Wall Street Journal editorial blasts Apple CEO Tim Cook for ‘liberal intolerance’

“Liberals have instructed us time and again that corporations aren’t people or persons, that companies cannot express speech and have no right to engage in politics. But now Tim Cook is celebrated for delivering a moral lecture to Hoosiers on behalf of Apple because liberals agree with him,” The Wall Street Journal writes in an editorial. “Perhaps Mr. Cook and other CEOs who’ve criticized Indiana should reconsider their offices in China and other places around the world that have contempt for human rights, or in some cases open hostility to gays and lesbians.”

“To the extent anyone is offering a good-faith criticism, it seems to apply to the narrow exceptions of sole proprietors in the wedding industry, such as florists, bakers, photographers and singers,” The WSJ writes. “Our view is that their speech and conduct is protected by the First Amendment, but do liberals really now believe that the very few vendors who object to working at same-sex weddings should be forced to participate in what they believe to be a moral wrong?

“For that matter, should a Native American printer be legally compelled to make posters with an Indian mascot that he finds offensive, or an environmentalist contractor to work a shift at a coal-fired power plant?” The WSJ writes. “Fining or otherwise coercing any small number of private citizens — who aren’t doing anyone real harm but entertain politically unacceptable thoughts — is thuggish stuff.”

“A principle in quantum physics holds that everything not forbidden is mandatory, and social liberals seem intent on importing it into politics,” The WSJ writes. “But they may well come to regret this choice.”

“The movement for state recognition of same-sex marriages has succeeded in changing public opinion by appealing to people’s sympathy and values like love and acceptance,” The WSJ writes. “They will lose this good will if they adopt the illiberal standard that ‘equality’ must mean stomping on religious liberty.”

Full article here.

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

Related articles:
Carly Fiorina: Tim Cook’s opposition to Indiana religious freedom law hypocritical – April 6, 2015
Apple resurrects original six-color rainbow logo to celebrate diversity – April 1, 2015
Tim Cook forging unusual path as a social activist ‘on behalf of Apple’ – March 31, 2015
Does Apple risk blowback over Tim Cook’s gay rights activism? – March 30, 2015
Apple CEO Tim Cook says ‘religious freedom’ laws are dangerous – March 30, 2015
Tim Cook: Apple ‘deeply disappointed’ with Indiana’s new religious-objections law – March 27, 2015


      1. Yeah, basically it does.

        Here is the thing: The WSJ blasts Tim Cook – an opening gay CEO – while somehow managing to ignore that the world’s largest retailer (Walmart) vocally objected to both the Indiana and Arkansas laws. In Indiana, such major companies and organizations as Cummins, Eli Lilly, Anthem, Dow, NASCAR, the NCAA, Salesforce Cloud, and multiple chambers of commerce were outspoken in their criticism of the RFRA. But I’m not seeing the same criticism of these almost universally conservative and Republican entities.

        The bottom line is this: The United States is a civil nation, not a theocracy. Religious beliefs do not trump civil rights. Interestingly enough, true conservatives understand and support this view. It was, of all people, Justice Scalia wrote in a majority opinion in 1990, ““We have never held that an individual’s religious beliefs excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law … Can a man excuse his practices to the contrary because of his religious belief? To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious beliefs superior to the law of the land.”

        America is becoming more diverse and the “beliefs” of old white Christian men are no longer our default values. Apple and Walmart get this; apparently the WSJ – and its cousin by ownership, Fox News – do not.

        1. Are you being so prejudiced as to say old Black men don’t care about their religion? What about the old women?

          “Religious beliefs do not trump civil rights”
          Religious beliefs ARE civil rights.

          You’ve gotten this much wrong, no wonder you have no inkling what the law states.

          1. You cannot equate civil rights with religious rights. Religious rights are merely one small subset of civil, and an even small subset of human rights.

            Bottom line, one’s religious beliefs should ALWAYS be subservient to the greater good. Otherwise we would still have a western “civilization” that destroys itself with religious wars like the middle east continues to do.

            1. You’ve got that so wrong it is impossible to even begin to explain to you how.

              Wow. Someone’s sexual preference is ‘the greater good’?
              And that trumps religious preference?

              Yeah, we are doomed…..

            2. Why do you use the term “sexual preference”, rather than “sexual orientation”? People freely choose their religion, they freely choose their political party, they freely choose their friends. That’s preference.

              People do not choose their race, their parents, their sexual attraction or their right/left handedness. That’s orientation.

            3. Actually, people most likely don’t choose their party, unless they can change their core beliefs at will.

              Same with religion.

              However, I didn’t intend to use ‘preference’ as an insult.

            4. You may be sick in the head if you place your personal worship of your chosen deity above the health and well-being of those around you.
              I assume you are American. Since conservatives like you seem to typically use the US Constitution as your primary modern reference point for human rights, it might do you good to read the preamble. The whole purpose of the US Constitution, and the nation that you take for granted, is as follows:
              “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
              Note that Welfare of current generation and “Posterity” is listed as reasons for the US to exist. Freedom of religion was added only as an amendment – which only forebade Congress from turning the USA into a theocracy: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
              That’s it. US Law does not protect you to practice religion if it harms others. You simply can’t use religion in the USA as an excuse to harm others … unless you change the US Constitution. State laws that ever allow true harm to come to another due to religious tradition have, and will be again, litigated and thrown out as they always have been. The ill-conceived Indiana law is no exception.

            5. “You may be sick in the head if you place your personal worship of your chosen deity above the health and well-being of those around you.”

              That makes absolutely no sense in the context of what I said.

              “Freedom of religion was added only as an amendment – which only forebade Congress from turning the USA into a theocracy”.

              Wow. Another person so far off base. It was written for exactly what Indiana is trying to straighten out, which means the government can’t compel you to do something against your religion. Read it again. Then five more times. That’s what it is for.

              “You simply can’t use religion in the USA as an excuse to harm others”

              Again, what ‘harm’ are you speaking of?
              And can you use sexuality to harm others?
              Does anyone care if the psychological harm is on the religious person, or is it just the gay person that matters?

              I mean, if you’re going to get silly….

            6. Mr. TowerTone says: “…the government can’t compel you to do something against your religion.” Two points: 1. Of course
              government can do this as in the Draft; and 2. associating with
              LBGT people either socially or in business is NOT against the
              Christian religion. Jesus said NOTHING about such an association
              and in fact said NOTHING about homosexuality at all. These
              wacky fundamentalists get their strange ideas from a misreading of Romans.

