Apple asks Arizona Governor Brewer to veto religious freedom bill SB1062

“Corporate tech giant Apple has asked Gov. Jan Brewer to veto the controversial religious freedom bill SB1062, the company and the Governor’s Office confirmed,” Jeremy Duda reports for The Arizona Capitol Times. “Brewer spokesman Andrew Wilder said the governor spoke on the phone with the company.

“The request comes as Apple prepares to open a new sapphire glass manufacturing plant in Mesa. The plant, which Brewer and other political leaders have touted as economic development coup for Arizona, will employ about 700 full-time employees,” Duda reports. “The chorus of anti-SB1062 businesses kept getting louder on Monday as 83 companies, trade organizations and other business groups signed onto a letter, originally sent on Friday by the Arizona Technology Council, urging the governor to veto the bill. The additional signees included several major hotel chains, tourism groups, corporate giants like AT&T and other technology companies.”

Duda reports, “Numerous business organizations have urged Brewer to veto SB1062, which supporters say will protect religious freedom and critics say will allow companies to use religious beliefs to discriminate against the LBGT community.”

Read more in the full article here.

“Some have claimed that a bill recently passed by the Arizona legislature would give businesses broad license to not serve someone for being gay,” Napp Nazworth reports for The Christian Post.

“This claim, though, may be a misreading, according a CP legislative analysis,” Nazworth reports. “While the bill is an attempt to broaden who is covered under its religious freedom protections, in all cases it actually narrows when a religious belief could be used to refuse service.”

Read more in the full article here.

“SB1062 redefines and expands the state’s definition of “exercise of religion” and “state action” to protect businesses, corporations and people from lawsuits after denying services based on a sincere religious belief,” Josh Frigerio reports for ABC 15 Arizona. “According to the bill, ‘A person whose religious exercise is burdened in violation of this section may assert that violation as a claim or a defense in a judicial proceeding, regardless of whether the government is a party to the proceeding.'”

“The bill also establishes a set of needed guidelines for when this potential defense could be used in court: The person’s action or refusal to act is motivated by a religious belief; The person’s religious belief is sincerely held; [and] The state action substantially burdens the exercise of the person’s religious beliefs,” Frigerio reports. “The bill defines a ‘person’ as “any individual, association, partnership, corporation, church, religious assembly or institution or other business organization.”

“Opponents of the bill fear that the legislation would lead to businesses discriminating against people, such as those in same-sex unions, based solely on the owner’s religious beliefs,” Frigerio reports. “Cathi Herrod, President of the Center for Arizona Policy, an organization that supports the passing of the bill, says the bill ‘protects the religious freedom of every Arizonan.’ In a statement released Saturday, Feb. 22, Herrod said, ‘It’s a shame that we even need a bill like this in America. But growing hostility against freedom in our nation, and the increasing use of government to threaten and punish its own citizens, has made it necessary.'”

“The Arizona State Legislature approved passage of SB1062 on Thursday, Feb. 20,” Frigerio reports. “The bill was delivered to Gov. Jan Brewer’s desk on Monday, Feb. 24. She has until Saturday, March 1 to either sign or veto it.”

Read more in the full article here.

The full text of Arizona Senate Bill 1062:

[Thanks to MacDailyNews readers too numerous to mention individually for the heads up.]


  1. Apple should stick to making great products. They are falling behind samsung , and have been over promising and under delivering. Stop worrying about gay stuff. Tim cook is destroying aapl.

    1. As far as my poor eyesight can tell, this bill covers everyone against everyone.
      If you are LBGT, then a religious person cannot use your LBGT’ness to discriminate against you as the law protects you in as much as it does other religions from other religions, i.e Christian against Muslim or Muslim against Christian or even Zoroastrians from descriminating against Christians and Muslims!!!!!
      A very broad law indeed that it has had to be qualified so that unusaul circumstances can be included in the future should they arise.
      Now, What is the panic about?
      Was it about the use of the word religion?
      Are you all going to jump me because I have dared to use the word religion??

      1. So the purpose of the law is…? Horseshit pandering by politicians to nutcases? In case you haven’t noticed, LBGT is not a religious condition. Religion is a choice and a belief. It afflicts an individual only to the extent they allow it. That you have that right, to choose and not have it forced upon you, is protected by the Constitution. The Constitution does not give you the right to force your beliefs on anyone.

          1. When humanity finally gets around to sending colonists to a new planet to live, the politically correct “law” will force a gay crew. The “activists” will be shocked when the colony simply dies off once the last original crew member croaks.

            1. My comment was meant to touch upon a few things. Perhaps I did it clumsily. My intent was to point out:

              – The militancy of the LBGT brigade
              – The tendency of the “law” to bend/harm proven, traditional principles so as to accommodate all sorts of things demanded by a vocal minority
              – That the inability of a gay crew to reproduce would necessitate “DISCRIMINATION” against gays by NASA lest the mission fail. (That’s okay, I know, we’ll send them with a bunch of test tubes and some of the lesbians will carry the next-gen to term if/when the incubator of the future goes on the fritz.)

            2. – The militancy of the LBGT brigade

              I’m pretty sure what you think is “militancy” is more that act of LBGT people fighting BACK against discrimination. If everyone treated them as equals, there would be no “militancy”. The real militants are the ones that are fighting so hard to discriminate against them, like, against their right to marry, their right to eat in a restaurant, etc… And if you think that it’s the poor religious folk who are being persecuted, it’s the religious people who always start the fight against people’s freedoms, then when people fight back, the religious cry persecution against their beliefs. It’s pathetic.

              – The tendency of the “law” to bend/harm proven, traditional principles so as to accommodate all sorts of things demanded by a vocal minority

              Like the laws being passed by the vocal minority (the religious) to bend/harm proven, traditional principles of equality and freedom. Well, yeah, you did get that one right.

              – That the inability of a gay crew to reproduce would necessitate “DISCRIMINATION” against gays by NASA lest the mission fail.

              This one’s just too stupid to even bother rebutting.

              Look, no one is trying to take away your god given right to personally hate gays. It’s a free country and you’re free to hate whomever you want. However, it would be much cooler if you read the Bible and learned how to love everyone, rather than let Satan’s hate/disgust fill your soul. Believe it or not, you actually have a choice. And, what the issue really is, it’s discrimination. After all of the discrimination that’s happened in the last two centuries (and beyond), you’d think we’d have learned our lesson by know. But, I guess not.

