Apple inviting employees to march in annual San Francisco LGBT Pride Parade

“Apple has invited its employees through an internal memo to participate and represent the company together next month at San Francisco’s annual LGBT pride parade,” Zac Hall reports for 9to5Mac.

“Apple will host a base camp for registered attendees made up of Apple employees and their families and will supply entertainment and breakfast as well as T-shirts for participants,” Hall reports. “It’s unclear if Apple’s leadership will actively participate in the parade.”

Hall reports, “This year’s Pride Celebration and Parade marks the 44th annual gathering and has been host to the likes of Apple, Google, and Facebook (including CEO Mark Zuckerberg) in recent years.”

Read more in the full article here.

88 Comments

      1. In the US, the Libertarian Party supports complete decriminalization of polygamy as part of a general belief that the government should not regulate marriages.

        Polygamy
        THE ISSUE: In response to changing social mores which allow for alternatives to the “one man, one woman” marriage, government is escalating its enforcement of the traditional rule of marriage. This is infringing upon the rights of association of those who do not wish to partake in the traditional relationship.

        THE PRINCIPLE: Marriage is a social institution whose meaning is given not by the state but by the social mores of those participating in such a union. Most government regulation of marriage is based in the religious mores of those who populate government offices. The concept of separation of church and state requires that the state stay out of defining marriage.

        LIBERTARIAN SOLUTIONS: We call for the abolition of all state laws and regulations restricting marriages, including the marriage license. We call for the abolition of all laws prohibiting marriage between any consenting adults, or any number of consenting adults.

        LIBERTARIAN ACTION/TRANSITION: In order to achieve freedom to choose one’s mate or mates, society as a whole must come to understand that no one person, group or religion has the authority to define “marriage” for everyone else. Separation of church and state necessitates the removal of religious iconography from government regulation to the extent that any citizens are denied equal protection of the laws. Also, we must understand that one person’s sin is another person’s love, and the law should only concern itself where force or fraud is involved.

        1. Just out of curiosity, how do you propose laws change in terms of what was written in regards to two people? Specifically, what about tax codes that were based on two people? What about issues in regards to benefits where a spouse can get things like insurance; what happens when a person has 1,000 spouses? There are a bunch of these types of situations.

          I ask this sincerely in terms of trying to figure this out. I certainly don’t mind how any consenting adults chose to live, but would like to see more of an example of how these details would all be worked out.

          1. The libertarian solution is for arrangement to have common contracts for practical things like that, which couples or groups can voluntarily choose to enter into, customize, or not encumber themselves with, each as they see fit.

            1. I understand the contract perspective, that makes sense to me, but what about other areas that are (currently) external to whatever the contractual arrangement would be… employment benefits for spouses, taxes, etc…

              Thanks for your response, again, I’m sincerely asking as I’m curious as to all this could all work out.

    1. Steve Jobs explained it best:

      “No one wants to die. Even people who want to go to heaven don’t want to die to get there. And yet, death is the destination we all share. No one has ever escaped it, and that is how it should be, because death is very likely the single best invention of life. It’s life’s change agent. It clears out the old to make way for the new.”

      I take comfort in knowing that the ignorance and ideals of those against LGBT equality are on the back half of history and will soon be gone.

      1. If this were a pro life parade that apple was encouraging participation in, and Shane said Boo! Would you still be so intolerant of his intolerance?

        1. There’s a huge difference. This parade and Apple’s participation in it is about supporting equal rights. Booing it means supporting not having equal rights. Ok, I’m not the OP, but I’m not very tolerant of that myself.

          A pro-life parade? There are philosophical, scientific and religious perspectives on whether anti-abortion is being pro-life versus being anti-choice and against women’s rights.

          Booing a pro-life parade is most likely from the perspective of supporting women’s rights. Booing this parade and how Apple is participating in it is simply being against equal rights.