            7. The draft has to do with national security but I’ll not argue that point.

              As far as association, that is not the issue.
              Odd that you misread the law and then accuse ‘wacky fundamentalist’ of misreading something.

              Good for you….

            8. Jesus didn’t, but his father, God, did. Though, if you believe in the trinity, then Jesus actually did personally forbid homosexuality. Read 1st Corinthians 4:9.
              Also, have you heard of Sodom and Gomorrah?

            9. “Freedom of religion was added only as an amendment”

              What does that have to do with anything? As if it had less meaning because it wasn’t written in the original document?!

              The ending of slavery was also added only as an amendment too. Thirteenth Amendment: Section I.


            10. You are a troll. You ignored Ralph’s true take on the WSJ article and instead criticized him for the term “old white men.”

              His argument undercuts yours and, since you did ignored it, you know you’re wrong and a troll.

            11. A troll? Really? I’ve been here over 9 years as a troll?

              Ralph used Scalia’s ruling out of context.
              And odd that you have no Democrat quotes from the same era that opposed Scalia.

              And what if I had described the Democrat party as a bunch of young homosexuals? Would that set well with your over-pc’d mindset?

            12. It’s pretty clear that religious beliefs are a choice. If you are having trouble with your beliefs, choose differently. If you’re having trouble with mine, I’m protected by the Constitution. There’s no need for a bunch of underhanded, amateur hour, state level legislation. (Did they write it wrong, or did they just get caught and called out on it?) Legislative pandering to the desires of a few, less than 15%, of the population who desire to impose their belief system on everyone else is dangerous and offensive. Everyone needs to stand up against the radical christianists. It is too bad the Republican Party is afraid to try governing from the center.

            13. “radical christianists” – You mean like the Pilgrims??? And why did they leave England again????

              What about the radical LGBT community who you MUST agree with or be slandered, threatened, punished, or worse if you believe differently?

              Q: What’s the difference between the LGBT community and ISIS?

              A: One’s better dressed!

          2. Religious beliefs ARE civil rights? Okay, what about Mormonism and its required practice of polygamy? The Supreme Court clearly ruled in Reynolds v. US (1878) that religious duty is not a defense to a crime. And what about Quakers who deducted tax payments going to a war effort? Three separate cases were decided against the Quakers on this count, and the Supreme Court (in 2000) refused to hear any of them on appeal.

            Clearly, a “right” is not unlimited. As Justice Holmes wrote in Schneck v. US (1919), free speech is a right, but you can’t scream “fire” in a crowded theater. And the 2nd Amendment may guarantee you the right to bear arms, you are not allowed to possess a nuclear weapon.

            So, TowerTone, I’d say you were the low-information commenter here. And if you want a detailed legal breakdown of what was wrong with the original Indiana RFRA, I’d be glad to do that, too.

            1. That’s a fair question, rettogo. Let’s look at US history on that: During the Revolutionary War, conscientious objectors (CO) had to pay a fine; Quakers who refused to pay this fine had their property confiscated (bet you didn’t know that). Similarly, during the Civil War, you could pay $300 ($500 in the Confederacy) to avoid service; alternatives included imprisonment. In World War I, COs could opt for noncombat roles; if they refused that (and about 2000 did), they were imprisoned. In WWII, about 12,000 COs worked in the Civilian Public Service. Today, the two main criteria for classification as a conscientious objector are that the objector must be opposed to war in any form, and the objection must be sincere. In 1971, the Supreme Court in Gillette v. US broadened the rules beyond religious belief but denied the inclusion of objections to specific wars as grounds for conscientious objection.

              So, in short, throughout US history, conscientious objection has not been a free ticket out of service to the country. Thanks for playing.

            1. CitizenX – What a well thought out, intelligent response. You must be a lib.

              Typical of libs, like their leaders; the vile, self-admitted liar Harry Reid (who got beaten up by the Vegas mob), or the horrid, senile Nancy ‘the BOTOX has eaten into my tiny brain’ Peelosi!

            2. Oh sure.. and the original comment I responded to was a Scholarly Tome worthy of inclusion in the Library of Congress.

              On another note. Shut the f**k up. I must be a lib, whatever that is? I’ll tell you what. I am so flaming Liberal as to make you come out of your anonymous corner and make stupid comments.

              Do you even realize how stupid your petty comment is? I’ll tell you what. Get out of my face and I won’t respond.

        2. You are right that religious beliefs do not trump civil rights, but individual rights and freedom of religion do trump the rights of groups (gays, etc.)

          1. schmluss, your comment is total sophistry. You conflate “individual rights” with “freedom of religion” with a conjunction (“and”) and then dubiously assert the combination trump the rights of groups. Ok then, I am a radically conservative Christian practicing my freedom of religion as an individual and I decide to stone to death a group of young women who have had sex with men who are not their husbands (see Deuteronomy 22:22–24). Do you seriously believe that your faith and literalist belief in the Bible should shield you in your individual exercise of religious freedom against a group that you don’t approve of?

        3. Having a cake baked for your wedding is not a civil right. Quit launching into hyperbole to make this whole political drama something that it is not. The only people who had their civil rights violated were the baker. But by all means, keep pushing this nonsense meme, it’s exposing this political movement for what it really is, liberalism is intolerance.

          1. Look, on the one hand, I agree on the whole cake-baking thing – it is a stupid example and I wish it weren’t a real one. But since 1964 in the US, it has been the law of the land that if you own a business – a “public accommodation” – that sells to the general citizenry, you can’t discriminate. And to put a sharper point on it, your choice to hold a particular religious belief, coupled to your choice to open a business that serves the public, does not trump a customer’s sexual orientation, which modern medicine has long held is NOT a choice.

            1. Sure you can discriminate, it happens all the time. No shirt, no shoes, conceal carrying a firearm, etc. and you can be refused service anywhere. And yes, I can easily call them discrimination, it’s all actions/behaviors that someone objects to, it’s no different.

              The gay couple was not discriminated against because they were gay. They baker had served gay people before. They objected to participating in something they believed was against their religious beliefs. Even if you or I agree or disagree, THAT was their objection. If you don’t believe in killing puppies and someone comes in and asks you to make a cake that says “Support killing puppies” for their upcoming puppy killing party then you shouldn’t have to do it. It’s not discriminating against a class of people, just one behavior or activity that someone does.