            3. My Goodness, you have always proven to be a partisan-robot, a low information shill that echos the bile your party leaders spew without thought or hesitation, as such I usually ignore you.

              This gem of a post into your twisted minds logic (really, lack-there-of) stands alone in its hate, bigotry and stupidity and has me inclined to call you on it.

              The “militancy of the LBGT brigade” – Nice subversive little propaganda trick you used there. Remember when civil rights activists, especially black rights groups were upsetting your fascist parents? Yeah, they used to call them “militant” just like terrorists, and environmentalists. We see what you did there and are not impressed. There is nothing “Militant” about expecting the same rights and respect as a heterosexual. Sorry, there just isn’t.

              The “Tendancy of the law to bend/harm PROVEN, traditional principles” – Just WTF is this word vomit supposed to mean? Laws are meant to define and direct, not bend/harm you dolt. It is forked tongues such as yours that do the bending and harm.

              It really shouldn’t be said, but since you are so low-functioning, let me spell it out. It wouldn’t be discrimination unless NASA refused to allow any gay people on the mission, because they were gay. Despite your poor analogy, gays can and do make/have/raise children. Perhaps they would be willing to “take one for the human team” and make babies the “old fashioned way”. But of course, you presume that it is a. a mission requirement, and B. it is not something science/technology could solve. Perhaps the first space invert procedure happens?

              At any rate, you are clearly a delusional bigot seeking to agitate others to your twisted thinking. homosexuals have been here for centuries, humans are not extinct yet, I think your concern is a load of straw malarky.

            4. In every generation a small minority of people are LGBT. This has always been the case, for at least as long as recorded human history.

              You get the small minority bit, don’t you? The human race isn’t going to die out if LGBT people are treated fairly by society, because the overwhelming majority of human beings will still be straight.

              Honestly, that comment is almost as bad as that “Gays are planning to take over the world!” crap that’s been peddled in Uganda for the past few years.

            5. Say a nudist wants to go into Zingerman’s Deli to get a ham sandwich. This nudist has “rights,” of course. There’s a list of them being recited on MSNBC nightly for their 3 viewers. Freedom of expression, freedom of speech, freedom of religion… above all, “tolerance.” There must be “tolerance,” always.

              So, does Mr. Zingerman have to allow some guy with his kibbles and bits hanging out to even enter into his deli, immediately driving away a significant portion of his regular clientele, and/or does Zingerman have to serve the nudist? If so, why? If so, what about the harm to Zingerman’s business? Is that simply to be ignored? “Tolerance” outweighs Zingerman’s rights, right? Does Zingerman have equal rights with the nudist? Does he really? On the other hand, if Zingerman does not have to serve the nudist, why?

            6. I don’t think nudists are included in the federal (nor state) laws with regards to discrimination. But homosexuals are (…”discrimination based on race, religion, ethnic origin, sexual orientation…”).

              So, your fictional case falls into public decency / nuisance category. Much like refusing to serve drunks, as well as similar other limits (“no shirts, no shoes — no service!”). So, for Mr. Zingerman, the choice is his, and it will depend on his business. If his deli is located at or near a nudist beach, he might be open to allowing nudists, as it might be good for business (although he’d probably be wise to put up a sign, warning “textile” guests of possible appearance of nudists in the deli). Otherwise, he may put the above-mentioned sign on the door without being worried about a law suit from the nudists. However, he cannot put signs such as “Colored only”, or “No dogs or gays!”…

            7. But Predrag, where do we draw the line? And who states what line is right and which isn’t. That is the issue. Once we begin tolerating one, we have to open up tolerance to all. Where does it begin and end?

            8. What if Zingerman’s customers are 90% construction workers who have decided to find a new lunchtime spot after Zingerman was forced to serve RuPaul who was getting feathers from his/her boa all over the lunchmeat? Zingerman complies with the law and goes out of business a week later or Zingerman doesn’t comply and is hauled into court, fined, sued, etc. and goes out of business anyway. What did Zingerman do to cause this? Are Zingerman’s right’s equal to those of RuPaul? Are they really?

            9. No, I was quite clear: Zingerman’s customers, 90% of whom just happen to be on a lunch break from the construction site, simply do not like feathers on their lunchmeat. Try fixating on the crux of the issue instead of conjuring up your ilk’s typical “outrage” over some periphery in a weak attempt to distract from the real points.

            10. OK, in that case I’ll fixate on the “crux of the issue” as you call it.

              Oh look, it’s a completely fabricated straw man unworthy of response!!!


          2. When you are forced to marry someone of the same sex, then you will have a legitimate complaint. Until then, your nose is in somebody else’s business and you are the one putting it there. You should stop if it bothers you.

  2. Good for them. It’s almost as if the Christian Fundamentalist Taliban in the USA has now completely given up on preventing same-sex marriage, and now wants to be able to openly discriminate against the LGBT population instead.

    I hope Jan Brewer recalls this particular text when she decides what she’s going to do.

    “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”

        1. ‘Humans said that, in the human-written Bible.
          2 Timothy 3:16 “All scripture is given by inspiration of God (through humans)…” .

          ‘It also says to keep slaves in that book…’
          1 Timothy 1:9 “We also know that law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels…10 for adulterers and perverts, for SLAVE TRADERS and liars and perjurers–and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine….”

          ‘…and that Pi is exactly equal to three.’
          Can you show me where it says that? I’ve been through the Bible and have never seen that one.

          1. 1 Kings 7:23

            “And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about.”

            Diameter of 10 cubits, circumference of 30.

            As for that Timothy quote, if Pepsi says it’s better than Coke you call it advertising rather than truth. Why would the same logic not apply when the Bible says it’s the word of God? What else would the authors of the Bible say, don’t read this because it’s actually just us making stuff up?

          2. Look, you have found a quote about slave traders, but missed quotes about slave ownerships. And that on two cloths and seafood being abomination as well as homosexuality.

            So lets not try to make sense of things that can not make sense, Bible including.

      1. The bible…which was written by MEN, not God. Whether it’s really God’s word is debatable, but imperfect men put pen to paper and likely made mistakes *and* put their own spin on them, either misinterpreting or flat-out mis-stating “God’s word.”

        The bible, which has been translated and re-translated from language to language, with all of the errors, mis-interpretations, and *intentional* changes during that translation.

