Apple CEO challenges home state of Alabama on LGBT rights

“Apple CEO Tim Cook is challenging his home state of Alabama to do more to ensure the rights of people based on sexual orientation and gender identity,” Jay Reeves reports for The Associated Press.

“Cook made the comments Monday at the state Capitol while being recognized as one of eight new members of the Alabama Academy of Honor,” Reeves reports. “He says the state has made progress on racial equality, although it was too slow.”

“He says the state is still too slow on equality and legal protections for the LGBT community,” Reeves reports. “Alabama is among the states that doesn’t recognize same-sex marriage.”

Read more in the full article here.

Related articles:
Apple joins Gay Pride parade in Austin, Texas – September 21, 2014
Apple releases video highlighting employee participation in San Francisco’s LGBT Pride Parade – July 8, 2014
Tim Cook, Apple employees march in LGBT Pride Parade in San Francisco – June 30, 2014
Apple inviting employees to march in annual San Francisco LGBT Pride Parade – May 7, 2014

159 Comments

    1. Man. Talking about slow….

      What a nagging insistence of poking our nose on other people’s business.

      “challenging his home state of Alabama to do more”

      Like Mr. Icahn challenging Apple to do/buy back more.

      Like Ralph Nader (five-time failed U.S. presidential candidate) challenging Mr Cook to do/pay more.

      With a number of other similar “do more”s of late.

      Here’s some advice for those who want others to do more: shut up and do more yourself.

    2. You don’t get it.

      Good business practice 101 is to NEVER take a political SIDE.

      Steve knew and practiced the principle. Tim is totally clueless on this issue.

      I guess he thinks this is thinking different. Well thinking different encompasses both good and bad decisions and this certainly is not good business.

      Not now, not EVER.

      1. Yes but when an issue grips your very identity, everything else takes second place. That’s right Tim Cook is placing His sexual preference and the associated issues as SECOND to the good of Apple with this one.
        He believes strongly in something and is willing to stand up for it.
        I firmly disagree with him on this issue for a number of issues that will affect many down the track – but I respect him for making a stand that is bad for his business for the cause he supports.

        1. Respect him for making a stand that as you say is bad for business? Putting his political viewpoints above the shareholders and employees?

          Sounds narcissist and liberal media pandering points to me.

          As a shareholder I expect BETTER BUSINESS practices.

            1. Another dumb argument repeated over and over.

              Skin colour and sexual preferences are not comparable. One has been proven to be genetically predetermined and innate, the latter has never proven to be.

              Therefore you can’t use civil rights arguments.

            2. That is incorrect. Sexual preference has been tied to a genetic mutation. Anyone with a functioning brain will understand that sexual preference is NOT a choice.

              I’m sure even the most passionate opponents know at least a few gay people. Much like among the heterosexuals, vast majority of gays had a normal and healthy childhood, no more stressful than others.

              Even in the most developed societies, being gay carries stigma and there is still common discrimination against them. And this is widely apparent to everyone. Who in their sane mind would choose to live a life at constant risk of discrimination and often even physical violence?

              It is as much a choice as is the skin colour. Once you make your piece with this fact, you can begin to understand why this is an issue of basic human rights.

            3. Sorry Predrag, but again and again you use your sloppy understanding to your advantage to try to push your position.
              And I’m getting tired of your intentional blindness and denial.

              I never said being attracted to the same gender was a choice, so please don’t try to put words in my mouth and reintroduce a tired old canard. I simply said there is no conclusive evidence that sexual attraction is genetical PRE-determined – innate and unchangeable.

              Of course there is clear evidence of genetic predispositions regarding sexual attraction and that has been widely acknowledged. But SO WHAT? There are genetic predispositions to practically every behaviour! Alocholism is known to have genetic factors. So does that mean everyone who has the genes are destined to be alcoholics with no ability to change? Of course not.

              I know plenty of LGBT people. So what? It’s clear their sexuality or gender identity is disordered. I can love people even if I don’t agree with their own personal conclusions about their sexuality.

              Please for the love of Pete, stop deluding yourself: skin colour and sexual attraction are NOT comparable. There is no research to support your opinion. Your position is untenable if you keep using your shaky understanding of genetics to support your point.

            4. Wil,

              I’m not sure if you are truly ignorant on this subject, or if you are just one of the steadily diminishing group of people who simply refuse to accept the growing science on the matter, just because it is in conflict with their own opinions.

              So, growing scientific research (I’m not linking here, it is easily googlable) has established that:

              Sexual orientation is NOT a choice, nor is it a mental disorder; it is simply one of the many biological properties of a human being, much like others (hair, eye, skin colour, blood type, etc);

              Comparing alcoholism to skin colour or sexual orientation is disingenuous, to say the least. There are a number of diseases for which some genetic markers have been identified, but in practically all of those cases, the genetic predisposition only increases likelihood of such a disease (celiac, diabetes, hypertension, cancer, etc), doesn’t make it happen. Blood type, hair colour or sexual orientation are immutable. They are pre-determined and are set for life. One presents itself at birth (blood type), the other upon sexual maturity (in puberty), but genetically, they are both defined well before birth. There is wealth of scientific study concluding that the sexual orientation is such as it is, immutable and final.

              On a final point, even if you were to accept that this is a mental disorder (and mental professionals of the developed world have long abandoned that), we don’t prohibit people with many other mental disorders (bi-polar, depression, schizophrenia, etc) from leading productive lives, or restrict their civil rights.

              If marriage is a legal institution of a state that confers certain rights, privileges and obligations on a couple, why would the state discriminate against certain group of people and deny them such a right?

            5. Funny thing about your position that sexual orientation is immutable (besides the fact that no research supports your position) – even many gay theorists and academics accept sexual orientation as fluid and on a continuum. But of course, Predrag, you know better. Maybe some gay people can’t change their attractions, but you have no ground to say no one can change their orientation.

              Secondly, your logic is flawed. Even though homosexuality was declassified as a mental illness, the logic corollary is not that it is therefore normal. That was never the conclusion of the origin 1973 ruling. In fact the President of the APA suggest declassifying it as a mental illness because he believed it was in another category: a character disorder, or personality disorder. He also believed there should be further research and nothing was conclusive about the normativity of homosexuality.

              From the horse’s mouth: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4O33IbTWQ8&channel=ResearchandTherapy

              You keep spreading your disinformation. You will be eventually called and found out.