              No one would be surprised if someone refused to bake the puppy killing cake, but if it’s gay marriage then you MUST conform. Because it’s all about love and if you don’t support our love we are going to burn down your pizza shop, isn’t that the current state of affairs?

              This has nothing to do with tolerance or discrimination and everything to do with political mileage for next year’s election. Laws like this have been on the books for years, but we’ve got a big election coming up and they need a divisive issue to hammer and scare people with, instead of them realizing the economy is on the verge of collapse and we are involved in endless war. Wake up and see past the illusion.

            2. InTheShelter: All of your examples and others that are commonly invoked to deny service are personal CHOICES made by the prospective patron – not to wear shoes, to carry a firearm, to be publicly intoxicated, etc. Sexual orientation – along with gender, ethnicity, race, etc. – are not personal choices.

            3. I can easily argue that sexual preference is a choice. There have been examples of people who declared they were gay, later to end up in a heterosexual marriage. Or what about the some members of the gay community saying that you can’t be bisexual? Where is there tolerance of those folks being “born that way”? Sorry, but I’m not buying the “it’s not a choice” argument. I know that will make folks flip out, but so be it. In the end, my examples stand, because just like this case it was not because they were gay, but because they were asking the baker to participate in a behavior that they objected to. Heck even take religion out of the argument, people should be free to associate, or NOT associate with whomever they choose. It’s called freedom, and government rulings or not, I don’t think the government has any business telling you what you must or must not do unless there is actual harm, or a victim.

              I’ve said this before, these laws have been on the books for years and there have not been some massive persecutions or discrimination of gay people, or anyone, based off these laws. This is about political opportunism in advance of the 2016 elections.

            4. Ralph M. — the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights are the supreme law of the land — can’t find anything in the Constitution/BOR that supports your arguments.

              Freedom of association comes to mind — care to guess where you might find this bit of wisdom?


            5. Niff: US law is an infinitely more complex and nuanced form of governance that your comically simplistic position claims. It is the aggregation of over 226 years of laws passed by Congress, their implementation by the Executive Branch, and their interpretation by the courts – all framed by the structure provided by the Constitution and its amendments. As for my posts on this subject today, I have cited numerous specific court cases, quoted several conservative Supreme Court justices, and tried hard to stick to the facts. You, on the other hand, have made an empty assertion, framed entirely by your ideology, and imagine that you can claim victory. Not exactly persuasive…

            6. Ralph M — we will have to agree to disagree.

              It is important that you, or I, have the right to choose whom we wish to be with — associate with — spend our time being around — very, very important part of our essential freedoms.

              Pick a group or situation that you would personally not wish to associate with — not spend your time, or energy, being part of — with that in mind, NO law of the land demands that you MUST associate with that/those persons or situation, IF you choose NOT to.

              It really is that simple.


            7. Ralph M – “Comically simplistic” – NONE of Congress’s laws can violate the Constitution! That’s what the Supreme Court has to interpret & rule on time & again! (duh!)

              BTW, US Law defaults even further back to English Common Law if no US Law exists… that’s why the American Bar Association built the monument at Runnymede where King John signed the Magna Carta.

              At least learn a little about the law before spouting off..

            8. The Constitution and treaties are “the law of the land.” Any law passed is subject to judicial review to try those laws against the Constitutional basis. Then it is up to 9 men and women to decide which part of the Constitution takes greater precedence over the other if there is conflict. Clearly, the first Amendment sides with an individual’s freedom to exercise his or her religion by taking part in or not taking part in any activity that he or she chooses. Civil rights are law. The other side is that freedom of speech has its limits. One can’t say just anything. So the Courts work out the precedence. The problem here is that regardless of the Courts’ stance, society will judge the issue. And society won’t be as forgiving as any Court may. The militant gay movement has overplayed its hand. When one gay couple is forced to take part in an event that they fully, whole-heartedly, in the core of their being object to, we will see the sorry ends to which a loud minority in the gay movement have led us.

        4. So Ralph,

          I guess the Constitution is “old” and “out-of-date” too considering it was written by a bunch of “old white men”

          Same with Sir Isaac Newton, Einstein (better throw out Newtonian physics & Einstein’s theories), er, and Steve Jobs! ALL “old white men”

          Watch out, your not-so-well-thought-out liberal viciousness is showing!

    1. GO TIM!

      Here’s to the crazy ones. The misfits. The rebels. The troublemakers. The round pegs in the square holes.

      The ones who see things differently. They’re not fond of rules. And they have no respect for the status quo. You can quote them, disagree with them, glorify or vilify them.

      About the only thing you can’t do is ignore them. Because they change things. They invent. They imagine. They heal. They explore. They create. They inspire. They push the human race forward.

      While some see them as the crazy ones, we see genius. Because the people who are crazy enough to think they can change the world, are the ones who do.

      1. MikeK – Er, okay Mike… So when exactly is Apple going to completely PULL OUT and STOP SELLING in countries where homosexuality is ILLEGAL and punishable by DEATH?

        I mean Tim Cook can’t have it both ways can he?

        So when does Apple announce no more products in; Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, Qatar & Iran? Hmm? Crickets…

  1. Those who are attacking religion claim they are doing it in the name of tolerance, freedom and open-mindedness. Question: Isn’t the real truth that they are intolerant of religion? They refuse to tolerate its importance in our lives. — Ronald Reagan

    1. I have no problem with anyone’s religion. They’re welcome to worship whatever invisible, imaginary “god” they choose. I will argue for their right to do that, even though I think it’s naive and born out of ignorance and centuries of brainwashing.

      But the point at which your religious beliefs infringe upon or discriminate upon me or anyone else is where your religious rights end. If you choose to have a business, then you can’t discriminate against people who believe in a different imaginary being, or none at all, or people who have a lifestyle that YOUR religion doesn’t condone. Can’t handle that? Then don’t open a business.

      That idea is only one SMALL step away from “I won’t work on a team with Bob because Bob is homosexual and my religion frowns upon men loving men. Bob talks about his partner sometimes and it offends me.” That is ridiculous and disruptive to our society as a whole. How about “I won’t work with Srinivas because he’s Hindu and their beliefs conflict with what I believe. He wears Hindu symbols to meetings and that offends me. Fire him, now.”