        The bible, which has been edited and re-edited…King James version, anyone? If it’s truly God’s word, shouldn’t their just be ONE version?

        Of course not, every ruler, translator, scribe, Pope (and everyone else who got the chance) put their mark on it.

        It’s like the kids game, where they stand in a circle, and you whisper something in one kid’s ear, they whisper it to the next, etc, etc. By the time it comes full circle, there’s usually NOTHING left of the original statement.

        Who is to say the bible hasn’t suffered the same fate over the last 2000+ years?

        And this is all assuming that there really is a God, that he really did speak to these men who wrote down “his” words, etc, etc.

    1. And one of those liberties called out in the First Amendment is the right to “free exercise of religion.” Many, if not all, religions, prohibit their adherents from participating in or facilitating in any way those practices forbidden by their religion; therefore, a Catholic baker could not accept a special commission for a “wedding” cake for a gay couple, nor could an Evangelical photographer accept a commission to photograph such a “wedding.”

      However, the Catholic baker could NOT refuse to sell an off-the-shelf cake to such a couple, nor could the Evangelical photographer refuse to sell a pre-manufactured photographic backdrop for use at their reception. Why? Because these are products offered for sale to the public, not commissions for directed or personal services.

      If you disagree with the above, consider what your response would be if the event in question were, rather than a gay “wedding,” a Christmas party and business publicity event for a brothel in Nye County, Nevada, where prostitution is legal. Would you still believe that someone should be compelled by force of law to provide their services to such an event?

  3. Bullsh*t!! I hope the governor does NOT give in and veto that bill. At least one state is stepping in.

    I personally don’t believe or agree in homosexuality, but have two gay uncles and treat gays no differently because they choose to be gay – don’t start the argument, it is a choice. But, just because I wouldn’t refuse to serve you, because I believe all people sin, just different sins, and all people regardless of their sin deserve to still be treated well and loved as a brother/sister. However, just because I believe this does not mean all do and there are those who would prefer to stay completely away because that is their belief and their faith and their choice, and their right to religious freedom should afford their right to choice just like a homosexual can choose not to do business with him.

    1. It is not a choice. Accept that one truth, and everything else you think about how society has treated (and in some places continues to treat) gay people suddenly looks very very un-Christian.

      1. ‘Accept that one truth’ – except it is a lie. Ppl have different personalities and their environments contribute to certain desires, that doesn’t mean they are born that way.
        Are racists, rapists, pedophiles, murderers, dog lovers, etc born that way? Many share common genes but to argue there are no other factors is absurd to the highest degree.

        Oh, and if you look at the facts, you’ll see VERY little actual bad treatment of homosexuals by Christians, despite many exaggerated and many concocted stories. Sure they don’t want laws changed to redefine a religious and traditional rite, but look at the treatment they get just for standing up for this justice.

        In reality, there is a very vocal minority who are extremely aggressive, abusice and rise to anyone who doesn’t agree. The truth is that they want to force their agenda and ‘rights’ on top of everyone – religious freedom be damned.

        1. All LGBT people want is to be treated the same way non-LGBTs are, that’s all. Why is this so hard for some to accept?

          Every generation has a minority of left-handed people, and just as with LGBTs nobody is sure what causes people to be left-handed. Can you imagine a law being passed that would permit business owners who CHOOSE to live their lives by a religion to refuse service to the left-handed? It’s utterly ridiculous, just as it ought to be for refusing service to LGBT people.

          1. No Dave, they want laws changed to redefine religious rites that form a solid part of the foundation for great countries and force society to change their moral stance on particular issues.

            People have equal rights in America. God bless America!

            1. No, Whatisploth; they don’t want laws that would in any way redefine religious rites (as well as religious rights). According to American constitution, NO LAW can be enacted that reduces your religious freedom; you are entitled to exercise it as much as you feel fit.

              BUT, you are not allowed to discriminate against others. Not if they are of different race, sex, social class, level of education, sexual orientation. And no, you cannot claim religious belief as an excuse for such discrimination (“My religion thinks being obscenely rich is morally wrong, so I refuse service to rich people”).

              People don’t quite have equal rights in America, but they are coming around slowly. Perhaps one day, they will.

            2. Marriage = ‘one man one woman’.

              That is God’s definition which was good enough for the founders…

              But for you, this ‘equal rights’ leaves me having to have to accept it is ok then perform marriage ceremony for two males despite my conviction it is wrong and against the will of the God I worship?

              So that’s fine, religious abuse. One person forcing another to go against their convictions. While the other shoe is what?
              People choosing a lifestyle want it accepted and promoted in schools, flaunted in parades and included in marriage despite the fact they already *have* equal rites – recognition, right to vote, tax laws.

              What’s next – I want to be classed as a doctor. I’m discriminated against as I don’t have equal rites as others. We should redefine ‘doctor’ to include me.

            3. The only people who claim the demand that churches perform gay weddings are conservatives. You will NEVER hear anyone in the LGBT community asking that churches perform these weddings.

              For example, Greek Orthodox church will NOT perform a wedding unless BOTH bride and groom were baptised in Christian Orthodox faith. Mind you, protestand or catholic baptism doesn’t count, so even if you a man and a woman, you can’t get married (and forget about gay!). So, no, churches cannot be expected to bend these rules. But churches are NOT the only place where couples can get legally married, and the other place is NOT allowed to discriminate against anyone.

              It looks like the large swath of America, where gays simply live in closets, are struggling to accept the fact that they in fact do exist. Recognition is the first necessary step on the road to acceptance. It is a big step though, but more and more Americans are finally making it.

            4. – What’s next – I want to be classed as a doctor. I’m discriminated against as I don’t have equal rites as others. We should redefine ‘doctor’ to include me.

              Actually, you can be a doctor, you just need to go to school, and get the necessary education. You are as equal and free to be a doctor as everyone else is. That’s how equality works.

              But, wow! Imagine how you would feel if a certain group of people said, “We need laws so that religious people can’t go to school and become a doctor! It’s against our beliefs!!!” That would be horrible and I’m sure you’d feel like those people were obnoxious, myopic, self-centered asswipes. Right?

              And, if that still doesn’t compute, let me be a little more blunt, you’re the one doing the persecuting, not the one being persecuted.