            6. You continue to state your opinions as if they are facts, but they are not. While yes, it has been frequently argued in recent years that sexual orientation isn’t a polar concert (plus/minus, hetero/gay), but a continuum between hetero and gay (same as the argument that sex is not exclusively either male or female, but somewhere on the spectrum between one and the other), the point of my argument remains: your sexual orientation will remain exactly the same for the entirety of your life. If you are a heterosexual woman, you will never transition to a lesbian woman. If you hare a gay man, you will never become a heterosexual man (crackpot “cures” notwithstanding).

              My point wasn’t to argue whether homosexuality is a plus/minus, or if there were a spectrum. Nor to argue whether it was classified as normal (define “normal” to begin with; depending on that definition, very few people might be classified as normal).

              As I said (and you had ignored), there are people with various social, psychological or mental disorders that are fully functional, independent and contributing elements of the society. We don’t prohibit any such person from getting married. There is absolutely no reason why one would prohibit a gay couple from getting married to each other. Marriage is not a religious institution (and religions are welcome to define marriage whichever way they wish). Marriage is a legal civil contract between two consenting adults (as defined by the laws of the state), which confers upon them a broad set of legal rights, privileges and obligations. The law is not supposed to discriminate.

            7. My comments are politically neutral on this story. Steve did not go where Tim is headed for good reason.

              Rush to judgement or is it liberal stereotyping too much? You just can’t help yourself …

  1. I’m against “same sex marriage” very strongly. I hate how this issue has become the litmus test for wether you accept gay and lesbians as people, and hate how this issue is collapsed as “the” issue for LBGT.

    There is no reason you have to hate gays to oppose same sex marriage, and there’s no reason you have to accept them if you don’t oppose same sex marriage.

    1. Yea. You accept LGBT as “people” but refuse to accord them the simple rights that all “other kinds of people” enjoy. I’m wondering why you’re such a hypocrite?

      Actually I don’t have to wonder – your savior whispers in your ear at night to treat gays like second class citizens.

      Have you thought about psychiatric treatment?

      1. Actually, Christ didn’t say anything about homosexuality, ever. You are uncritically accepting the teachings of the religious right when you repeat them as true. Christ loved the outcasts and the marginalized.

        The people who came years after His crucifixion are the ones who said anything in that regard, and then it was homosexual prostitution by pagan temple prostitutes with heterosexual married people in pagan rituals that people like Paul were talking about. Don’t give them more credibility than they already have in the minds of ignorant true believers.

        1. Christ has much to say about homosexuality. He is the one who created male and female, who instituted the ordinance of marriage and is known as the very Word of God. All Scripture reveals what Christ has to say to us and this includes human sexuality, its purpose and proper usage.

          1. Christ had nothing to say about anything, he never existed. Maybe some guy or guys was notable during that time, that has come to be known as Christ now, but he wasn’t divine, there’s no such thing.

          2. I’m sure He did.

            I go even further than Tim Cook. Marriage is a religious institution, and is not for a legislature to define. A legislature has no business defining marriage – that is for the Church.

            If a government wants to confer special rights on families, such as tax breaks and rights of survivorship, then all that should be necessary is a simple legal form registering a personal partnership for tax and probate purposes. Anything beyond that constitutes the State crossing the “wall” between Church and State.

            As the Church should stay out of the State, so should the State stay out of the Church.

            But that’s just me, and I’m weird.

            1. Well put. There should be nothing wrong with the state being restricted to matters of Civil Unions. If the homosexual community is dissatisfied with equal rights, there’s nothing stopping them from founding their own churches that will confer on them a religious ceremony to suit their tastes. But the State should have nothing to do with marriage at all. That mistake was made decades ago and needs to be corrected as a matter of de-bureaucratizing the whole mess. Leave that to the churches who are much better at bureaucracy — they call it “sacraments” instead of “overhead”.

            2. Indeed, getting the state out of a lot of personal decisions would benefit people of all beliefs, and get a lot of religious grandstanding out of politics.

              I don’t believe most politicians that take strong religions stances care about anything but pandering for votes. If they really did have strong religious views they would accord the same tolerance they expect for their views to people of other beliefs.

            3. Marriage is not a religious construct. It belongs to all of society. We as society get to define its limits, as we always have. Religion has imposed itself into birth, marriage and death as if it, and only it, can decide what the limits and procedures around these life events can be. In reality religion is entirely optional for all three.

              If a church or other religious group wants to go off and form “Holy Matrimony Unions” or whatever they want to call it then go ahead. All power to them. However, marriage isn’t theirs. It never was. It’s ours, as human beings, and as such nobody should be excluded from it.

          3. You are aware that marriage had already been around for many thousands of years before Christ aren’t you? Marriage is not a Christian concept and many restrictions on who may or may not marry have been changed over the years and somehow we’ve managed to survive without plagues of blood or a rain of frogs resulting….

        2. I’m going to leave the fact that you obviously have no idea about who Jesus is or what he said alone for those who read the Bible I know how ignorant your statement about seems. What I will address is that you have called homosexuals the marginalised and downtrodden. It seems that younot the religious right other ones have been brainwashed. Newline of course it is true that Jesus sided with people in his humanness and longed for justice for the downtrodden. This does not mean that he condones seen in any way shape or form and he did not redefine sin. You’re very very few credible reports or experiences with homosexuals haven’t received any worse treatment than any schoolchild who is beast or has a lisp or has anything strange about them. Why does that mean suddenly that we need to redefine everything and have a religious liberties or freedoms taken away to appease them? This is not about equality – this is about the redefinition of one of the foundations of western culture. This is about taking away the religious freedom or right of millions of people, forcing them to do marriages that go against their religious belief, threatening them with jail if they do not perform such marriages and forcing them to close their businesses.
          Homosexuals are treated equally and even esteemed in our culture but that is not enough they are given the same status and tax breaks as very heterosexual people, but that is not enough they want a title that was clearly reserved for heterosexuals by the one who instituted that covenant.

          If you want to shout about equal rights – why don’t you shout about the equal rights of an unborn child in the world? What about the millions of children who deserve the equal rights of a natural the way god intended it mother and father? Even secular psychology agrees that a mother and father is by far the most healthy for a child.The actions of the homosexual crowd at anything but tolerance, loving, equal, or accepting but unfortunately many like yourself have fallen for the tricks and their brainwashing.

          I do not hate homosexual people – I understand many of the underpinnings as to why they are seeking love in such ways. we all desire certain things to comfort ourselves – but that does not make such things right and it certainly does not mean that the rest of society should acceptwhat we want to use to alleviate our pain or feel good and furthermore does not mean that we should insist that others redefine their beliefs or their acceptance of our actions.