      Slippery slope, anyone?

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

      Clearly, one’s relationship partner is a big part of happiness (well, unless it’s my ex-wife, but I digress…).

      Basically, all these people crying about their religious beliefs being infringed upon are full of sh*t. I guarantee that those waitresses, etc, have done business with FAR worse people than those against whom they’re trying to discriminate. I’m sure they’ve served pedophiles, wife-beaters, rapists, murderers, etc, too, but for some reason, serving a beer or pizza to two guys (or women) who came in holding hands isn’t OK? And for the record, I’m not gay, but I fully support their right to a discrimination-free life.

      And anyone who actually THINKS about the following quote will realize why people place entirely too much emphasis on their religion:

      “I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer gods than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.” — Stephen F. Roberts

      Think about it. Why are you Christian (or whatever)? For 99% of people, it’s because “that’s how I was raised.” There was no epiphany that “this is the way and the truth.” It’s just what you were taught, and you really have no basis to say that your religion is right and anything else is wrong. It’s just what Mom and Dad told you (or the preacher, in-between molestation sessions in some cases).

      1. But the question I ask is why you would want to put money in their pockets? Why not support their competitors and run them out of business in a free-market fashion? This wreaks of the heavy hand of government and will most certainly have a backlash. And THAT was the point of the article sited.

        1. Because even markets need laws to be just.

          Free fair markets and societies don’t happen at random or by accident and they are not human’s natural state. They are a precious and invaluable invention.

    2. You believe in Gawd? Good for you, if talking snakes and suspension of disbelief are your thing.


      Stick it in your pants pocket and enjoy, but keep it the hell out of my life and that of those of us who live in a reality based worldview.

      The simple fact is laws like Indiana’s will have a direct impact on people Apple hires, assigns or partners with. The company has an interest in Repugnican Laws that reach into the bedroom and try to justify discrimination in the name of faith.

      If Repugnicans really had a libertarian outlook they would stay out of people’s bedrooms and women’s medical decisions regarding reproductive health.

      As you know, that is not what is happening.

    3. Quoting the only president to have a foreign policy veto overriden related to civil rights (Reagan, pro- apartheid; even conservative republicans, against) fits well in this thread. Religion is a choice; and the only “right” related to that choice is the right to not have the government make the choice for you. The “practice” of religion has always been subject to restrictions when said practice had a negative impact on society. Most would consider discrimination a negative impact…

    4. “Those who are attacking religion claim they are doing it in the name of tolerance, freedom and open-mindedness. Question: Isn’t the real truth that they are intolerant of religion? They refuse to tolerate its importance in our lives.

      — Ronald Reagan”

      Until I read Ronald Reagan, I thought it was by an Iranian mullah.

  2. I like to call it the practice of “intolerance in the name of tolerance.”

    Here is one example of how the practice of intolerance in the name of tolerance works: A left leaning group announces to the media that they are waging a war against some intolerant practice – whether it be a true act of intolerance or a perceived one – and then the media elites join the cause by repeating the mantra of the left leaning group until many in the public practically regurgitate what has been said. This continues until the “intolerant” conservatives are completely demonized and marginalized. After the process has run its course, it is close to impossible for a conservative to get a fair shake. The label of “intolerance” has been set in stone.

    There is one major reason that the practice of intolerance in the name of tolerance is so effective. It is a practice based on the Contrast Effect, a psychological phenomenon used as a counseling technique. The Contrast Effect is the tendency of humans to both play up the good and downplay the bad in our lives, or vice versa. Using the Contrast Effect during a counseling session, a counselor can reframe the way a client sees his or her circumstances. One way to do this is to greatly magnify the good experiences in a client’s life, while at the same time greatly diminishing the bad. This contrast between good and bad experiences allows the client to feel better about his or her experiences and thus move toward recovery.

    What the political left does is much the same as the Contrast Effect when they engage in the practice of liberal intolerance in the name of tolerance. They magnify the minor mistakes made by conservatives as if they were major blunders, while at the same time downplaying the major blunders of liberals as if they were minor mistakes. This kind of contrast, done repeatedly, over time, creates intolerance for anything conservatives do or say, while allowing almost carte blanche tolerance for anything liberals do or say. Liberals become the heroes for calling out a perceived intolerance and trying to end it. Conservatives become the enemy for practicing some so-called intolerance. It is an easy sell as no one wants to be on the side of an intolerant cause or candidate. — Christopher Merola, August 27, 2012

    Read more here.

      1. I would hardly call being intolerant of a law that helps to preserve a right guaranteed in the Constitution, and which does not provide a legal basis for discrimination, a good thing.

        1. Please show us the wording in the US Constitution.

          If you think that the 3rd Amendment is a license to persecute, then you don’t know what the Constitution really means. All it says is that Congress can’t turn the USA into a theocracy. It does NOT provide an excuse for any religion to follow any practice that is harmful to the greater good, which is spelled out in federal law.

          1. Done.

            “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

            It’s that “or prohibiting the free exercise” of one’s religion that you have a problem with. Just as the word privacy is never used in the Constitution, the word association is not used here but is implied by a person’s freely exercising their religion by not associations with crooks and cheats.

            1. nice copy/paste. note the it doesn’t grant you freedom to use religion as an excuse for any of your actions or discriminations — it only forbids Congress from creating a theocracy.

              Your move.

            2. Just to be clear — according to the U.S. Constitution, Federal laws are to be the exclusive product of the Legislative branch of the U.S. Government — not the Executive branch, nor Judicial.

              The above quoted First Amendment excerpt, from rettogo’s above comment — “Congress shall make no law respecting an [sic] establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” —

              Mike responds: “note the it doesn’t grant you freedom to use religion as an excuse for any of your actions or discriminations.”

              Quite true — it literally says NOTHING about such “freedom” or “action” or “discrimination.” Completely silent.

              The 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

              “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”

              By including the 10th ammendment, the framers were being very specific and clear with regards to the limits placed upon FedGov power. Anything NOT specifically articulated in the Contitution/BOR are automatically reserved for the state, or the individual.


        2. You and all other supports of this legislation are twisting the intent of “freedom of religion.” It was intended to *prevent* discrimination on the basis of religion, NOT to create a mechanism to USE religion as an excuse to discriminate against others.