        2. I’m not sure in what part of the world you grew up, but it is clear that you have been effective shielded from the scientific research and information, widely publicly available for decades now, that clearly demonstrates that choice has nothing to do with homosexuality (no normal person chooses to be gay; not today, with such massive discrimination and misstreatment). About the only amount of “choice” here is if a homosexual person chooses to live a heterosexual lifestyle (a good example would be the 50’s popular Hollywood actor Rock Hudson, who publicly lived straight life, even though he was gay), due to the societal pressures. Just about the same if you were to choose to live with a man, even though you are straight.

          In my early adulthood, I had the same prejudices as you with respect to homosexuality. Eventually, I had realised that no; they do NOT (and simply cannot anyway) “force their agenda” on anyone. Exposing heterosexuals to the display of homosexual interaction (holding hands, kissing, living together, whatever) does NOT turn straight children or adults into gays, contrary to what many religious organisations preach.

          There is only one thing that gay minority (much like ANY other minority: black, latino, or any other ethnicity or race) wants to achieve: equal rights and treatment from the society, as the majority. Gays are today in the same position where blacks were in the 60’s, with their rights slowly being recornised by the increasing numbers of majority. There will always be those who will hide their dislike of homosexuality behind the religious belief, but the end result will always be nothing short of discrimination.

          Majority of American population is joining the developed world in recognising this discrimination and eliminating it. Then there is the other part of the population that remains pulling the society back to the dark ages. Much like Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Syria, Somalia, Sudan… all fine, conservative societies…

          1. That being said you’re also aware that science has found that pedophilia isn’t a choice either, right? I assume as a level headed scholar who isn’t from the dark ages, you surely defend their rights to exercise their natural inclinations, even though [I assume] you can’t wrap your mind around it? Am I to understand that I should also openly embrace it even though my personal conscience says it is wrong?

            I don’t agree with persecuting anyone. But I also don’t agree with everyone telling me I’m a bigot for not agreeing with it…which is a form of persecution in its self.

            1. That is absolutely correct, pedophilia is also NOT a choice. If I understand right, pedophilia is considered a mental disorder.

              To answer your question (“Should I openly embrace it…”), the answers is simple and logical NO. Unlike homosexuality, which involves two consenting adults, pedophilia involves a child, and therefore legally, as well as morally, simply doesn’t stand.

              And no, telling you that you are a bigot is NOT a form of persecution. It would ONLY be a form of persecution if as such it DENIED you something (a right, a privilege) that is available to the majority of the community around you.

              You may continue to believe whatever you wish with respect to homosexuality. This is what religious freedom allows you. But you CANNOT deny ANYONE else something that you are given and explain this away using religion.

              It is really very, very simple.

            2. Morals are not based on religion. Just like birth, marriage and death religion has inserted itself into morals and claimed them.

              Don’t kill each other, don’t steal from each other, and don’t be jealous of each other are ideas that came about long before Moses apparently went up the mountain. You can’t exactly have a functioning human community without them.

            3. lol good one!

              Yes they were killing each other over land, euthanising babies to control population and making slaves without Gods laws.

              But regardless – you believe you have a good moral stance? Do you hold to it?

              Truth is, without God we don’t and just try to compare ourselves with others to convince ourselves. But the truth is God set the standards, gave us the laws and we break them.

              We need Jesus

            4. And you know this how Dave H? Are you a time-traveler or do you have some factual evidence to base this OPINION.

              ALL morals were derived from the Ten Commandments. It was in inset of morals, direction and final law by God.

            5. @whatisploth

              “Yes they were killing each other over land, euthanising babies to control population and making slaves without Gods laws.”

              You just described most of the Old Testament after the Ten Commandments. The Israelites, who were favoured by God, were genocidal maniacs who liked nothing more than massacring an entire town or making slaves of their neighbours.

              And they were the ones following the Ten Commandments.

              And yes, I see myself as having a very good moral stance thanks. I’m in a 14 year long monogamous relationship, I give to charity, I help my neighbours, and campaign for the environment. I see it as part of being human to help other people and try to ensure that the world around us is protected for future generations.

            6. Look up persecution. You’re making up definitions. Try being the business who denied services to someone of homosexual orientation and tell me if they’re being persecuted.

            7. You seem to be mixing up the meanings of persecution and prosecution.

              Persecution means a consistent and prolonged unfair treatment of someone (or group of people) by others.

              Prosecution would be what would happen to a business that discriminates against gays (assuming the standing laws of the land prohibited such discrimination). Either a customer who denied service, or a district attorney would file charges and prosecute such business.

            8. I think what you must mean is the ‘attraction to children’ is not a choice?

              Or do you actually believe that a person who carries out an action does so with no control? Murderers thieves n pedophiles would love you to be making laws!

              This is only one step further down the crazy interpretation of ‘research’ path.

              Even if research showed that a person is born with a certain desire (but let me be clear IT DOESNT) the person still has a choice. Every time.

              The consenting adults argument is null n void when you see your position of ‘equal rights’ leaves vulnerable children in these relationships – no choice and this is a fundamental right for a child – access to a mother and a father…they would exist without such.

            9. No, I did NOT say that. The point of my message is not whether pedophilia is a choice or not.

              Pedophilia is sexual attraction to a child. As children are NOT sexually mature, it can only be a one-way attraction. And legally, because children cannot consent to such one-way attraction, it is NOT acceptable.

              Homosexuality is attraction to one’s own sex. It appears in a small percentage of world population (numbers are unreliable and vary between 2-10%, depending on whom you ask). Unlike sexual attraction to a child, homosexuality (much like heterosexuality) is between consenting adults. The difference is fundamental.

              This isn’t too difficult to understand and argue.

            10. Predrag, that’s a very weak argument, considering that homosexual orientation was also considered to be a mental disorder until left-leaning professional organizations declared it, essentially by fiat, to be not so.

              And it should be noted that no one is being denied any rights. Any person has the right to marry a person of the opposite sex, because that’s the only way that one can fulfill all of the purposes of marriage. A good analogy would be if one had to pick a single vehicle for a construction business; one could, of course, purchase a Porsche coupe, but that would fail several of the purposes of buying a vehicle for a construction business. “But it gets us where we want to go!” you object, and it certainly does; but it can’t carry more than two people, and it certainly can’t carry 4×8 plywood.

              Just because two people love each other and want to spent their lives together does not mean that the relationship is a marriage in any sense that demands recognition by society. The love – and I do not deny the reality of that love – is not the point.