          1. Typical lefty, who thinks is position ‘obviously’ the right one but so blind to his obtuseness.

            There is no scientific debate on whether a fetus, is human, alive and genetically separate from its mother.

            Millions believe an unborn baby should act ‘equal rights’ to life and protection. Same as everyone else. Wh would you deny this to another human being, you bigot?

            1. Typical idiot with no reading comprehension. Where exactly did I state my own opinion on abortion itself?

              “There is no scientific debate on whether a fetus, is human, alive and genetically separate from its mother.”

              Of course there’s scientific debate on this issue. There’s very little science to support the fetus being a full living human being in the early stages of development. Show me a peer reviewed scientific paper published in a credible source that shows a fetus is a full human life at the moment of conception. No credible scientist is claiming this because there’s simply no basis in science for making this claim. No before you go inserting other crap into this that I’m not saying, re-read the words again, human life might very well begin at conception, but there is no scientific evidence to support that at this time. When life begins is very much a scientific debate as well as philosophical and religious.

              “Millions believe an unborn baby should act ‘equal rights’ to life and protection.”

              That’s entirely irrelevant to the argument being discussed. The point is many people don’t believe a fetus (during the 1st trimester or whenever) is a full human life deserving protection for these people “booing” a pro-life is about supporting women’s rights.

              Again, that’s different from booing this parade which is simply being against supporting equal rights, violence and hatred against a specific group of people.

            2. very little science to support the fetus being a full living human being in the early stages of development. Show me a peer reviewed scientific paper published in a credible source that shows a fetus is a full human life at the moment of conception. No credible scientist is claiming this because there’s simply no basis in science for making this claim. No before you go inserting other crap into this that I’m not saying, re-read the words again, human life might very well begin at conception, but there is no scientific evidence to support that at this time. When life begins is very much a scientific debate as well as philosophical and religious.

              You are literally out of your mind.

              “A full living human being”. Well it’s not full, and I never claimed it to be. But then again nether is a toddler or a teenager.

              Again define “full”. Is it human? Of course. Why would you need a research paper to prove something so self-evident? When’s the last time a woman was pregnant with a pig fetus or a horse fetus?

              Unlike like rabid pro-abortion people who I have equate an unborn baby with a “parasite” or a “tumour” most clear-thinking Americans can see through that BS.

              What sucks for you is that with the increased use of sonograms across the world and new technology that supports the life of premature babies at earlier stages, your arguments are revealed for what it is: pure BS and spin.

              And so the hypocrisy of not recognizing the equal rights of human beings at all stages of life.

            3. Wil, read what I wrote again. I didn’t write one word of being pro-life or pro-choice. You claimed there was “no scientific debate” and then in your own very “I think this guy is pro-choice, so must go all apeshit” way, went on to describe part of the scientific debate including how science is providing a method of supporting the life of premature babies at earlier ages.

              “Unlike like rabid pro-abortion people who I have equate an unborn baby with a “parasite” or a “tumour” most clear-thinking Americans can see through that BS.

              Actually through most of the period between 75-present the majority of Americans have supported some level of abortion according to Gallup polling, and it’s currently at 52%. Only 26% believe abortion should be fully banned.

              “What sucks for you is that with the increased use of sonograms across the world and new technology that supports the life of premature babies at earlier stages, your arguments are revealed for what it is.”

              What sucks for me? What part of “I’m not making a pro-choice or pro-life argument” do you not understand?

              “And so the hypocrisy of not recognizing the equal rights of human beings at all stages of life.”

              Again, there’s no hypocrisy. You’re making the false assumption that those who are opposed to you see the unborn fetus as a full human being. Right or wrong in what you believe in, those that are don’t believe that aren’t being any more hypocritical in their actions in not support the rights of those fetuses any more than they would be in not supporting the rights of anything else that wasn’t a full human being.