          You’re free to practice whatever religion you want, and that has absolutely nothing to do with you (as a baker, for ex) baking a cake and putting “Congratulations Bob and John!” on it with a rainbow over the names. Baking and decorating that cake does not infringe on your religious expression.

          It’s simply performance of your job as a baker. It doesn’t give indication of your support of their gay union. It simply gets you paid to do your job, and gets them a wedding cake. Anything else is an attempt to use religion as a tool to discriminate against “non-believers,” which is itself religious persecution and discrimination…a clear violation of “freedom of religion.” End of story.

          1. Except that was not what was requested of the baker by the gays.

            As a matter of fact the baker had previously supplied such cakes and goodies to the gay gentlemen.

            The baker was asked to actively participate in the gentlemens wedding. To which the baker kindly stated that he could not, due to his religious beliefs and recommended a very competent baker down the road who had no such qualms.

            Let’s stick to the facts.

            1. “The baker was asked to actively participate in the gentlemen’s wedding.”

              Sorry, but I’m calling BS on that, particularly since you said you’d like to stick to the facts.

              Providing food to an event hardly constitues “active participation in a wedding.” Does the baker intend to participate in the dancing? Is the baker going to bring a gift? Is the baker going to enjoy the drinks and hors d’oeuvres? Is the baker going to sit on the bride’s or groom’s side (or in this case, “his” or “his” side)?

              In performing a job as a baker, the answer to all those is unequivocally “no.” Therefore the baker is NOT participating in the wedding, and your wording as such is simply further attempt to twist the facts to support your perspective. I’m not buying.

              The baker was paid to provide a cake and the baker provided a cake. It’s really that simple. The nature of the event is really immaterial to one’s job as a baker.

              As I saw someone else brilliantly post elsewhere, providing a cake for a wedding doesn’t constitute “participating in a wedding” any more than selling a gun to someone constitutes “participating in a murder.”

    1. NO!

      SJ biggest mistake was hiring the guy from Pepsi (or was it Coke).

      An even bigger mistake was not to seek proper medical help for his curable pancreas cancer.

      All TC has done is taken Apple from 200 bucks a share to 700 bucks a share.

      1. Some people would correctly point out that App Store profits which just started to take off under Jobs have essentially fuelled all of Cook’s success. Cook cannot point to hardly any products or services that are anything more than continuation of what Jobs accomplished. The Apple Watch will be his first attempt to show what he can do. While the fanboys are already chalking that one up as unqualified success, it would be wise to wait and see if the return on investment will be worthwhile. It is very possible that the first generation Apple Watch will not be very useful without an iPhone, and people will just decide that they can continue to live life using only an iPhone. As for me, any wristwatch is just another piece of overpriced jewelry that I can happily do without. If i wanted a health monitor on me, i’d want it on me 24/7 and preferably implantable.

  3. The Indiana (and some other states’) law’s extra wording that isn’t in the federal law allows discrimination. Simple as that. And Indiana isn’t China, and shouldn’t be held to the same standards. What a crap article. Read the fine print. There’s no liberal “side” to Tim’s view. Wrong is wrong. The law was written with the heavy influence of wrong-thinking and intolerant people.

    1. Could you share those extra words that allow discrimination?
      It would make this discussion so much easier to follow….it’s simple as that!

      (and good for you for being so tolerant of the intolerant….or vice-versa)

      1. It is actually the _lack_ of particular words: at the Federal level, there’s specific language which prohibits descrimination of certain groups (eg, Gays), which doesn’t have an equivalent in Indiana State law.

  4. Why are people in the US of A so afraid of truth?
    Why are people in the US of A afraid of (hate) people who think differently, when it doesn’t hurt them?
    Why are people in the US of A so angry for anyone who doesn’t look like them, think like them or act like them?

    I remember when one group of people screamed “We accept all” – and that group became intolerant and hating and bashing – and the masses of the people seem to love the bashing. Oooh to read Germany’s history again.

    1. No one is afraid of truth, except the liberals making unsubstantiated claims against the Indiana law.

      No one is afraid of, nor hates, gays (since that’s the group we’re talking about here. That’s the liberal manipulation of the conversation to paint conservatives as fearful, hateful people, and it’s a despicable – if common – liberal tactic. As for thinking differently, conservatives have always been happy to discuss; it’s the liberals that have torn down signs, vandalized homes, brought lawsuits against the expressed will of the people, and many other techniques designed to AVOID discussion.

      As for that last question, you’ll have to ask a liberal.

    2. Hitler used religion as a tool for control if it’s THAT point in Germany’s history you’re thinking of. The power of religion is that is that you can take people who generally wouldn’t act a certain way and make them do things differently. It can be an immense power of good if the practitioners/leaders drive it to be. As with any power, though, it can be corrupted and has been many times in the past. Whether it’s being corrupted now won’t be decided until WELL in the future.

      1. Hitler wasn’t religious!!! He used very effective propaganda, economic stimulus, nationalism, etc to rally people around his twisted cause. A significant percentage of Germans, religious and non-religious, did not support him but it’s not like they had any real choice in the matter. They had to be private about their beliefs for fear of being discovered. Interestingly, the tactics of fascist and theocratic regimes are remarkably similar. Eerily similar. The only difference with Hitler was that he made Sabbath days productive, whereas Judeo-Christian religions pretty much waste the day that could be spent spreading the rhetoric or killing or whatever your creed demands. Fearmongering is still used effectively by all political parties, just listen to the wackos on this forum.

  5. Seems to me that if you open a business, that’s different than personal religious freedom. A prospective customer ought to be able to walk into a store with the reasonable expectation that he or she will be served rather than shunned. Also, acceptance of the LGBT community is a fast-growing sentiment in this country, and the world at large. Even the pope said “who am I to judge?” regarding the LGBT community. The U.S. was founded on the separation of church and state, so laws that support discrimination in the name of religious freedom are wrong. Period.

    1. The US was NOT founded on separations of church and state.
      That is pure dogma. It was founded partially on freedom of religion.

      Also, the law is not intended to allow you to discriminate against someone who comes into your business unless they make a request for you to do something that breaches your religious beliefs.

      Think of requiring a Muslim deli to cater your family reunion with pork. Won’t happen, but they may serve lamb.

      Try getting an abortion at a Catholic hospital. Nope. But they will deliver a baby.

      Does this explanation help any? I know you won’t hear it on NBC Nightly News, because it wouldn’t serve their purpose.