            11. Marriage has evolved throughout the centuries, in order that it is in step with the needs of society. Extending it to same-sex couples is just one more step in that evolution.

              Marriage does not belong to religion, it belongs to us all as a community. It is administered on our behalf by the state, and the religious aspect is entirely optional. So what is the big deal about including same-sex couples in the definition, especially when as you say you cannot deny the reality of love?

              Locking marriage into a strict and never-changing form would consign it to irrelevance. Is that what you want? If so, I really don’t get why.

            12. That’s easy to say, but essentially God invented marriage. He defined it.

              The founders believed and followed His precepts (of which equal rights are encouraged) and now ppl such as yourself want to hold to bits and redefine them.

              You want society to think homosexual union is fine? No worries. Give them safety, laws whatever but call it what it is. It is not marriage and they should only have access to children if they can have them naturally.

              Next up polygamy, beastiality and pedophilia. The rights of those ppl are being trampled.

              I can not believe we are so reserved in that we are not redefining marriage to suit.

            13. @ whatisploth and many other anti-love people on here:

              marriage is about procreation? WHAT???

              so you would deny two heterosexuals who are beyond childbearing age marrige?

              Or, how about a pure young woman, sterile due to infection or birth defect? does she not deserve to be seen in the eyes of gOD as sacred in her union?

              (i use the little g BIG OVERDOSE in pure description of my veiw of religion, not spirituality)

              Please go back to the dark ages, or at least become a luddite who eschews keyboards so we dont have to read your ignorance

            14. So you’re saying that a man and a woman who marry in the full knowledge that they will not be having children together can’t be considered to be in a “real” marriage?
              Similarly, are you saying that children born to parents who are not married are not part of a “real” family?
              You might want to read the Bible again. There are many, many instances of children born out of wedlock who not only were considered legitimate but even heroes.
              Let’s leave the issue of children and marriage out of this, the USA and most Western societies have far too many of one existing without the other to be able to accurately define “normal”.

            15. @whatisploth

              “That’s easy to say, but essentially God invented marriage. He defined it.”

              Actually he didn’t. You’ve just been told that he has. Ancient Egyptians and Babylonians were marrying long before the Cult of Abraham took hold in Canaan and spawned the religions we now have. Ancient polytheistic societies had marriage too, and they were completely devoid of any knowledge of the particular “Ba’al” you now refer to as God.

              As I posted above, society owns marriage. We, the human race, own it and always did. We decide collectively what its boundaries are, not some Bronze Age fable that only some of us believe in.

              As for your bringing up bestiality and paedophilia, neither of those involve two legal adults capable of consenting into a union with each other. This whole “slippery slope” idiocy needs to be dropped from the debate about same-sex marriage. It doesn’t apply in the slightest, as witnessed by the argument’s complete dismissal in every legislature, courtroom or even lately plebiscite that has examined it. Why keep beating a horse that’s long dead?

          2. Wow. Scientific research that proves no one chooses to be gay? Because of all the discrimination?

            What discrimination? What lack of equal rights?
            Selective interpretation much? Many factors can contribute, but of course your supposed research on all this puts a lid on that.

            And people don’t make a stand against it because they’re scared it will rub off, but because it’s wrong according to moral / ethical / religious beliefs. And it can confuse children it the roles of mother / father.

            But hey let’s redefine marriage, allow adoption, force religions to perform marriages against their conviction and abuse anyone who disagrees. And hide behind phoney interpretation of selective ‘scientific’ research.

            1. Nobody is forcing a religion to perform marriages against their convictions. That’s an outright lie peddled by Televangelists and other “church leaders”, probably to get you to send money to fund their new helicopter.

            2. Secret units within the ‘Five Eyes” global spying network engage in covert online operations that aim to invade, deceive, and control online communities and individuals through the spread of false information and use of ingenious social-science tactics.

              Such teams of highly trained professionals have several main objectives, such as “to inject all sorts of false material onto the internet” and “to use social sciences and other techniques to manipulate online discourse and activism to generate outcomes it considers desirable,” The Intercept’s Glenn Greenwald reported based on intelligence documents leaked by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden.

              The new information comes via a document from the Joint Threat Research Intelligence Group (JTRIG) of Britain’s Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ), entitled ‘The Art of Deception: Training for Online Covert Operations,’ which is top secret and only for dissemination within the Five Eyes intelligence partnership that includes Britain, the US, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand.

            1. It isn’t.

              Gay population represent somewhere between 5% (conservative) and 10% (liberal estimates) of world’s population. On American TV, the number of gay characters has dropped in recent years to about 3% (which is lower than the actual gay population in America), and there are more than half of American TV shows that don’t have even a SINGLE gay character in them.

              When gay characters are shown, they are NOT allowed to kiss, while straight characters can even simulate intercourse. You can very rarely see gay characters holding hands or embracing. When there is a gay kiss on a network TV show, there is uproar in the country the next day. For this reason, producers simply don’t write realistic gay characters for TV.

              With the exception of the Logo cable TV channel (which is the “Gay ghetto” of cable TV), the American TV networks not only do NOT force gay agenda; they significantly discriminate against gay population by not showing them realistically in their scripted shows.

              Your statements simply is NOT true.

            2. It is difficult to measure accurately, but I am inclined to believe the lower numbers. Still, even at the bottom of your scale, the representation on American network TV is still shamefully closeted and unrealistic.

            3. Again your interpretation is, well an interpretation.

              Truth is many sitcoms and TV shows are used as is media to condition society as to what is right and wrong.

              The shows often try to portray discrimination of the ‘gay’ person, try to give the sense that they have superior artistic qualities and humour and such. But the main problem they try to normalise it.

              For many of us it’s not normal. They want it to be a choice for young ppl but then claim it’s not a choice we were born this way.

              A quick look at relational areas and childhood normally reveals a great deal of why we are attracted to certain things – it’s not all precoded.

            4. So was the Cosby show part of the “Black Agenda” I also see a lot more black couples on commercials, so the agenda is still being “forced” on us…DAMN YOU LAME STREAM MEDIA!!!!