          Some of us desire to go to work creator for acceptance, love, comfort, peace and we do not want to be forced to perform marriages that were instituted by God for heterosexuals, on those who have chosen a lifestyle that God explicitly condemns. Does that mean we don’t love them? No! Does that mean that we do not care about equal rights? No! If anything we care more for the underdog and more for equal rights – for the rights of those in the womb and for the rights of the children down the track who are completely mixed up because of two mummies what to daddies. Those poor children!where are the people to stand up for them? Motherhood is a vital role – women and not just incubators of children to be adopted out to those who naturally cannot have children. I for one cannot and will not condone homosexual marriage because of the effect on childrenand the fact that it violates the religious freedom that we’re supposed to have.

          1. I’m wondering if there’s any way you could be more wrong about what you think I believe. For the record, I abhor abortion. I wish they never happened. Yet I don’t think it is any more moral to legislate against abortion. It is a matter of conscience and women need to be left to decide for themselves what is right and wrong. We can educate them. We can try to persuade them. But we cannot force them to make the decision we want them to make.

            As to marriage, I want the government out of the marriage business completely. Let the government administer domestic partnership contracts for everyone, gay and straight. Let the churches decide who they will marry and on what grounds. I’m sure everyone will be able to find a church that meets their needs, or none at all.

            Sin? Can we be sinning if we don’t have any choice in what we do? It’s a basic philosophical truth that an act in which one has no choice cannot be moral or immoral. Morality (sin) implies a choice. Homosexuals have no choice in the matter. I might ask, when did you, as a heterosexual, “decide” consciously that you preferred the opposite sex? Never? What then makes you think that homosexuals do? Do you hate them for their behaviors? Most heterosexual couples perform those same sex acts from time to time. If you hate them for their promiscuity then you must also hate heterosexual promiscuity. Why single out homosexuals? Do you hate them for having sex outside of marriage? Most heterosexuals do too. Where is your hate for them? And again, why single out homosexuals, particularly since they historically haven’t had any alternative (marriage)? No, the only reasons we have for your hatred is what other human beings taught you that the Bible said about the topic, and your discomfort with being around someone of the same sex who could conceivably be attracted to you. I/n other words, your fear of them.

            Actual studies (not made up ones) find that the only damage done to children of homosexual couples is done by those who are publicly critical of their parents’ relationship. Aside from that, psychological researchers can find no damage.

            Now, let’s stop making assumptions about who I am and what I believe. I’m a follower of Christ. I do not hate homosexuals or their actions. I hate abortion. I hate war. I hate the death penalty. Do you notice a pattern? Yes, I’m against killing human beings, period. And I refuse to hate people being for the way they were born.

            1. Wow – note to self – re read what you dictate to Siri!

              I’m happy to hear you are a follower of Christ – but I would ask which Christ? Christ the author of Creation – the one described in the Bible? If so I would encourage you to read the Bible and accept what God actually wrote there. Otherwise you are just using Him as a ‘scape goat’ to justify your own actions.
              He didn’t hate but He DID address sin. Directly. He re-enforced that He agreed with EVERY part of the Old Testament – do you?

              I’m glad you abhor abortion – but I didn’t conclude that you didn’t. What I did say was that why not be vocal about it (which now you have). But let’s look at what you wrote.

              You don’t think it is ‘moral to legislate about abortion’. So it’s ok to legalise murder in the womb so people can choose? What about murder for a few weeks after birth? What about until the child is 12 – we could let people decide if they wanted them and if not kill them before the age of 12 – no point legislating – we could educate them and let them choose. It’s not oral – it’s hating them who want to kill their children. What about rape? Pedophilia? Do you think we should have any legislation at all?

              Please stop accusing people of HATING.

              I don’t hate. I don’t feel uncomfortable being around people who are attracted to me – whether they choose to be straight or homosexual.

              Good on you for loving – though I would encourage you to look at what love is. It is not avoiding the truth or ‘blind acceptance’. Jesus never did this. He said He disagreed with divorce did He not?

              I am happy to accept someone who practises homosexuality. But ‘loving’ them doesn’t mean leaving them where they are – condoning what they do or forcing society to redefine a foundational institution to condone it.

              Your assumptions on a homosexual not being ‘able to choose’ are ridiculous. Seriously this is pseudo-science purported by the media and fed by (mostly false) stories of the minority being picked on and abused by others for being ‘who they are’. .
              They weren’t born that way. Any more than a pedophile is. No I’m not comparing the actions of a consenting couple to a predator – but the desire, need for love and acceptance is the same. THe initial propensity to a certain sin is there – the way situations and reactions happen around them all affect them – but we all have a choice. Is their sin any worse than any one else’s? NO! But ANY sin that can affect children I am against.

              Do I disagree with divorce – Yes! But I don’t hate those nor the homosexuals – I just don’t think that marriage should be re-defined to suit the current agenda.

              Am I correct in assuming you don’t condemn pedophiles? Do you think they ‘can’t choose’ and were ‘born that way’?

              Studies, psychologists and common sense (whether you believe in Creation or not) says that two mothers or two fathers CAN NOT be as beneficial as a mother and father. As a Bible believing Christian – simply because that’s the way God designed it – or as an evolutionist as that is the way /nature’ selected it – that two mothers or two fathers can not biologically have a child.

              Even honest homosexuals will tell you they weren’t born that way – but be real – any who come out and say ANYTHING against the movement will be fiercely attacked by the ‘love brigade’. Same is true in government, media and ‘science. And now business through Tim Cook is gathering his converts (like you) to rally for ‘the cause’.

              http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2014/10/13867/

            2. The kind where you customize your religion for yourself so you can rationalize things like laws allowing the beating of slaves to near death, intolerance of other religions, pre-emptive killing of other people for their milk and honey.

              The Bible has to be interpreted properly by each individual so they can find the real truth, not what it looks like the book is saying but is obviously nutty. You need to have faith that your personal readings are truth and that other people’s readings are misguided.

            3. And, nevermark, the Bible is to be read in the presence of the Holy Spirit, to receive guidance as we read. It is not to be used as a law book to prove a point. That is perverting the Bible.

            4. When you legislate against abortion you are ultimately holding a gun to the head of a pregnant woman and telling her she will do as you tell her for the rest of her life. That’s slavery, and it’s immoral.

            5. So, at what age did you “decide” to be straight?
              Your argument is ridiculous. Do you honestly believe that millions of people choose to have a sexual orientation that is almost guaranteed to place additional stress on their lives and in some countries place them under threat of death?