      1. Your examples don’t work. Muslim deli serves specific types of dishes (halal meat, etc), so asking them to serve pork is no different than asking a Chinese restaurant to serve quesadillas — they simply won’t know how to prepare it. Same with a hospital performing abortion — if they don’t have the special skills (and equipment), they won’t be able to do it, regardless of the reason.

        Wedding cakes are wedding cakes; so is wedding photography (or entertainment). If you make wedding cakes, then you make them. If you know how to make a little man and a little woman to put on top, you cannot claim, as a Muslim deli could, that you simply don’t know how to prepare pork.

        Or, to put it differently; while a Muslim deli might be able to invoke the new Indiana law and discriminate against non-Muslims, they can easily say that they just don’t know how to prepare pork and avoid looking as bigots.

        Wedding photographer simply doesn’t have an excuse (s)he could use to refuse taking pictures at a gay wedding. (S)he could pretend that his/her calendar is fully booked; invoking religion makes it clear that (s)he is discriminating.

        You probably won’t hear this on FOX Nightly Kews; it wouldn’t server their purpose…

        1. A wedding is a celebration of marriage.
          Marriage is between a man and a woman.
          That is their belief.

          If two gay men wanted photos of themselves in their new home, then their is no perception of marriage being bastardized.

          If they wanted photos of themselves in sex acts, then, once again, the photographer could use the Indiana law.

          In the above example, what if you supplied the pork to the Muslim deli?
          They have all the accouterments to prepare it. How about if you provided the recipe to the Chinese cooks? That would be muck like directions to a chapel.

          Also, I don’t watch Fox news, so I have no idea.
          I did, however, spend decades watching NBC, ABC and I currently watch CBS.

          And get over using the term ‘bigots’ until you understand what it means.

          1. I disagree. Today, their belief says that a marriage is between a man and a woman. Not many decades ago, their belief said that a marriage is between a man and a woman of the same race. Very many nice and decent Christian people truly believed that back then, and refused to accept inter-racial marriage under Christianity.

            The Muslim deli example still holds no water, as you seem to be stretching it to the point far beyond any realistic scenario. Let us for the moment try to stretch it even further then: someone is hell-bent on forcing a Muslim deli to provide pork-based dishes for their party (hoping to sue them after they refuse on religious grounds), that Muslim deli can easily say that they simply can’t make pork-based dishes since they never did; even with recipes, they wouldn’t be able to guarantee quality, as they never did it and would have a very plausible excuse to refuse without discriminating. Of course, the moment they say they can’t serve food to non-Muslims, they are discriminating, and that isn’t right.

            There are Christian denominations (as well as other religions) that embrace gay marriage. It is clear that nobody can claim absolute truth on this any longer. These denominations, as well as other religions, confer the same sanctity to gay marriage as they do to non-gay. Marriage is marriage — union of two loving people. Even in America (among the developing world, one of the most socially conservative nations), the society is evolving and embracing. And if we look back at those other religious barriers that were removed (inter-racial, inter-ethnic marriages), we don’t see Christianity weakened, or Christian faith among the believers diminished in any meaningful way, as a consequence of allowing such marriages and making it illegal to discriminate on any basis.

            Religion will survive this in America, as it had survived for over two centuries, because it has all the necessary protections in the constitutions. It really isn’t necessary for people of faith to hide behind it when they are facing situations that make them squeamish.

            As for bigots, I know at the word means. I have met very traditional and religious Americans, and they certainly weren’t bigots. Unfortunately, in certain life situations they can easily be seen as such.

        2. So Predrag, do you think artists (photographers) should be compelled by threat of government penalty to participate in a gay wedding? Have you ever been married? Wedding photography is an immersive role. The photographer does not just show up at the venue, set up remote cameras on tripods and walk away.

          Should a gay photographer be compelled to go to the Westboro Baptist Church to do family portraits? If the gay photographer refuses is that religious discrimination? No, it’s an artist not wanting to spend a day trying to make pretty pictures of a bunch of jerks.

          There’s a difference between a business that opens it doors to serve anyone who walks in versus a creative professional. I don’t want to live in a country where the government tells painters, sculptors, writers and photographers what art they must produce.

          1. I’m sure if he were required to play fiddle at a hillbilly shotgun wedding he might see things differently, but until it affects him directly, I doubt it.

            The question is, does the government have a right to force you to do business in a way you don’t agree with. That is it in a nutshell.

            Until people understand that, I’ll offer y’all this to ponder….

      2. You’re completely missing the point and as Predrag said, your examples don’t work (but for different/additional reasons than he gave).

        Catholic hospitals simply DO NOT OFFER abortions. They’re not saying “oh, you’re not a Catholic, so we won’t give you an abortion, but if you were a Catholic we would.”

        It’s simply not on their list of services.

        Similarly, the Muslim deli simply doesn’t offer pork on their menu. It’s not that they refuse to serve it to Jews or Christians (but if you’re a Muslim they’ll make it for you). It’s simply not on their menu, any more than General Tso’s chicken is on their menu…..you can’t get that either, no matter who you are.

        If you want pork or something else not on their menu, then you’ll need to hire someone else.

        If you want an abortion, you need to go to a different hospital that isn’t Catholic owned.

        The Indiana pizza joint that’s been in the news MAKES AND SELLS PIZZA. It’s ON THEIR MENU…it’s what they DO…their primary offering!!! Oh, unless you’re gay (or whatever else they hate). THEN they won’t serve it. Straight couple? What would you like on that pizza? Gay couple? Piss off, you can’t have one.

        THAT is discrimination.

        1. The pizza joint did NOT say they wouldn’t serve gays. They explicitly said they would be happy to serve anyone gay who came into the restaurant, they just wouldn’t participate in a gay wedding.

          Your post is exactly what is wrong with this entire discussion. you are either uninformed or intentionally misleading people when you talk about an issue. I suspect the latter, but either way it turns into a ridiculous discussion because you’re arguing something that is just not true. Meanwhile those that agree with you just nod their heads, none of them call you out on your blatant errors.

          The intolerance police strike again. First lie, then create a fake moral outrage from your lie, then condemn, then demand justice (via some flavor of violence, kidnapping or theft via government).

          1. No, you took my example and assumed my entire posting was about the pizza joint. It wasn’t. I used them as an example, as have many.

