as well, and this wasn't considered discrimination why (no one here is screaming about that injustice)? Or how about the store owners that discriminate against youth by not giving Senior discounts or limiting ordering from the Kid's menu, how is that not discrimination and allowed (as most businesses in the US adhere to such standards) when people not of a certain age get no perks?
Those types of cases never get taken and are frivolous, yet here in my hometown, a couple from a protected race have been denied a $300K business loan that they say will cost their business $50 million in revenue after they were told they were getting the loan. They are suing for discrimination (and more than likely the city will settle out of court rather than waste lawyer and courts expenses to fight this, as they are in negations as has been reported by the local news and city officials), yet the information not added to the public release was that they have a $1Million delinquency on their home loan that they failed to report in the loan documents, and their home was securing the loan. When this was found out, the loan was then denied. How is this discrimination? It is not but they are making headlines for their charges just as the EXXon story, where more may meet the eyes.
As to the religious ends, all I need say about that is refer to the religious zealots that picket the soldiers funerals and use their protections under the laws, Religions are no better in their addition to the lawsuit backlog.
The fact is that we are all different and there will never be true equality due to these differences. Don't think so try to go to most areas in the US, get a group of mixed individuals together, all take your shirts off and see if issues don't arise for the girls pertaining to nudity, public indecency, etc. Males have breasts just like women, but they are not considered taboo, even with sex being protected against discrimination, it is still allowed. Things won't generally change, just the court systems will be even more taxed with lawsuits in regard to the new law changes.
I find it strange that discrimination is only considered in certain cases. The earlier study showed where EXXon was suspect, but as someone stated it could have been for completely unrelated reasons, yet they are labeled as discriminatory for this setup from a group with an agenda. Why is there no discrimination on race and sex, yet EEO quotas exists and this is not considered discrimination by law, why as you are telling the employer to hire the protected class for whatever reason??
As to the B&B owner that was sued and lost in the UK, why are the owners not allowed to choose whom to serve to? They admittedly also denied non-married heteros admittance as well, and this wasn't considered discrimination why (no one here is screaming about that injustice)? Or how about the store owners that discriminate against youth by not giving Senior discounts or limiting ordering from the Kid's menu, how is that not discrimination and allowed (as most businesses in the US adhere to such standards) when people not of a certain age get no perks?
Those types of cases never get taken and are frivolous, yet here in my hometown, a couple from a protected race have been denied a $300K business loan that they say will cost their business $50 million in revenue after they were told they were getting the loan. They are suing for discrimination (and more than likely the city will settle out of court rather than waste lawyer and courts expenses to fight this, as they are in negations as has been reported by the local news and city officials), yet the information not added to the public release was that they have a $1Million delinquency on their home loan that they failed to report in the loan documents, and their home was securing the loan. When this was found out, the loan was then denied. How is this discrimination? It is not but they are making headlines for their charges just as the EXXon story, where more may meet the eyes.
As to the religious ends, all I need say about that is refer to the religious zealots that picket the soldiers funerals and use their protections under the laws, Religions are no better in their addition to the lawsuit backlog.
The fact is that we are all different and there will never be true equality due to these differences. Don't think so try to go to most areas in the US, get a group of mixed individuals together, all take your shirts off and see if issues don't arise for the girls pertaining to nudity, public indecency, etc. Males have breasts just like women, but they are not considered taboo, even with sex being protected against discrimination, it is still allowed. Things won't generally change, just the court systems will be even more taxed with lawsuits in regard to the new law changes.
Originally Posted by G51989 View Post
I was forced to go to CCD and mass until I was 18, hated every second of that. Unless my children offer an actual argument of why they should go, they aren't.
So are you not making the same mistakes your parents made with you just to the other end of things. My parents were of the same thought that you have about the strictness of the religion and not agreeing with it (and I am not young if you think that this is a newer generation thing), but raised me to have religion just not necessarily the strictness of the catholic upbringing they had. They allowed me to have an open mind about religion and make my own decisions. Do you not think that by denying your kids the exposure you are also denying the opportunity to experience and decide/ grow on their own. You said it was brainwashing, but keeping them entirely from it is the brainwashing the other way.
I always think of this thought I was told when I joined the military. My DI said "they're no atheists on the battlefields and in the foxholes!" When I went to war, I saw that statement first hand, people always seem to cry out to God, our Lord, Jesus, and praying for their safe keeping and return. In moments of tension, pain, and pressure, people seem to think and look for something else and a higher being, no matter their deity of choice.
I was forced to go to CCD and mass until I was 18, hated every second of that. Unless my children offer an actual argument of why they should go, they aren't.
So are you not making the same mistakes your parents made with you just to the other end of things. My parents were of the same thought that you have about the strictness of the religion and not agreeing with it (and I am not young if you think that this is a newer generation thing), but raised me to have religion just not necessarily the strictness of the catholic upbringing they had. They allowed me to have an open mind about religion and make my own decisions. Do you not think that by denying your kids the exposure you are also denying the opportunity to experience and decide/ grow on their own. You said it was brainwashing, but keeping them entirely from it is the brainwashing the other way.