            6. You mean those biased psychiatric studies that have a predetermined outcome? You do know that until the shrink organizations were taken over by leftists that it was clearly understood that homosexual desire is a deviant urge, no different than bisexuality or pedophilia or beastially, don’t you?

              And as far as ‘born that way’ arguments go,Mack in my day a homosexual would punch you in the face for saying such a thing. Even now, the whole ‘choice’ thing is the prominent explanation for such a behavior. Homosexuals have a desire or ‘urge’ to same sex intercourse, but it’s a choice to act on it. Whether you want to argue its genetic or mental, it’s one or the othe or both – I mean, how else do you explain something that affects so few of a population?

            7. Nice, the old “science doesn’t matter let’s call things deviancy argument”. For most of US history it was clear to many people that the urge for interracial sex was deviant. Oral sex was deviant too.

              Only in both cases nobody has ever actually seen what deviant looks like in a microscope.

              Maybe deviancy is something people should define and avoid for themselves since its obvious that as a label it does not get applied on any scientific basis.

            8. Zeke,
              maybe you are a Christian, but with all due respect you don’t know your Bible.

              Jesus affirmed the Law and explicitly said so. That includes restriction against homosexuality.

              Jesus also affirmed heterosexuality as the basis of marriage in a debate with religious leaders.

              There has never been any conclusive evidence homosexuality genetically predetermined or innate at birth.

              Please watch this video to correct ypur misunderstanding on what the Bible says about human sexuality. Youtube “Dr Robert Ganon homosexuality”

            9. In “affirming the law,” did Jesus uphold the ban on mixed textile clothing? If so, I bet you violate that regularly.
              Would you also say that Jesus would require you to cut off the hand of a woman who, when her husband is being attacked, grabs the balls of the other man to stop him? That’s a commandment in Deuteronomy.

              Want me to go on?

              The people who rail against gay people violate both the first and the second greatest commandments: You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and soul, and mind. And, you shall love your neighbor as yourself.

              God gave us minds to learn about and admire what God created, including other human beings. God gave us hearts to love each other. God gave us souls that transcend even the beautiful bodies we were given.

              How DARE you pervert the Bible, the story of humanity’s learning about God, to use it to call for abuse and disrespect of God’s beautiful creatures and the love we can all share for each other?!

            10. Here are the answers to your questions.

              Dr. Robert Gagnon on Homosexuality. A guy who knows the topic so well, liberal theologians are reluctant to debate with him.

              You have a poor understanding of Levitical Law, and therefore you think your simplistic reasoning over 4000 years of study and Law and its contexts. Trust me, you don’t know what you’re talking about.

            11. I don’t need Dr. Ganon’s interpretations. This is as close as Jesus ever gets to commenting on homosexuality: Matt 19 “4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, 5 ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

              And here he’s speaking about marriage, not homosexuality.

      2. LGBT have the exact same marriage rights as “other kinds of people” Problem is they don’t want the same rights as other people they want something entirely different.

        Nobody is stopping them from living together with the mate of their choice. So why don’t they just do that and live happily ever after?

        1. Why don’t you just live life according to the whims of other people? Why don’t you just live with inequality before the law? Why do you even think it’s any of your business? I’ll never really understand why anyone thinks other people’s lives are their business. It’s a serious mental sickness to think their lives are yours to decide upon.

          1. Again, there is no inequality. They have the same marriage rights as everybody else but it is exactly because they want other people to decide upon their lives that we are having this conversation. The reason they want “marriage” rights is because they want others to have to approve of their choice.

            1. You can’t tell the difference between being asked to stay out of someone else’s life and telling someone else what to do?

              Really?

              I am not arguing you are right or wrong on the issue, but pointing out that maybe you should find a better rebuttal than that, as it makes zeros sense.

              Its like the same weird argument where if someone speaks up against intolerance some ninny complains that is being intolerant of intolerant people. lol

      3. Funny you mention ‘psychiatric treatment when it’s clearly those believing homosexuality, bisexuality, transsexualism, pedophilia and beastially are ‘normal’ behaviors. How two percent of a population displaying these abnormalities is ‘normal,’ well, that’s just insane….

        1. Um, a few percent more than that, and not just of the human race but most animals too. So in terms of life, yes its very normal.

          But perhaps by “normal” you mean “average” then you are rights, its not normal to be gay, or have an especially large nose, or big ears, or a bend in your weiner, or any of the other innumerable differences that make each of us different. A normal person in that sense has never existed.

        1. The world would be better if people kept their religions to themselves.
          Anyone able to prove any of them are more then just great stories?
          No? That’s probably why there are hundreds and hundreds of religions.
          And they are ALL right. Least that’s what they each say. 😉

          1. Do you want all religions to keep everything to themselves? How about the bit of the bible has led to great wealth in the discovery of oil? All the numerous scientific fax that help the medical profession become what it is? What about the bit that has influenced human western culture to get rid of slaves based on the Bible – should we not have given you that?
            Or is it that you only want some of what some religion wants to give you and not others? As with most things it seems like you just want to pick and choose whatever you like the best. Unfortunately God is the one who created everything and he gets to choose not to you.

            As for anyone proving which one is right – for me I think the one that gives the most credible explanation of creation and how we started is the one that has most weight. There are only a few main religions on the planet (even though they have been dissected into millions by ppl who like to pick and choose bits of everything to suit themselves).
            If you do an in-depth study of the various sections of creation or how we started I think you’ll find the Bible comes out a clear winner – actually in the league of its own. All the other major religions for Lynnehaven the most commonly accepted current religion has a creation account that goes like this: nothing exploded and became everything. I prefer them much more detailed and logical progression of creation as explained in the Bible in fact I have yet to hear credible argument against the Bible, as that famous scientist once said “a little bit of scienceturns you away from the Bible – but a lot of science turns you back to it”

            1. Your version of Christianity used the Bible to justify slavery. Mine didn’t. I’m a Quaker. Look it up. The Quakers had abolished slavery among themselves 100 years before the Civil War.

            2. “in fact I have yet to hear credible argument against the Bible”

              There are many arguments against the Bible. But that is not the point. If someone wants to assert something, that person needs to produce the evidence for the assertion.

              E.g. if someone wants to propose there is something called a neutrino, evidence must be gathered. It is empty to assert, “Well I just believe in the neutrino.”

              And the two basic “arguments” of:
              1. The bible says it’s true — and it’s the word of god — so it is true,
              and
              2. I don’t need evidence. I just believe; I have faith.
              are both utterly empty, empty, empty.