            I’m well aware of their specific complaint, but I was primarily talking about the bigger picture and how this law could be used for broader discrimination. Perhaps I should have been clearer in differentiating the two, but that’s how I intended it.

      3. Partially on religious freedom, yes. They didn’t have religious freedom in Europe because there was an official state sponsored church and if you didn’t believe that one, well, sux to be you.

        Understanding that the “issue” came from having a formally recognized national religion, they set up this country explicitly to NOT have a formally recognized religion. Believe how you want in whom you want with no persecution. That lasted for quite some time and there was a certain level of resistance in raising anything religious to a state level, knowing where that has led and historically always leads. So, the separation was clearly intended unless you see “religious freedom” as only f”reedom for one state sponsored religion”.

        1. “That lasted for quite some time and there was a certain level of resistance in raising anything religious to a state level, knowing where that has led and historically always leads.”

          That is total bullshit. No two ways about it. Utter crap and lies, as with the ‘separation’ silliness.

          Apparently true History is history with this generation.

    2. You’re right: what’s been (conveniently!) “lost” in this entire dialog is that a business is an artificial entity authorized by the Government as part of a contract.

      That contract basically grants the business the authority to conduct for-profit activities and various other privileges … but it also carries with it other responsibilities, such as a minimum wage, OSHA safety requirements … and in terms of the “public” for whome it serves, it calls for the business to be secular.

      If you don’t like the terms of the contract, then don’t incorporate a for-profit business. Go open up a church instead.

      1. And yet not all businesses are required to pay minimum wages and adhere to all of OSHA’s regulations.

        And who the Hell is the government to ‘grant’ someone the ability to do business? And how does it call for secularism?
        If a business sells bibles for a profit, what does that make it?

        Good Lord the socialist are winning…no one has a clue anymore.

        1. The government regulates all kinds of things in order to promote peaceful society.

          You can complain about any particular law, but complaining that laws come from the government is delusional.

          1. Don’t worry yourself over TT …he’s probably never even checked to see if the publisher of his Bible was a “Good Christian Business” or not.

            And as what was said earlier, “…since 1964 in the US, it has been the law of the land that if you own a business – a ‘public accommodation’ – that sells to the general citizenry, you can’t discriminate.”

            Even the attempted examples of exception (No Shirt, Shoes, etc) have basis in elements other than the “who” the Citizen is: for example, these particular examples are usually based on local health codes.

      2. The Hobby Lobby ruling totally refutes what you said here. A business is comprised of individuals who carry religious beliefs and in some cases the business itself can be seen as carrying those beliefs when richly grained in the culture of the business. If this is true for a for-profit corporation, how much truer must it be for a sole proprietorship where the single owner’s and business tax filings are one and the same. The business is an extension of the individual who is simply doing business.

        1. Oh, I’m quite aware that the SC’s Hobby Lobby ruling cuts into this basic principle … and fundamentally, that’s precisely why it eventually has to go.

          Contemplate the public outcry if Hobby Lobby were Darwinists and said that it was against their religious beliefs to have their workplace be compliance with OSHA – – their rationale is that the only workers who will die from unsafe work conditions would be the “stupid” ones who deserve that fate.

          Its not a question of tolerance vs intolerance: care must be taken when viewing any and all “accomodations” which may be unbalancing to the larger interests of Society…over the decades, just where the ‘right’ balance point has been has been a swinging pendulum.

      3. @ -hh: You and many other posters clearly do not understand the relevance of the Supreme Court decision in the Hobby Lobby case. The decision affirmed the right of a family-owned business to refuse to comply with a requirement to distribute contraceptives, based on religious conviction.

        A baker who opens a shop to sell baked good to the public doesn’t have the right to discriminate against customers based on race or other characteristics, in general. The baker does have the right to discriminate against customers who don’t wear shoes, are disorderly, or can’t pay for goods.

        In the case of a request to bake and decorate a cake for a gay wedding, I maintain that a baker does have the right to refuse that service, based on religious conviction.

        Those who demand toleration because they are different (in whatever respect) should be prepared to be tolerant of others who differ from them. Such toleration wasn’t exhibited in the now famous case of the Oregon baker. The gay couple sought to ruin the baker. That’s wrong, and I refuse to tolerate their action, which was to refuse a basic civil right to the baker.

        That was an example of a conflict of one civil right with another. If a suit is brought, the court can decide. If Oregon state law recognizes one right but not the other, the state law is deficient and should be corrected.

        Case law indicates that in general religious convictions should be respected, but that in some cases the public good overrides religious conviction. For example, parents who refuse vaccination of their children because of religious conviction should lose, because of potential harm not only to those children but others as well.

        No such harm resulted in the case of the gay couple who was refused (only) a wedding cake because of the baker’s religious conviction. There were other venues to obtain the wedding cake, as suggested by the baker.

        Had the baker acted by beheading the gay couple, as might happen in some venues around the world, that would have been a violation of their civil rights and certainly should not be permitted in the United States.

        For goods and services I choose businesses which treat me with respect and satisfy my needs. I simply walk out from those that don’t do that. That’s good for me and for the businesses I choose.

        1. @BillD: you’re correct – – I was actually thinking of Citizens United.

          In any event, I also do have concerns with Hobby Lobby too, mostly from the broad question of to what degree an employer of any member of the public should have a right to dictate certain terms of the healthcare coverage, as this can be a privacy violation issue for the employee.

          Overall, I think that the fair & reasonable litmus test should be what the job qualification requirements are: if the job has clear (& justified) stipulations that require the position to be filled with an individual of a particular faith, then I can see it being OK.

          However, when the job requirements can be fulfilled by other group classes, then we have an ethical conflict between the employer’s expectations for non-job-related conduct of their employee, which gets into privacy rights issues, which means that it no longer is an easy and cut-and-dry decision.