            5. How are they not okay? Why is it your business what two consenting adults do in order to be together and be happy? Isn’t that the point of a free society?
              I’d rather more happy gay married couples existed than the millions of unhappy straight marriages where women and children are physically and psychologically abused and are too terrified to leave.
              Relating homosexuality to incest, polygamy, bestiality and paedophilia is absurd. Any sex or relationship that doesn’t include informed consent by both parties and in which there is there is not equal power to initiate, terminate or define the relationship is wrong. Incest and polygamy are widely considered to be “wrong” and in reality, there are very few instances where there would be an equal relationship in terms of power for all parties so it makes sense. Older relatives usually have a political, financial and/or physical power of younger ones. Males usually have the same over females within families for physical if for no other reasons. Children certainly can’t give informed consent in an environment of fear of physical retribution or abandonment or if they are younger than legal consent age. Animals obviously can’t.

        1. You cannot choose to be gay or straight, just like you cannot choose to be a leg or a breast man. Your body physically responds to what it is attracted to. There is no conscious decision involved.

    2. so if you have two gay uncles ask them when did they choose to be gay. Its not a choice. If Brewer does pass this-theres a chance they will could lose the super bowl. and they should. As well as tourism . They can be the state of the American Taliban party

      1. First off, I’m opposed to persecuting anyone, gay or otherwise. No I don’t agree with it, but treat them with respect.

        That being said, I disagree with the whole “it’s natural”. Let’s take the hypothetical situation of a huge island with all the amenities. Resources aplenty. If it’s natural you should be able to send a whole boat load of those with homosexual orientation to the island and let NATURE run it’s course. Within one generation, assuming nobody CHOOSES to switch teams, who has nature left?

        1. When I was a teenager, I used to argue using the same argument (homosexuality being unnatural because as such, it precludes procreation), because it is the simplest line of attack.

          Well, to answer your hypothetical question, yes, those homosexuals left on an island, without anyone straight, could theoretically become extinct, unless they decide to make an effort to have children the way most homosexuals of today do (artificial insemination / surrogate pregnancies, etc), this assuming that the population on the island is LGBT, and not exclusively homosexual men, in which case all would die without offspring and you would have your “final solution”…

          But that really doesn’t explain or prove anything. The argument is that for this “condition” (or is it affliction?) to pass the litmus test of being “natural”, it must serve the ultimate purpose of our existence — procreation. This is an arbitrary argument that makes no sense. There have always been, and will be, a small percentage of population that is infertile and cannot have offspring, but no society on the planet has ever established rules prohibiting such population from having partners, living together or marrying.

          The debate between “natural” and “unnatural” (or “normal” and “abnormal”) has long been settled. No gay man has ever consciously chosen to be gay; not even in the most developed societies with highest tolerance and lowest discrimination. Percentage of gays isn’t any higher in highly tolerant countries (nor is it significantly lower in Saudi Arabia and similar places). Why would ANY Saudi man choose to be gay and live such lifestyle in hiding, in a country where he would most likely die before his time because of that?

      2. Rob, I have asked both of them. I have also debated this argument with both them and their partners. Like you, they claim they are gay because they were born that way. But, my dad and my aunt weren’t. Want to know the difference? The way they were raised. My father and aunt were both raised by my grandfather – a decent and hardworking man. My two gay uncles were raised by my grandmother – a mean and spiteful woman.

        It is apparent that they craved male attention for many years and it embedded itself into their persona’s. “Born with it” is an EXCUSE as to why they made a CHOICE to be a specific way. Everyone has a choice. Choose to work or not work, speed or not speed, kill or not kill, be nice or not be nice, gay or straight, etc., etc., etc… it is a CHOICE.

        I don’t treat anyone any differently. Like I said, I have two gay uncles that I love and several gay friends that I adore. Does that mean that I agree with their decision? Heck no! I will tell them to their face. Does it mean I will treat them any differently? HECK NO!! Because I believe in treating everyone fairly whether I agree with it or not. BUT, that is MY choice. What I am arguing is that everyone should have a right to CHOOSE. Like it or not, it’s their choice and they have to live with it. But they had that right to choose to take that route and the consequences of that choice is theirs.

        1. Be very careful with that expression “right to CHOOSE”, as it may be yanked out of this context and put in it usual context (women’s right to choose).

          But on the subject at hand: Do you really, really think you could now force yourself to choose to be attracted to men? Try to be honest with yourself and take a look at some nude pictures of men (I’m sure google will yield plenty). Do you honestly think you could choose to get aroused by these men and desire to have sexual intercourse with them in the same way you’re aroused by nude female models?

    3. I never understood this “it’s a choice” argument. As others have pointed out, no one chooses their sexual orientation. However, even if it is a choice, why does that make it OK to discriminate? Whenever this gets compared to racial discrimination, you guys start saying that you don’t choose your race. That’s true but here is something you *do* choose – your religion. By your logic, would it be OK to discriminate on that basis? Remember, this isn’t particularly far-fetched. Religious minorities – particularly Jews – were routinely discriminated against a century ago. Would it be OK if a business denied service to a customer, or fired an employee just because he was Jewish? After all, it is a choice ….

      – HCE

      1. Have you actually thought this through? No one chooses their sexual orientation? Seriously?

        People who love feet were just born that way? There was nothing in their environment or childhood or choice that influenced it?

        And those poor rapists / pedophiles shouldn’t be put in jail they were born that way right?
        So let’s make sure anyone with the morals / convictions of the people who founded the country can’t stand up for what they believe, but have to accept whatever the latest vocal minority want to push on society.

        1. A couple of points

          1. Yes – sexual orientation is not a choice. I never chose to be attracted to the opposite sex. At some point in my early teens, I started noticing that I was attracted to girls – that’s it. There are kids growing up in rigidly conservative communities with absolutely no ‘gay influences’ who end up gay. Face it, it happens all the time. When they come out, they often get ostracized, bullied, sometimes assaulted. No one in their right mind would choose such a life.

          2. We are talking about consensual sex between two adults. Children are considered by the law to be not mature enough to give consent to sexual acts and of course, during rape, there is no consent at all.

          3. The founders of this country were far from morally perfect. For example, a lot of them owned slaves. If you are so intent on aping them, why don’t you advocate bringing back slavery? What made the founders admirable is not that they were perfect but that they were ahead of their time and in many ways were pioneering. They broke from the traditions of their ancestors in many ways – just as we can break from some of their less admirable ideas.

          – HCE

      2. Most Jews are Jews because that is their lineage, not their religion. There are many atheist Jews and many Christian Jews, and who knows, maybe a Muslim Jew, too (doubt it though). So your Jewish example is not so good. Try your argument with a religion and not a lineage.