              Numerous religions have the IDENTICAL basis that yours does — in that they have a book that says it’s true and that its adherents have utter faith. But IN SPITE OF OTHER RELIGIONS HAVING BOTH OF THESE SEEMINGLY CRITICAL QUALIFICATIONS, you don’t believe in Zeus, Odin, Mithra, Horus, Amaterasu, Brahma, Krisha, Chac, Allah, Ahura Mazda, The Flying Spaghetti Monster, and many, many more.

              We’re almost exactly the same about this.
              You are an atheist towards all of those gods and religions. So am I.
              I’m just an atheist towards one more – yours.

      1. Unfortunately John in this comment you’re showing that it’s you that spigoted. There are many serious issues to consider when you decide what should and should not be included in a particular policy or agreement. Do you think anybody should have the right to get married? Do you think thateverybody should have equal rights regarding marriage? Do you think that anyone who opposes this view is bigoted?
        So that five people should be a will to get married? A child against his will and an adult? An animal and an adult? Because if you don’t accept this you must be bigoted right?

        Please, this is a serious issue with serious consequences for millions of people and all you can do do is swear and accuse people of being bigoted? Please get something to say that adds to the debate one way or the other

  2. Transgender?

    Let’s just call it what it really is: Mental illness.

    The government and media alliance advancing the transgender cause has gone into overdrive in recent weeks. On May 30, a U.S. Department of Health and Human Services review board ruled that Medicare can pay for the “reassignment” surgery sought by the transgendered—those who say that they don’t identify with their biological sex. Earlier last month Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said that he was “open” to lifting a ban on transgender individuals serving in the military. Time magazine, seeing the trend, ran a cover story for its June 9 issue called “The Transgender Tipping Point: America’s next civil rights frontier.”

    Yet policy makers and the media are doing no favors either to the public or the transgendered by treating their confusions as a right in need of defending rather than as a mental disorder that deserves understanding, treatment and prevention. This intensely felt sense of being transgendered constitutes a mental disorder in two respects. The first is that the idea of sex misalignment is simply mistaken—it does not correspond with physical reality. The second is that it can lead to grim psychological outcomes.

    At the heart of the problem is confusion over the nature of the transgendered. “Sex change” is biologically impossible. People who undergo sex-reassignment surgery do not change from men to women or vice versa. Rather, they become feminized men or masculinized women. Claiming that this is civil-rights matter and encouraging surgical intervention is in reality to collaborate with and promote a mental disorder.Dr. Paul R. McHugh, the former psychiatrist-in-chief for Johns Hopkins Hospital and its current Distinguished Service Professor of Psychiatry, Wall Street Journal, June 12, 2014

    1. Just in case folks don’t want to give any hits to the now scum sucking WSJ I’ll point out that this is a contributed OPINION piece. It’s not a news article. There’s no rebuttal or other opinion or science at all in this piece.

      Nice try though.

    2. It appears this guy is “former” at Johns Hopkins for good reason. Of course that means you’d need to get beyond your rigid opinion and do some research beyond what you read in Murdoch’s rag.

    3. steel yourself, paedophilia is the next cause célèbre for the champions of the downtrodden and misunderstood.

      sodom and gomorrah have nothing on America, witnessed by its long, slow spiral into depravity.

      1. Paedophilia is in no way similar to homosexuality, nor is bestiality or indeed any act where informed consent between two people of equal “power” decide to form a relationship or indeed have sex.
        There is no way anyone will argue that a child can consent to sexual or romantic relations with an adult without their being an unbalanced power relationship and that the child could do so based on sufficient understanding.
        Paedophiles take advantage of the trust of young children to derive their own perverted pleasure and completely ignore the rights of the child to become a fully mature person before they make a decision to have sex with an adult, when they are themselves one.
        If a paedophile truly loved a child they would want to protect them and nurture them until they become an adult who is able to both legally and morally make their own decisions about who they sleep with. Anyone whose sole interest is in sexual gratification without any regard to the mental, physical and emotional enjoyment and health of the other person is sick and self centred.

      2. No, no, didn’t you get the memo? It is sex with aliens that is the next libjihad. They’ll be forcing us to marry them extra-terrorestials and causing the defamation of the sacred marriage contract.

    4. Right.

      Transgender is sadly a mental disorder that needs serious medical treatment — not unnatural body surgery paid for by taxpayers.

      I should not be forced to pay for it by the misguided so called progressives.

      1. Careful about throwing out the label “progressive” carelessly. My hero Teddy Roosevelt was a progressive. Providing special rights for any minority is NOT progressive, it is political pandering. The very use of the term “gay rights” is political pandering. Rights are supposed to be equal for all. — at least, that’s what the Progressive Party stood for, against the narrow interests of monopolists, religious nuts, and yes, minority rabble rousers who demand special attention.

        It’s sad that the extreme right wing continues to pain progress as being left wing. It isn’t. Progress is reform, and if you don’t believe in reform, then what the heck is wrong with you?

        1. Nothing is wrong with me. What is wrong with you? Teddy is also a personal hero. I’m talking about being forced to pay for mental disease disguised as rights. Can you comment on that and stick to the topic discussion, please ???

    1. a de-scumming of the gene pool would be much more efficient, starting out with felons and then moving on to lawyers, politicians, and then corporate executives who think they are rock stars.

  3. Wow. It’s embarrassing to be on this website sometime. Misogyny, gay bashing, hateful conservative policy love.

    I’m amazed at how comfortable people feel being openly racists and hateful. It’s obviously encouraged by the owners of MDN who appear to be of a similar ilk.

    I just seems like a poor business decision to be on the side of hate and cruelty. Seems smarter to me they start a separate RWNJ site specifically to cater to that illness and let normal and intelligent folks get their Apple news here. It’s obviously a great source of that but the bitter taste of the haters spoil the experience.

    1. Opposing gay “marriage” is not “hateful.” People who don’t agree with your society-destroying progressive liberal idiocy are not “hateful.” They merely have common sense. They see how far this country has fallen since the rise of secularism. They see how a country founded under God fails rapidly when its president is a godless, non-church-going Democrat Party heathen. Obama didn’t even show up at church on Christmas! What a disgraceful U.S. President. Obama is degenerate filth unworthy of the office to which the uneducated and the dead have “elected” him.

            1. clearly you have never spent any time reading scripture. i challenge you to at least make an attempt before you pontificate about, ‘historical errors, hypocrisy and seemingly intentional errors’, for the which you proffer no examples – because they do not exist.