    3. i am on the same page with you.

      generally speaking my perspective on many aspects of life falls under the observation of thomas jefferson who, to paraphrase him was not concerned with things that neither picked his pocket nor broke his leg, nor, i might add, those of others.

      that having been said, i guess my only thoughts on the subject are:

      while these folks operate private businesses, they do serve the public, which, in my mind would mean all of the public, not just some of the public, or the part of the public they like or approve of. after all they are required to buy or pay for business licenses, which are issued by government agencies, usually the state, and states, since they represent all of us should not be in the position of allowing discrimination against some of us, let alone any of us.

      and while many religious people tend to voice the dictum, “hate the sin, love the sinner” it often works out that their attitudes and actions are less inclusive or benign than that.

      i think they also tend to conveniently overlook a basic tenant of the christian religion, like “free will” – in other words all of us have done things in our lives that aren’t exactly according to hoyle, by christian standards, and for that we all get to have our own personal conversation with god about those slip – ups. and while i might suggest that gays and lesbians might want to seriously consider putting alan dreshowitz on retainer for that interview, (i.e. a very talented and litigious jewish lawyer) i basically view their actions to be no-ones business but theirs and god’s.

      also many conservative christians tend to overlook the fact that just because something is legal (abortion for example) it does not mean it is mandatory. they can go through their entire lives without resorting to either abortion or engaging in homosexual activity. and for those who do i refer them back to the previous paragraph.

      now although many fundamentalist or conservative christians wish, or perhaps seek to require, the rest of us to live according to their standards (and god’s) none of us are obligated to do so (again free will)

      just to put the shoe on the other foot for a moment. how about if a good christian man and his wife took a job in saudi arabia (as my engineer brother did quite some years ago) and the wife gets arrested for driving the family car. why? because it is against the wahabi muslim religion for women to drive a car.

      well any normal american would say WTf ? this is our car she can drive it back in america and we are not muslims, this law should not apply to us ! to which the muslim traffic officer would reply, well you are not in america anymore and according to our religion, it does apply to you.

      so, it is an example that conservative christians might take to heart – almost certainly they would not like to be forced to live under the rules of another religion, and perhaps they should lighten up on trying to make everyone else conform to their beliefs and standards of behavior.

      it is a free country – or was intended to be, anyhow

      just a bit of food for thought.

    4. Exactly. When you get a public business license it does not say you are authorized to operate the business as under the rules of a specific religion or personal belief structure. You get a business license for a secular, public business. It’s a *public* business. It is not a church or other place of religious control. You need to serve the public.

      Would it have been OK if a few thousand people 50 years ago claimed their religion did not allow them to serve African Americans? Do any of you (other than the extremely few, true bigots out there) truly believe that such an action would be OK on a religious basis?

      No? Then why is a public business allowed, no matter who operates it, to discriminate against any group of people that are legally allowed to be as they see fit within the U.S.?

  6. I dont think the point of religion is to discriminate.

    Look at ISIS and taliban and alqeada … And see what they do in the name of religion.

    Tim im on your side.. Big time!


    1. If you ask any religious person, the point of the religion is CERTAINLY to discriminate between that which is good and that which is evil.

      But the real point of religion varies with the religion, but for most the point is to live out the teachings of your religion. For Christians, that basic is: “Love God with your whole soul, mind and strength; and love your neighbor as you love yourself.”

      The parable of the Good Samaritan answers the question of the definition of “neighbor,” for those confused about it.

      And this inevitably leads to a Christian acting on the belief that that which would be morally harmful to themselves would be morally harmful to anyone, and thus Christ’s command forbids them from encouraging, condoning, or participating IN ANY WAY in such a morally harmful thing.

      And that’s what religious freedom is all about. Serving a client who’s buying something off the shelf doesn’t fall under that proviso, but supporting a gay “wedding” with their services does. YMMV.

        1. As opposed to “caring” liberalism, which brings intolerance to levels not seen since folks in white sheets lynched people.

          The overwhelming majority of religious denominations are not some exercise in establishing dominance and control. That is utterly ridiculous. Even most religions I vehemently disagree with don’t exercise that type of behavior.

          If you don’t believe that is fine, just allow others to believe what they want as long as they are not hurting anyone. I won’t try and force my views on you using violence, kidnapping or theft (aka government) and you don’t try and force your views on me in the same way. Now THAT would be tolerance, but tolerance isn’t really the goal, now is it?

          1. Nutters love trotting words out like “Liberalism”.

            Lots of people believe in tolerance and nondiscrimination who do not identify with “liberalism”. Judge viewpoints and people on their individual merits if you want to make real sense.

        2. You’re thinking of politics and the legal system.

          The point of religion is to control oneself. Tim Cook erred because he encouraged repeal of a law intended to protect religious practice.

          I’m a Theravada Buddhist btw.

          1. Unfortunately the point of religion varies considerably between people.

            There are some very nasty people who believe strongly in religion, and lo and behold, for those people it is all about controlling others.

            Select passages of religious books talk about love. Other passages often talk about killing people for not abiding by the rules of their religion. You can’t say religion is about just yourself when it has rarely ever been practiced so purely like that.

  7. I am ALL apple.
    But I am NOT all Cook.
    I supported him when he came out of the closet, as long as he did his job well.
    The same tolerance is not afforded to my belief by him and I am getting sick and tired of his intolerances.
    He is tainting the clean Apple Logo and I don’t like it at all!
    Just do your job and zip your mouth.
    I did not ask for nor do I need your opinions!

    1. he isn’t the only CEO from Silicon Valley to say something about that law. So take your indignation out on them all. and he didn’t come out a you suggest. He has always been out. He wasn’t in the closet

      1. The “always been out” is relative. You may always have known but thousands have not until it was widely reported by the media.
        Other CEOS may have pro or con opinions on the matter and that’s their problem.
        My problems are that I own stocks in Apple and buy all Apples, as I said.
        I feel that as part owner of the company, when Cook speaks, vicariously he is also speaking for me as well.
        My point is for a high profile person as Cook, and other CEOS, pro or con, should refrain from comments as he is representing the company made of many different people with differing beliefs and opinions.
        And the issues and legalese can play out in open public.

    2. You do realize that it’s legal to fire LGBT people from their job in Indiana, and to deny them housing, as well, right? That doesn’t happen often, because the profit motive is in play, but it can, legally, whenever the proprietor decides to invoke it. The law Pence signed took this current right to discriminate one step further by giving the proprietor a legal defense if a customer decided to sue them for their discrimination.

      Businesses that are public accommodations, with road accesses, tax breaks, utility discounts, and other benefits the public at large is paying for to allow them to run a profitable business have an obligation to serve anyone who walks in the door and behaves in a civil manner. If they don’t want to do that, they can become a church-run business and hide behind the religious exemption. Non-religious businesses should serve the taxpayers who subsidize them.

Reader Feedback

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