              Full human being… you may have no concept of this because of your beliefs. That’s fine, and really not the argument here, but for many on the pro-choice side, there is a concept of a something that is human, but not full, in the sense that, as some interpret the bible, they have not breathed in the first breath of life. For others, there is the belief that it isn’t sentient, while others look at viability or whatever it is at wherever they are on the spectrum of being pro-choice.

              The bottom line is that they aren’t talking about oppressing people’s human rights, because in their mind, whether you agree with them or not, they aren’t seeing the fetus as human.

            4. …and likewise, the bottom line is that just be some people think homosexuality can be the basis of marriage, doesn’t mean people who disagree with them are against equal rights because rightly or wrongly, they don’t agree with their underlying premises.

              See how it works?

            5. @Kevicosuave

              Spoofing someone’s username is a pretty immature move if you can’t handle the debate.

              “likewise, the bottom line is that just be some people think homosexuality can be the basis of marriage, doesn’t mean people who disagree with them are against equal rights because rightly or wrongly, they don’t agree with their underlying premises.”

              If someone wants to deny homosexuals the right to marry, they are, by definition, against equal rights. Literally, they don’t believe homosexuals should have the same right to marry. My apologies if English is a second language for you, but the logic here is as simple as it gets.

        2. Pro-Life is such a stupid term to use with regards to abortion. Every single person on the planet, except perhaps those nut cases in Syria, is Pro-Life. In reality, those who wish to ban abortion are just Anti-Choice. They think the state should have control over a woman’s womb.

          Anti-Choicers seem to have this idea that a woman who considers a termination casually schedules it in between work and the gym without thought. Nothing could be further from the case. Women who face this choice agonise over it.

      2. @auramac…

        I truly appreciate your tolerance of others. Which is what the 1st Amendment is all about. I may agree or disagree with a particular topic and I have a right to express it. That’s guaranteed to me by the Constitution. However, there are those who say it is OK to say whatever you want, as long as you say what I agree with. This is not what the 1st Amendment is about. I am sure it doesn’t matter as long as you get your way because your statement is one of tolerance and appreciation for someone else’s perspective.

        I feel you may be younger than the intolerance that took place last century – first it was speech, then it was guns and then it was freedom. Something to consider.

        I don’t embrace any particular political party simply because they are all serving the same master in the background – the banks and corporation who feed them.

        Cheers.

  1. Someone needs to inform Mr. Cook that Apple is not his little tool for constantly disseminating his perversions upon the world.

    BTW: “Transgender” people are suffering from a mental disorder and should be helped not aided in mangling themselves and giving themselves cancer via unnatural hormone treatments.

    1. If you are really a shareholder and you do not like what Apple is doing, please sell your shares and go buy some shares in a Koch brothers company. From what I have heard from Fox News, they are never involved in any perversions.

      1. AAPL Shareholder…… I’m with ya! Keep your shares like I do and make a TON of money and use it for causes you enjoy! I’m tired of tim Gaying it up with Apple Inc. as a tool. He needs to do his job and leave the politics out of it. Why Apple Inc. feels the need to support perversion is beyond me, but as my portfolio grows and the money goes to good Christian causes I love it! AAPL is paying the GOP, Salvation Army, Pregnancy Resources, and anti-gay supporters. It is nice to have all of that funded by Apple Inc.! 🙂

    2. AAPL Shareholder: you are entitled to your opinion. I am, also. I could crudely call you an immoral piece if shit, which is appropriate, but…aw, fuck it. You’re a piece of shit.

      1. People who apparently have no morals themselves shouldn’t call others immoral. Taking it up the butt doesn’t make someone superior, no matter how they twist it.

  2. If the Irish, The Puero Ricans, the Greeks, the Israelis, and other groups get to have their own parade (with support of local companies), there is no valid reason not to support LGBT group. It is just another parade, folks.

    1. For the one millionth time: being attracted to the same gender is not the same as your skin colour or ethnic heritage!

      Use a modicum of your brains please.