            2. All the land species on the planet did not get in a boat.

              The planet was not repopulated by one family from a boat.

              All the species we have got after that boat did not evolve in the short in the few thousand years after this supposed boat.

              And that’s just what that book says about one boat!

          1. How do capitols you define a real Christian? Those advocating equal rights for others? So those who are against abortion? Those who want the children to be saved from the influence and negative effects of homosexual marriage? Those who want better conditions for the poor? To spend the time and energy andmoney helping those with addictions or with medical conditions going to other countries to help them?or only those that are nice happy and agreeable to everybody accepting everyone and everything no matter what?

            Unfortunately like many make. She was based on what you Wanna believe. Christian is someone who recognises their faults and send before God and the trusts in the one and only event that can actually save them from the consequence of their sin – The death of Jesus on the cross.
            Once got rebirth someone based on this monumental event – he starts changing them from the inside and they start operating Moren more from a position of true love – love that gives without expecting in return – love that tells the truth no matter if they are going to get persecuted for that truth. Love that will stand up for Jesus even if you are threatening to kill them. Just because you want things to be a certain way does not make it so.

            Jesus never condoned sin. Quite the opposite – he confronted it and commended people “go and sin no more”. If you have read the Bible you know the story of the woman at the well. She was what we would consider a normal woman – many different partners, possibly prostitute. Jesus talked to her, treated her like a human, loved her despite what society said – but then confronted the sin in her life.
            The woman caught in the act of adultery? Did he say it’s okay except I love her everyone can commit adultery and Flatulex change the law to include adultery? No he said I do not condemn you go and sin no more.
            So should we listen to Jesus?should we follow his example? Was he a Christian?

            Jesus said “the path to hell is broad and many are on it but the pathway to life is narrow and only if you ever find it” are you going to listen to that?

    2. Your going to get haters anywhere from the Internet. Even toys r us reviews of Barbie get sick shit sometimes. And I’m not basing that off of knowledge, I’m just taking a stab in the dark and probably going to be right. Let me know if I’m wrong though :). Anyways, don’t let it deter you. Just remember, you buy products from a company whose trying to promote equality, and being vocal about it.

    3. The only troll bashing people here is you. Typical liberal behavior.
      BTW, marriage is NOT a right. It’s privilege.
      Would you agree if a brother and a sister, a mother and a son, a father and a daughter marries?
      Homosexuality is a mental disorder, no matter how much the gay agenda wants it to force it as something normal. I do respect homosexual as human beings but this constant pushing of this lifestyle is simply too much.

        1. Oh yeah, the typical accusation of a certified gay recruiter.. nice try but I don’t have my sexuality confused like yours. I LOOOOOVE women very much, thank you, and the mere thought of having sex with a male to me is as repugnant as eating feces. Go shove your study into your gay-hole.

        1. A very good illustration of how those who make discriminatory comments against gay people might well be loud and obnoxious, but they are very much in the minority. By a long way.

    4. howaboutanewton how about a brain?!? What an idiotic post. You are the classic low info type I keep hearing about. Pathetically sad. You want hate, try being a Christian Conservative expressing your beliefs in todays America. You wouldn’t last a day from all the hate you will receive from the tolerant Progressive Left.

      1. Most christian conservatives come off like Westboro Baptist Church, probably you too, so don’t be surprised when your hateful speech is met with derision. Besides, christianity is just another mythology long past its sell-by date.

    5. So it’s embarrassing and poor business “to be on the side of hate and cruelty” It’s also an ‘illness’ and ‘unintelligent’.

      So you are against everything that is fuelled by hate and is cruel? That’s great!

      So you are against cruelty to animals, abuse of children, abortion and homosexual marriage? All of these have a victim (or many) and the people here are being vocal and trying to LOVE and protect others, based on their beliefs.

      People who think that homosexuals are born that way (despite the evidence) don’t want to see these people victimised or treated badly = LOVE

      People who think that the children of these homosexual marriages will suffer from identity crisis and lack of clear God given roles are trying to protect millions of innocent children = LOVE.

      So sorry that we are trying to LOVE others based on our beliefs and help humanity – and that is not as import an as your Apple news!
      Maybe, just maybe, the interpretation you have of HATE is more an indicator of where you’re at rather than where others are?

      1. “So sorry that we are trying to LOVE others based on our beliefs…”

        This is exactly the problem: when your beliefs are supposed to be reflected in law. Of course your concern about children raised by gays can reflect genuine caring. You just don’t get to declare that your concern is a reason for laws which dictate what other people can do and believe and who they can love.

        What is it about people who say their love gives them an excuse to act unloving, or their beliefs give them an excuse to not respect other’s different beliefs?

  4. Tim, the south is a lost cause. I know, having lived there.

    The inbred, knuckle dragging, uneducated and paranoid low information southerner breeds far faster than the educated, erudite and tolerant ones and has for well over 200 years. Additionally, many leave the south rather than deal with the bullshit.

    Like the old saying goes: it’s a nice place to be FROM.

      1. The South leads in illiteracy, child poverty, child abuse, spousal abuse, dropout rate, underemployment, rate of workers in poverty, teen pregnancy, smoking, diabetes, overweight, domestic violence…

        Most southern states pay a negative tax and get more from Washington than they contribute. even the handful that currently pay net taxes historically have not. Yet these same states send Right Wing Republicans who rant about self reliance and bootstraps.

        Good old Gawd Fearin’ People. Republicans that live in $20,000 Trailers but drive a $40,000 pickup truck.

      1. I have lived in (or stationed for duty) at various times:
        Florida, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky, Arkansas, Missouri and Texas.Have also spent plenty of time in Mississippi and Virginia- not so much in North Carolina.

        I think I know the south pretty damn well.

        The south has a long tradition of existence as an Oligarchic society where the common people are regularly duped.threatened or beaten into voting against their self interest.

      1. God destroyed Sodom and Gemorrah because of homosexuality (and other sins).

        Jesus is God.

        Seems like a pretty big statement to me.

        But keep in mind It is the behavior He hates and not the people.

        He gave His life so all would have the opportunity to have their sins payed for.

        And He lives again so all have the opportunity to be saved.