        1. Agree that Jewishness is often a cultural identity rather than a religion. However, I think you are downplaying the number of Jews who take their religion very seriously. It isn’t as if it is *just* a cultural identity.

          BTW – a cultural identity is just as much of a choice as a religion. My point still stands.

          – HCE

      3. Although I did not like your Jewish example I do think you make a good point. Presently, I see signs on businesses everywhere that say they reserve the right to refuse business to anyone they chose. If this is a “free” country then it seems to me people should be free to discriminate (and this would include wedding photographers). I discriminate when I chose my accountant or my doctor and that discrimination is sometimes based on race or gender or sexual orientation. So maybe it’s time we realize the hypocrites that we are and start letting people live and discriminate as they please. I am glad we discriminate and isolate pedophiles, don’t you?

        1. Let me answer some of the points you made

          1. This may be a ‘free country’ but that does not mean that you get to do what you like. Your freedom has limits. People may disagree as to what those limits should be but no one in their right mind can advocate for limitless freedom.

          2. The law does not treat individuals and businesses in the same way and the freedoms given to individuals do not necessarily apply to businesses. As an individual, you are free to discriminate. A business is, however, a ‘public accommodation’ and there are much more severe restrictions on what they can and cannot do.

          – HCE

          1. Actually, the Arizona bill (not a law yet) quite specifically includes business entities within the definition of “persons” who are entitled to the protection of their sincerely held religious beliefs. By its express terms, the bill would trump all the state laws against discrimination in public accommodations. (Federal law is another question, of course.) So, a wedding photographer or restauranteur who does business as a corporation is just as protected as sole proprietors if he has religious objections to gay or interracial couples..

            1. I’m aware of that – otherwise the bill wouldn’t be such a big issue. The law already allows individuals to discriminate in any way they like.

              Anyway, erasing this distinction between individuals and businesses is probably one of the reasons why it will probably be declared unconstitutional. Even though most of the opposition has been from gay rights advocates, the wording of the bill means that businesses will be able to discriminate for any reason – not just sexual orientation. This puts the bill on very shaky ground constitutionally. Federal does not contain any explicit protection in the case of sexual orientation-based discrimination but there are protections against race, gender and religion-based discrimination. Regardless of whether this bill treats businesses as individuals, federal law does not.

              – HCE

    4. If Jesus can come to the rescue of a prostitute, then you can serve a gay couple. Religion has nothing to do with it.

      Trying to cover your hatred of other people by wrapping it in the name of Jesus fools no one. If you want to hate at least have the courage to say “I am a Christian but I am incapable of practicing the teachings of Christ, so I will continue my life of hatred instead”.

      At least by being honest with yourself, you will put yourself on the path to redemption and will allow your very own religious beliefs to save your soul.

      If you continue to hide from the truth of what you are, then the very religion that you believe in has already failed you and by continuing to follow those beliefs will get you nowhere.

      1. Who’s got hatred towards anyone? False conclusion.

        It’s wrong – Jesus Himself said so.

        But you’re right, He came to save those who need it. People like you and me and people who sell their bodies, choose to practise homosexuality and people who lie.

        1. How would it help the world become a better place by refusing to serve anybody? Do you believe in Karma? What are the effects of chasing somebody out of a restaurant and denying them service? Can anything good ever come of those beliefs? Tell me, where is the good? How does this “belief” help?

          1. No if you read the text it is permitted but not Gods plan. I do agree though, the text shows Christians should not get remarried.

            Matthew 19:8-9 (NLTSB)
            Jesus replied, “Moses permitted divorce only as a concession to your hard hearts, but it was not what God had originally intended. 9   * And I tell you this, whoever divorces his wife and marries someone else commits adultery—unless his wife has been unfaithful.”

          2. The point was jesus referencing scripture that predates Levitical Law for his injunction.

            Also if Jesus thought homosexuality and same-sex marriage was good and natural, why didnt teach just that as part of the new covenant?

    5. I suppose that the fine bigots of Arizona (not that all of them are) would be happy to extend the law to Mexicans as well.

      The supporters of this law believe in an old book written and re-written by a cast of thousands over hundreds of years. It is not the word of a god, because that construct was created by the same backwards folks who wrote “the good book”.

      Go ahead and to the good things that Jesus preached, and stop cherry-picking the bible to suit your predjudice.

  4. You will trample the Constitutional rights of 97% for the vocal 3%, even if it’s unconstitutional. That’s USA today in a nutshell. And that’s why the USA is slowly dying.

    Tim Cook, a gay man, is always very punctual with his support of gay issues, dragging the full weight of “Apple Inc.” around with him for effect, regardless of the fact that not every Apple employee – or, at times, even the majority of employees – agrees with his pro-gay positions. Would that Cook were so punctual with iMacs, OS X security updates, and revolutionary products in new categories. Those, of course, take a backseat to Cook’s agenda which is to wield Steve Jobs’ creation as a club in varied attempts to legitimize his perversion.

    Okay, now, gays, etc. shout me down as always because you cannot argue with any of my points.

    1. For many decades, CEOs and upper management of U.S. corporations pushed their “straight” agendas. Now you don’t like it because a corporation is openly supporting a position that is inconsistent with your views. I take issue with your selective interpretation of reality.

      Personally, I would rather all businesses stay out of politics and politics stay out of business, to the extent possible.

      Don’t look now, but I think that someone just argued with your “unassailable points” you deluded idiot.

    2. Steve Jobs was for gay rights also. So I’m sure he would do the same thing Cook is. Like it or not, it is supposed to be EQUAL rights for everyone- not pick and choose what rights you want people to have.

  5. It is simple: The Constitution guarantees your right to believe whatever you want to believe. But the exercise of that belief ends when it leads to unequal treatment under the law.

    The proposed Arizona statute is an attempt to codify a right to discriminate based on belief, the most unconstitutional action imaginable. MDN’s characterization of this in its headline as a matter of “religious freedom” is disingenuous at best. It is in fact no different than the rationalizations that were used to send Jews to death camps in Nazi Germany or treat blacks as second class citizens in the Jim Crow era.

    I am proud of Apple and the many other companies and the many other organizations calling on the governor to veto this ugly attempt at discrimination.

      1. Since religious belief cannot currently be used to refuse service, how does the bill narrow anything?

        But its is a two edged sword. Perhaps the Confucian Chinese will decide not to provide the medications they manufacture to violent Christian nations.