      1. Maybe not, but just like with the minority of people who are left-handed it’s something wired in that needs to just be accepted. The Pride parades are there because the prejudice is there. One day hopefully Pride parades will just fade away, because they won’t be needed. We’re not at that point yet.

      2. Hey Wil, If being gay is a choice, can you tell me the date and time you choose to be straight? Better yet, if its a choice, then I want you to choose right now to be gay. Go ahead try real hard. There you go….now your gay.

        Now go out and have a date with a guy and enjoy it. Go home with him and cuddle up. Spooning is nice, isnt it?

        Wait …none of this is clicking with you? Well I guess you can choose it then can you….

        1. *sigh*

          This old canard.

          Why do people think choice vs genetics only applies?

          No one has ever considered unconscious pyscho-social development?

          No one CHOOSES to develop a personality disorder or characterlogical issues either. But it’s not genetic.

          Broaden you mind a little beyond empty rhetoric.

          1. Wil,

            Actually, there IS a gene mutation that has been associated with homosexuality, but that is clearly NOT the point. Dave H actually was very correct when he brought up left-handed people. They represent more-or-less similar percentage of population as homosexuals (perhaps a bit more, but not relevant here). There was a time, not so long ago, when left-handedness was considered evil, sinister (actually, the word sinister itself has a negative meaning, yet its Latin origin means “left”!). As recently as a generation ago, left-handed children were forced to use their right hand for writing and other tasks. In some, this even caused some developmental problems. In most developed societies of today, however, left-handedness is perfectly fine and accepted (although there are still very many products, such as tools, that are specifically designed for right-handed people, so the discrimination continues).

            With respect to homosexuality, the argument about “psycho-social development’ shows ignorance on the subject; extensive research has been done to determine any link between specific developmental paths and homosexuality, and the results show that it is at best randomly coincidental, but in reality non-existent (i.e. homosexuals do NOT have higher incidence of troubled childhood, for example, nor do they display ANY other specific “psycho-social, developmental” indicators during their development that could stand out from the rest of the population).

            There was a time I had the same level of prejudice about homosexuality. The prejudice went away when I learned the facts.

  3. I live in Texas, probably the most conservative state in the union. IT IS NORMAL PRACTICE for large corporations to set up base camps, tents, etc.

    IT IS NORMAL PRACTICE for large corporations to participate in these parades.

    For example, I have witnessed the following companies participate in the Dallas Gay Pride festivals: JP Morgan Chase, Bank of America, Hilton Worldwide, Anheuser-Busch, American Airlines, Delta Airlines, Southwest Airlines, Miller, Wells Fargo.

    Quit acting like Tim Cook is some sort of crazy person for this.

    You bigots need to get over yourselves and your own insecurities.

      1. That, Sir, is false. Prior to this year, when Apple did not participate, did anyone view them as Anti-Gay?

        I have been to a number of “gay pride” events and have never once see ESPN provide tent, base camp, float, or in any way participate. That does not mean I view ESPN as anti-gay.

        People view companies as anti-something when they provide physical and monetary support to actively oppose one minority group.

  4. Not only are LGBT people entitled to a celebration of their identity and community, but the story the LGBT community is a very American one. They were once treated as less than equal and walked the long path of changing the hearts and minds of America. As one polls people, the younger you are the less you view LGBT people as anything but members of the American family.

    LGBT people also figure greatly in the history of computing. Alan Turing among many others made the computing device you read this on possible and was persecuted for his homosexuality. Lynn Conway also comes to mind, from IBM and Xerox PARC.

    The only people who have a problem with a celebration of the GLBT community are people who follow ancient superstitions and people insecure in their own sexuality. Show me a preacher or politician ranting against homosexuality and I will show you someone in the closet.

      1. Oh there’s plenty of mentally ill people around. Normally the same people who rant endlessly on about “gay agendas” being an offence to god or similar. They’re obviously not all there. Well-adjusted and stable people don’t tend to care that much.