      2. Nothing. In fact, nobody knows ANYTHING that the supposed Jesus of Nazareth ever spoke. The Old Testaments of Bible was nothing more than a blog of whatever Aramaic scripts survived into the 4th century and the New Testament was written by Paul and his followers approximately 2-3 decades after Jesus’ martyrdom. Paul never actually met Jesus. However, Jesus’ brother, a Jewish cleric known today as “James the Just” was critical of Paul. Interestingly, Paul chose to edit out all quotes by Jesus’ family and hide the existence of any relations that Jesus actually did have. That’s probably why the New Testament wasn’t published until well after Jerusalem was destroyed by Rome and the Nazarean church — Jesus’ true desciples — were killed and scattered to the wind. Paul’s cult, which of course grew into the horribly mysogynistic, hypocritical, and corrupt Roman Catholic Church, was founded in Antioch, at the time the 3rd largest city in the Roman empire. That’s why the church flourished. Paul told the downtrodden slaves and servants and defeated tribes living in the Roman empire to build a cult to “take back” their countries from Rome. And despite centuries of white washing of religious texts, actual Roman history tells the other side of the story. The initial Christian cults were essentially terrorists. Christians were found to be guilty and punished for several of the arsons that plague Rome in the first century AD. One can read verifiable truth in Roman and Arabic history, if you are willing to put down the fantastical bible long enough to understand actual history. Which brings up another good point — which of the 36 popular versions of the bible contains the firsthand accounts of Mary Magdaleine and Jesus’ mother Mary, the only two human witnesses of the supposed resrurrection? Did nobody bother to write down what they said, or were they mute?

          1. No, Paul heard a _sound_ on the Road to Damascus that most versions of the Bible have mis-translated to “voice”. Saul/Paul met no one and was supposedly struck blind (likely a sun stroke). None of the men traveling with Saul seem to have been converted to Christianity.

            Paul’s real conversion seems to have happened at the house of Judas and his friend Ananias in Damascus when he recovers his sight and decides that this is a miracle and is persuaded to join the cult of Judas and friends.

            Paul never met Jesus and records no dialogue between them.

        1. Unfortunately Mike you’ve shown in the second sentence why most of your post is full of errors. If you read blogs for your information you will probably end up with just as much erro as you have.
          Although its probably a waste as you have likely just cut & pasted this response and most believe what they want despite the facts:

          The Old Testament was written in Hebrew. Many manuscripts remain. It wasn’t a blog – but serious historical pieces that show amazing literary prowess – unparalleled in early history – and all of them claim authorship by God. And they (despite being written years apart by a wide variety of people) all confirm and line up perfectly together.
          The Gospels all agree and just because there were other false writers around – this don’t mean they are correct – in fact text criticism has given an amazing amount of evidence to show that the original Canon is accurate.

          Paul’s cult as you call them – actually was a classed as a cult long before Paul MET Jesus, was blinded by Him then healed by Him. This didn’t turn into the Roman Catholic Church (give you one point they are hypocritical) – Constantine tried to assimilate them into a state religion. GOVERNMENT got involved and tried to water down what the scriptures said. Yes you have here a result of what government is wanting to do based on the militant love brigade.
          Your view of history is amazing – in fact it’s so far fetched it’s incredible. Just because the ruthless Romans accused a ‘christian’ as doing something does that mean it so? Even if so does that mean that all ‘christians’ were terrorists? (Especially when Jesus specifically condemned violence – and demonstrated this himself)? Of course the Romans were quick to report when they made an error!
          On the versions of the Bible: there are no major doctrinal differences DESPITE the fact that the English language has changed over the last hundreds of years, that the Greek & Hebrew line up is all amazing – so maybe it is you who should put down his fantastical version of events & facts long enough to read the Bible ins tread of what others have concluded then you have a chance at meeting the author.
          There were MANY human witnesses of the resurrection – do you REALLY believe that something like this event that the Romans and Jews BOTH were determined to quash would gain such wide-spread acceptance unless they eye witnesses were correct?
          They would have been laughed off as everybody would know that they were false – but many saw Him alive and testified to the fact and even DIED before renouncing this belief.
          Then there’s all the miracles that still happen – but let’s start with the horse before the cart – read the Bible! Ask God to show you whether it’s true & absorb what it says. You may be surprised!

          1. Actually, the fact that they all agree with each other makes me more suspicious of their veracity, not less.
            Historians can’t even agree on details about Shakespeare and he was alive (or was he?) after the invention of the printing press and after the formation of the structured practice of historical reporting.
            Just look at all the differences of opinion of what very famous people supposedly said – or meant by what they said – from as little as a few years ago.
            Yet somehow, a collection of stories and parables written a couple of thousand years ago is 100% accurate and correct? Despite multiple and differing versions having been found? Despite historical and archaeological fact having refuted many of those stories?
            Despite no contemporary Roman writings about what was supposed to have been a major event in a troublesome Roman province? (Forget Josephus and Tacitus, they were both born after the supposed event)
            Despite the impossibility of literally half the Egyptian population escaping overnight to form the ancestral religion to Christianity with absolutely no contemporary writings about it from a culture obsessed with documenting every single thing?
            Despite the Bible describing things that are quite obviously taken from later stories? eg. the Israelites using camels as pack animals despite clear records showing that camels were not domesticated for another couple of thousand years?
            Your faith is your own business, but please don’t try to claim it as fact or use it to discriminate against others who don’t share it.

    1. Such a large collection by many different writers over such a long period time is almost bound to contain some great wisdom alongside the crap.

      But focussing on the great wisdom and calling it the “greatest user manual ever” – that’s a bit rich.

      These stories fill the pages of the Bible, yet they are seldom read in church and are ignored by most Bible believers, which is a shame because God is so proud of his killings:

      “I kill…I wound…I will make mine arrows drunk with blood and my sword shall devour flesh.” Deuteronomy 32:39-42

      You’ve probably heard of a few of God’s killings. Noah’s Flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, David and Goliath, maybe. But there many others that are unknown to pretty much everyone, believer and nonbeliever alike. And this is without even mentioning the rape, torture, slave-keeping and more.
      • Forced friends and family to kill each other for dancing naked around Aaron’s golden calf?
      • Burned Aaron’s sons to death for offering him strange fire?
      • Burned complainers to death, forced the survivors to eat quail until it literally came out their noses, sent “fiery serpents” to bite people for complaining about the lack of food and water, and killed 14,700 for complaining about his killings?
      • Buried alive those that opposed Moses (along with their families)?
      • Burned 250 men to death for burning incense?
      • Rewarded Phinehas for throwing a spear though the bellies of an inter-tribal couple while they were having sex?
      • Ordered, assisted in, or approved of dozens of complete genocides?
      • Accepted human sacrifice in the cases of Jephthah’s daughter and Saul’s seven sons?
      • Helped Samson murder 30 men for their clothes, slaughter 1,000 with the jawbone of an ass, and kill 3,000 civilians in a suicide terrorist attack?
      • Smote the Philistines of several cities with hemorrhoids in their secret parts?
      • Killed a man for trying to keep the ark of the covenant from falling and 50,070 for looking into the ark?
      • Approved when David bought his first wife with 200 Philistine foreskins?
      • Killed King Saul for not killing every Amalekite as he told him to do?
      • Slowly killed a baby to punish King David for committing adultery?
      • Killed 70,000 because David had a census that he (or Satan) told him to do?
      • Sent a lion to kill a prophet for believing another prophet’s lie, another lion to kill a man for not smiting a prophet, and some more lions to kill people that didn’t fear him enough?
      • Killed 450 religious leaders who lost a prayer contest with Elijah and burned 102 men to death for asking Elijah to come down from his hill?
      • Sent two bears to rip apart 42 boys for making fun of Elisha’s bald head?
      • Killed 27,000 Syrians by having a wall fall on them
      • Sent an angel to kill 185,000 sleeping soldiers
      • Interfered in human battles to kill a half million Israelites and a million Ethiopian soldiers?
      • Killed King Ahab for not killing a captured king, and then sent King Jehu on a series of mass murders to kill all of Ahab’s family and friends who had ever “pissed against a wall?”
      • Killed Jehoram by making his bowels fall out?
      • Killed Job’s ten children in a bet with Satan?
      • Killed Ezekiel’s wife and told him not to mourn her?
      • Killed Ananias and Sapphira for not giving Peter all their money?
      • Killed King Herod by feeding him to worms?

      “greatest user manual ever” — I think not.

          1. I don’t know if you are a super troll or really daft.

            If you want to say there are specific dimensions in the Bible say it. But unless you can produce the boat, saying they are the actual dimensions is completely retarded. Sorry, you have been writing a lot of crap, maybe just editing what you say would make it sensible?

            For instance, if you said “I believe that the dimensions listed in the Bible are true” then that would indeed be a factual argument. Probably not that relevant to anyone, but factual.

            1. He’s really daft.

              Ploth — do you also believe the value of pi given in the bible is true, i.e. 3. (Kings 7:23-26). A value easily refuted by a quick, casual measurement.

              And do you REALLY think some guy built a boat which held a pair of each of the 7-8 million species of animals that are estimated to inhabit the planet.

        1. TGABTG – I would suggest you study the concept of “cherry-picking”.

          If want to cherry-pick, then you are, de facto, admitting that the teachings, morals, etc. are formed by the brains of HUMANS.

      1. I suggest you find a better church – the stories and many more are preached regularly in good churches.
        If you did – or read the Bible for yourself – you would find most of your list is incorrect and more importantly that your list takes things out of context so that what you’ve written comes across incorrectly.
        I’m guessing that you don’t care because you have a point to make and by writing a list like that it supports your point.
        Please, please people read the Bible – seriously it’s easy to knock it and argue with it or reject it but, (as can be seen from this thread and all the positive votes on this comment) you’re judging the Bible based on what you think it says but that’s not the truth.

        Your list seems terrible on its own but remember that its beliefs opposed to the Bible that have led to the legal dismembering of millions of babies a year in the womb. That’s right a feeling, living baby that responds to light, sound and pain is literally chopped up as it squirms and tries to escape. Just because you has been brainwashed think that a baby is an embryo, that it doesn’t feel, that you can’t see it, that it has no soul, and that it’s excusable because it’s only a certain age – does not mean that it’s not murder.
        It is more gruesome than anything in your list and it happens millions of times a year- to protect a lifestyle! Equal rights for all!

        1. If terminating pregnancy is completely and always wrong, then you’re god is the biggest criminal of all.

          Unless you want to resort to the empty argument of, “Action X is really, really terrible, unless god does it — in which case it’s fine, because who are we to judge god, and, besides, he works in mysterious ways.”

          1. Please explain – where did God murder millions of babies every year because He felt like it?

            Oh wait – He didn’t. How many will die this year based on the actions of those who like yourself try to deny God yet blame Him for the bad in the world?

            1. You should probably read the story of Moses and the plagues.

              I have noticed you don’t accept good points when they are made. That really undermines what you say. Even someone who disagrees with you is going to make some good points, as people have, and acknowledging that would imply there was more to your viewpoints than just belief in your own beliefs.

        2. Yes, libs spout stats out of context, half-truth statement twists and so forth. Why they don’t get the message is beyond me. Oh wait, not coming from the PC Dems …

  5. Once Tim Cook settles all his issues with his female employees’ eggs and Alabama’s gays, I would hope he turns his attention to fixing the email IMAP fiasco that has been hosing his best customers since introduction of Mavericks and continues now with Yosemite. Has he just given up? Can’t Apple do IMAP?

  6. I think Tim Cook and other famous people should stick to what they do best. In Cook’s case, building devices that are fun to use and solve problems. When he, like others, opens up his mouth the first thing many people think is the next thing he will do is use his enormous wealth to impress upon others his own opinion. He will soon be worth a billion dollars. Apple Corporation has 150 billion in cash.

    I don’t really care what Cook thinks or how he runs his personal life. From my perspective, he is an excellent CEO of the worlds best technology company. That is what is important to the general public. It is the same for a famous actor or actress- do they practice their craft well? I will slam Cook in this respect: I have read one very unflattering article about Cook’s personal life. If that article is even remotely true, sometime in the future Cook may find himself in a heap of trouble. Apple shareholders may suffer as a result.

    Like I said: stick to your business, making comments about what the people of Alabama should do is not your place.

    1. Well… It’s his place when it prevents Apple from treating its employees as equals. If Tim wants to give Apple retail employees in Alabama the same benefits as they have elsewhere, he’s not allowed to because of Alabama law. It’s a bookkeeping headache and additional expense the company doesn’t need. If they were allowed to treat all spouses equally, regardless of gender, Apple would save money.

      1. There’s nothing stopping Cook from treating all Apple employees as equals. Ironically, he doesn’t. He pays himself tens of thousands of times more than his employees. How christian of him. He really seems to care about the well-being of his underlings.

        1. He doesn’t “pay himself”. The board of directors determines the executive pay. They are the ones who decide his value. And interestingly enough, Apple, the most valuable company in the world, doesn’t have the highest paid CEO; there are many CEOs out there, from much smaller and less successful companies, who make much more than Cook.

Reader Feedback

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