  6. Why in the world does Apple feel the need to meddle in this? It sounds to me as though the rights of the gays are overriding the freedom of religion. I thought it was pretty common knowledge that homosexuality is not condoned in several religions. What next, a bill to prevent people of those faiths from operating businesses? Will anyone complain about the trampling of rights then? It seems like lately there has been nothing but pro gay propaganda for political points and openly bashing anyone who disagrees with it. In fact I’m expecting some anti-traditional marriage bigotry to crop up in the space right below this comment. Go ahead, trample my beliefs. That’s alright. 😃

    1. This has nothing to do with religion, not really. This is people shouting prejudice, and hiding behind their Bibles when confronted as if that makes their abhorrent opinions valid.


        Stop comparing blacks with gay people.

        Skin colour is genetically predetermined, immutable, heritable and innate.

        Sexual attraction has never bern proven to be any of these thing.

        Therefore to put them in the same category in order to push for gay rights is intellectually dishonest.

        ‘The scientific argument for a biological basis for sexual orientation remains weak.’

        – Council for Responsible Genetics

  7. In the name of religion… what an incredible way of doing ANYTHING you want.
    I think I’ll start a religion BELIEVES in not paying taxes.
    Better yet, how about a religion that BELIEVES they have the right to take anything they want and not pay for it.
    How about a religion that believes a man is superior to a woman… oops we already have a few of those. How about a religion that systematically protects pedophiles (couldn’t resist).

    Why is it can’t use religion to defend racial descrimination but we can use the very same argument sexual descrimination.

    Jesus wept.

    1. they did use religion to descriminate against blacks, especially when it came to HETEROSEXUAL MARRIAGE between blacks and whites, same ol’ story, just plain lack of ability to see love, blinded by their book

    1. As usual with the Religious Right, they’re only interested in their freedom to do what they want. Everyone else can go hang (thankfully these days not literally like they used to).

        1. They are trying to force, most definitely. Trying to forcing your beliefs into the lives of others, which is exactly what being granted the right to discriminate would lead to.

  8. Apple should reserve energy to combat with Wall Street which help AAPL moving upward since WS mistreat AAPL compare to the rest of other stocks. Gay or straight are not for Apple to worry about, please stick with your business innovate great products.


    Stop comparing blacks with gay people.

    Skin colour is genetically predetermined, immutable, heritable and innate.

    Sexual attraction has never bern proven to be any of these thing.

    Therefore to put them in the same category in order to push for gay rights is intellectually dishonest.

    ‘The scientific argument for a biological basis for sexual orientation remains weak.’

    – Council for Responsible Genetics

  10. Two points: This isn’t just gratuitous on Apple’s part. They have provided full benefits to their gay and lesbian employees for over 20 years. They thought it was good business to hire the best-qualified workers regardless of orientation. Maybe that isn’t an issue in some parts of the country, but it is in the Bay Area. The issue now is that Apple is going to have trouble transferring employees from places like California to Arizona if there is a perception that they will face legal, officially-sanctioned discrimination. That is an economic problem for Apple, not a political one.

    Second, the actual language of this law is not limited to allow religious discrimination against gay people. It basically provides an absolute defense to civil or criminal liability for any conduct that is motivated by sincere religious belief. If you can convince a jury that you sincerely–however mistakenly–believe that blacks should not be served at your lunch counter, you are free to put up “Whites Only” signs. The same for Ulstermen who want to post a job as “Catholics need not apply.” Jews are obviously at risk, as is anyone who looks vaguely Middle Eastern. The Amish, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and Quakers could easily make a successful case for refusing to pay taxes, as could anyone willing to lie about his religious beliefs.

    It is a bad bill and Apple has legitimate business reasons to oppose it.

  11. Many businesses in this area have signs that read ” no shoes, no shirt, no service.” A small business is no different than going into someones home. They have the right to let you in or not or sell to you or not. If they do not sell to you go some where else to buy. Vote with your wallet.

    1. You are incorrect. Businesses are public accommodations and are subject to different laws, duties and responsibilities than private residences.
      Businesses DO have the right to refuse to serve to individuals. They DO NOT have the right to refuse to serve groups, particularly if the groups are a protected class.
      Both of these principles are well-established parts of common and civil law in the US.

    1. Jocko, yes, if you ARBITRARILY refuse service to people for no good reason, you won’t be in business long.

      However, if you profess certain beliefs and morals, and don’t live by them, you also won’t be in business long. This is not to say that an unreasonable set of beliefs and morals (e.g., “Gays are horrible people, and I won’t ever do any business with them,”) will guarantee business success, but a business that professes Judeo-Christian principles, and then, for example, accepts a contract to develop an inventory and shipping system for a distributor of XXX-rated videos, will be seen by everyone as a business that doesn’t live up to its own standards. This will likely have a negative impact.

      As a computer consultant, and a devout Catholic, I’m happy to fix the computer of anyone who asks me to do so, and I make no distinction as to their sexual orientation so long as THEY don’t make that an issue (for example, by trying to hit on me). But I’d have the same objection if a heterosexual female client tried to hit on me; first, I’m married; second, I don’t do that kind of thing anyway; and third, they’re obviously blind.

      But if a gay client asked me to put together a sequencing program for the music at their “wedding,” I’d have to decline, because I’d be facilitating something that my Church teaches, and I believe, to be a falsehood and a scandal. If they’re offended by that, I’m sorry, but I don’t sell products – I sell the time of a person who is a Catholic Christian, who comes with certain beliefs, attitudes, and knowledge, and that package can’t be separated no matter what Caesar says about it.

  12. The bill would make an ignorant law by people who are more interested in the culture war than anything of consequence.

    1- The bill is enacted would not stand up to the court challenges before any court not that follows the established law and our Constitution.
    2- Our nation works only when people of differing backgrounds, races and political views behave in a respectful manner of others willing to do the same. Using faith as an out or trump card for those blind by hate is not in the interest of our nation or respectful of the rights of our citizens.
    3- What the militant theocrats seem to forget is that the same laws that protect the rights of people they disapprove of protect them as well.

    As to Apple:

    As a business with substantial interests- the factory being only one- in the state, they have a legitimate right to be concerned when a state promotes discrimination against certain types of people. Apple is a company long known to be friendly to GLBTQ people and employs many such persons. They are right to be concerned that good applicants would not choose Apple if working for them required them to live under such laws.

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.