    1. The only thing ‘American’ about homosexuality is the freedom to live your life from oppression and government interference for doing what you want in the privacy of your home. What’s unAmerican about homosexuality today is the goal of making it unacceptable to even call it the obvious unnatural lifestyle based on scientific or moral grounds. And it was considered a mental illness until people with an agenda infiltrated the APA and changed it.

      You know how unnatural homosexuality is! People with that illness prey on youth based on perceived effeminate behaviors (see ‘Bryan Singer’). Tell me one homosexual denying molestation as a child, and I’ll tell you he\they are lying.

      1. I was never molested as a child. Not once. I had a pretty standard upbringing, exactly the same as my two brothers did. They grew up het, I grew up homo.

        Your move.

    1. RE: Dean Waterman’s blog: “I am Associate Pastor for Community Praise Church, a Seventh-day Adventist congregation in Alexandria, Virginia (website). Working with a great team of pastors and leaders, we seek to influence our members to a deeper relationship with God, and living the Gospel to their neighbors and friends.”

      Boo.

      1. Intolerance is an interesting thing… How people can read another’s motives by one word of “boo” is a curious thing. It could be a multitude of things. I, for one, have my thoughts on what is Biblical, and how we were designed to live. I don’t, by the way, throw out my Mac just because Apple happens to promote a cause I don’t personally uplift. Neither do I give judgement to others who have a differing opinion than mine.

        By the way, most people on here have no courage to post their own name, which I do. This is what gave you the ability to look me up, and see more about me. If we all were more transparent, perhaps we wouldn’t be so wiling to flame-throw, and hide behind a name that represents nothing.

    2. It’s up there with sayings such as “pro-life”, “traditional marriage”, “God”, “hate tax increases”, “Obama’s policies are wrong”, “Condi Rice is the commencement speaker”, “climate change – boo”… etc. There are just some things you are no longer welcomed to say… at least not without consequences!

    1. It’s pretty hard to have an event that strives to end discrimination, violence, hatred and abuse towards a group that has never experienced any of it.

      I’m straight, and will be participating in the parade. It’s about equal rights for everybody. It’s about ending discrimination, violence, hatred, and abuse towards all people.

      1. Who amongst us has not a single LBGT family member, fellow worker, or acquaintence? One might need to go off the family tree an extra branch or two, but they will be there. Ideologies built on exclusionary principles will always be inherently weak, and exile, murder, incest their temptations.

  5. The the 11th annual Walk For Life will be held on January 24th, 2015 in San Francisco, California. In 2005, the event started with 7,500 participants. This year, over 50,000 people walked for life.

    Surely Apple CEO Tim Cook will take the opportunity to invite and encourage Apple employees to support life and the Agnes Dei Foundation, which provides a home for women who are choosing to place their unborn children with adoptive parents, especially considering the fact that Apple co-founder Steve Jobs was himself spared murder in the womb and was instead adopted and allowed to live out his life. Luckily for us.

    More info: http://www.walkforlifewc.com

    I can’t wait to read Tim’s email to employees.

    1. Sounds like a worthy effort, Fwhatever. If it were not for your long string of sanctimonious rants on this forum, I would be even more enthusiastic. Because you are the source of this post, there is no doubt that you have an ulterior motive in terms of influencing people towards your socio-political viewpoint. Your sarcastic closing is evidence of your intransigence.

      1. First2014, Then 2016,

        The Progressives have no ability to grasp their inherent hypocrisy which, of course, is required in order for their progressive theories to even exist.

        1. There’s no hypocrisy here. There’s nothing wrong with being pro-life, and if you are, hey that’s great. Live your life as such. However, for one that doesn’t see abortion as murder, being pro-life is being anti-choice and anti-women’s rights. For one who does not see abortion as murder, it makes no sense to parade and fund raise to eliminate what they see as a woman’s right.

          1. There’s total hypocrisy here. There’s nothing wrong with being LGBT, and if you are, hey that’s great. Live your life as such. However, for one that doesn’t see gay unions as marriage, being pro-heterosexual marriage is being homophobic and anti-LGBT’s rights. For one who does not see gay unions as marriage, it makes no sense to parade and fund raise to eliminate what they see as traditional marriage.

            The Progressives have no ability to grasp their inherent hypocrisy which, of course, is required in order for their progressive theories to even exist.

            Truth.

            1. Look, you don’t have to take part in the parade. If you don’t participate in that parade, there’s no hypocrisy. If you are against LGBTs, not participating makes perfect sense.

              Likewise, if one doesn’t see abortion as murder, taking part in a pro-life parade doesn’t make much sense and not participating isn’t hypocritical.

              Your logic fail is going with an assumption that those who are pro-choice also see abortion as murder and want to deny unborn human beings their right to life. Regardless of whether abortion is right or wrong, those who believe in pro-choice have a different belief on what is life and are supporting the rights of women.

              It would be like as if someone were to have a parade to support the equal rights for rocks and then called Tim Cook a hypocrite for not supporting their rights as well. I doubt Tim Cook thinks rocks are human beings and deserves the sames rights.

            2. Abortion is obviously wrong and your convoluted and illogical “different belief” exists only to assuage pro-abortionists’ guilty consciences.

            3. No, it is obviously NOT. Choice is one of the most FUNDAMENTAL human rights of women in the world; the one that allows them to be equal to men. Without the ability to choose what to do with their OWN bodies and when, women simply do NOT have equality, regardless of any other rights that the society may confer upon them.

              I am a bit annoyed when someone goes out and declares their own opinion as the ultimate and immutable truth.

              I can do the same thing.

            4. You can view same-sex marriages as inferior to opposite-sex ones all you wish. Nobody is stopping you. What you can’t do is deny same-sex couples access to marriage, not without legally discriminating against them anyway.

              That’s the problem. Too many people who don’t like the idea of marriage including same-sex couples are intent on using the law to deny same-sex couples access to it. If they kept themselves to just expressing personal opinions most people would just brush off their comments.

            5. Why does the state legally define or recognize or regulate the institution of marriage in the first place? Marriage had an understood meaning in Western Civilization, and many other cultures, for thousands of years, as a union of a man and a woman for the purpose of providing a safe and stabile family unit to raise and to protect children. The legal support of the state for a mother and a father raising their own children benefitted both societal stability and the successful raising of children in many ways. If the progressive and homosexual activists want to get into the business of creating new definitions for this ancient institution, which was never defined as two men or two women before the last couple of decades, then where should we draw the line? Why should we not allow polygamous Islamic and Mormon-derived marriages? Why not other polygamous arrangements between consenting adults? Why not brother-sister marriage or uncle-niece or father-daughter? I mean, if marriage is no longer about promoting the family in the sense of a husband and wife and producing children and the raising of children, then why not legalize all sorts of marriage combinations with consenting individuals? Wouldn’t it be “discriminatory” not to? Would marriage as an institution have any meaning or purpose if we did this? The true radicals in this movement are the people have been trying over the past few decades to create a new definition of marriage that never existed before and that does nothing to promote the interests that the state intended by recognizing marriage as a pre-existing and ancient institution that benefits society and children and the family unit. I mean, isn’t the end-result of the attempt to change the definition of marriage and divorce it from its raison d’être going to be the abolition of marriage as a state-recognized institution?

            6. The state just administers marriage. Society decides what it should entail, and society has decided it should be extended to same sex couples. Religion never owned marriage, just like it doesn’t own birth or death but insists on trying to insert itself thee too. So your comment about. Mormon or Islamic marriages would only be valid if society decides to accept them.

    1. Encouraging people to attend is not the same thing as demanding attendance. Come back to us when you have proof of Apple mandating all employees march. Otherwise please accept that you’re projecting something onto this news that isn’t actually there.

Reader Feedback

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