I always think of this thought I was told when I joined the military. My DI said "they're no atheists on the battlefields and in the foxholes!" When I went to war, I saw that statement first hand, people always seem to cry out to God, our Lord, Jesus, and praying for their safe keeping and return. In moments of tension, pain, and pressure, people seem to think and look for something else and a higher being, no matter their deity of choice.
Great post (the second part, the first isn't directed at me) - and that's exactly why nobody should be forced to live by its moralities.
Taboo certainly, but a surprising number of states have no laws against it:
http://gotopless.org/topless-laws
Hard to know where to begin alot of the time. I'll try anyway.
First, our government is not designed to have two parties controlling all the power of the federal government. We're not supposed to have parties at all.
Second, our government was designed to have "roadblocks" at every turn. Look up "separation of powers", and try to comprehend for a moment why they exist.
Not criticism - hate filled bigotry from you.
No more interest in engaging with you.
----------
Yes, care to point out what you object to?
Apple has thousands of employees that make their products. Tim Cook essentially oversees the people that oversees people that oversee people that oversee those thousands of employees. He makes sure everything runs smoothly, and is there for making big decisions, but Tim Cook isn't the guy doing little things to make products and making day to day decisions. That's the job of people well below his pay grade.
Meanwhile, as the CEO of the largest company in the world, and as a gay man, he is in an influential position, and it's commendable that he's using that position to help advance equal civil rights for all.
You mean like these fairy tale-esque stories we call "religion", right?
Well, fairs fair. The Reid has refused to bring the House Budget to a vote 19 TIMES.
Sure. We can start where you called homosexual activities morally reprehensible and went on to say gays are "afflicted" with same sex attraction. The only affliction I see in this thread is using religion to discriminate against others.
It's almost 50/50. I see more hate and sarcasm towards religion in this thread than someone using their religion to discriminate toward gays. In reality. The bottom line. People have the right to not believe in Jesus. Just as people have the right to not believe in gay marriage.
And which group is actively trying to ban which? Which group is crying over the lost "right" to discriminate based on their religious view/sexual orientation when hiring/firing someone where those views/orientation doesn't have to do with the job at hand?
There is a difference between a belief and active discrimination. One side is screaming persecution where the other side is actually getting persecuted for it.
No, don't twist my words.
As an Apple shareholder, I prefer Tim Cook to do his lobbying on his private time and money.
As far as civil liberties and rights goes, as the CEO of Apple, it is more pressing that he focus on improving human rights of the workers assembling the iPhones and iPads in China.
Considering homosexual activities morally reprehensible isn't either hateful or bigoted.
I didn't say gays were afflicted with same sex attraction. I don't agree with identifying anyone based on their sexual preferences. I like to think there is more to a person.
I have sympathy for anyone who is afflicted with same sex attraction.
You might disagree with me, you are entitled to. However disagreeing with me doesn't negate my right to hold the opinions I do.
Bigotry isn't someone holding an opinion you disagree with.
I'd potentially categorize it as hateful based on your describing it as "morally reprehensible". Those are two words I usually reserve for violent criminals or corrupt politicians, not two consenting adults expressing their love or sexuality.
I'd be curious to find out what other legal, consensual acts you likewise find "morally reprehensible".
Perhaps you can describe some so I can see whether you unfairly single out homosexuals for this kind of condemnation—which IMO would qualify as hateful and bigoted.
YOU JUST DID!!
Saying that I'm "afflicted" with being a homosexual, isn't bigotry, it is ignorant, but not bigotry.
Holding me to a different standard, THAT is bigotry. Which you've expressed, and tried so hard with hiding behind platitudes like "I like to think there is more to a person", but you've made it abundantly clear that as a lesbian, I need to keep my "sex life" behind closed doors. Yet I have to see straight people bragging about their spouses, holding hands, kissing and embracing in public.
I've been fired because someone's religion ruled me a "pervert". I often hear "oh dear, what man hurt you" or "you just haven't found the right guy", yet people like you feel that I should quietly suck it up and hide who I am, so you feel more comfortable.
What kills me the most, these same arguments about morality were used to defend racial discrimination as well as anti-miscegenation laws.
Is this an American religious thing? Because my fiancee, her family and those she goes to church with and her priest are all totally fine with homosexuality and they're all Catholics. Her best friend is gay. Sure there are a few blips here (most recent one appears to be a hotel run by Christians denying a gay couple being denied a room) but it appears to be nice than some countries in acceptance.
(genuine question. Because I see a lot of Americans and folk in the Middle East not liking what individuals do and using religion as a weapon of hate.)
(genuine question. Because I see a lot of Americans and folk in the Middle East not liking what individuals do and using religion as a weapon of hate.)
Last edited: