“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
And who owns the WSJ?
So, does that somehow in your statist mind therefore refute everything that was stated so clearly in the editorial?
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.
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.
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.
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…..
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.
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.
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.
.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_religion
.
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.
“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….
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.
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….
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?
“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.
C’mon…
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.
Sorry guys, this was supposed to be a response to TowerTone
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?
Do you want sharia law to trump state law in portions of Michigan?
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.
“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!
I agree. Religious rights are no less important a set of civil rights than marital equality. It’s unfortunate that Mr. Cook has embarked down this slippery slope.
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.
What about pacifists throughout the nation’s history who objected to violence on religious grounds being given pacifist roles in wars?
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.
I am sorry, but informed reasonable commentary has no place on this board. Shame on you.
Scary that ISIL would totally agree with you.
Sorry Tower.. you lost when you opened your mouth.
Sorry, CitX, I type with my mouth closed.
(and I know, it is not too hard to lose you in an in-depth discussion…)
LOL… sure.
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!
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.
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.)
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Niffy
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…
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.
Niffy
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..
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.
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!
What is your demographic?
NewzCrap from serial citizen Rupert Murdoch.
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.
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…
Would you rather have it in ‘The Rolling Stone’ magazine?
Oh wait, they have their own problems right now…
Please, let’s hear the rest of your ad hominem logic that supposedly diminishes the truth laid bare before you.
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
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).
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.
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.
You believe in Gawd? Good for you, if talking snakes and suspension of disbelief are your thing.
Now
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.
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…
“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.
Click Bait Warning!
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.
I would hardly call being intolerant of a law that subtly allows discrimination a bad thing
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Niffy
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.
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.
“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.”
Except that it doesn’t allow for discrimination. Other than that huge error your post is entirely correct.
First: Who is Christopher Merola? And why does his opinion matter?
Second: Intolerance disguised as religious tolerance is a form of theocracy.
Tim Cook has been the biggest mistake committed by SJ. Only comparable to the choice of Balmer by BG
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.
No, $875. 🙂
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.
WATCH DOES take iPhone calls.💥😣
without an iPhone nearby?
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.
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)
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.
Claims without evidence can be dismissed without discussion.
So provide some evidence, please.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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…
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.
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.
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.
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….
?itok=_BPnEdbC
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.
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).
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.
Actually, First Amendment. Not dogma.
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”.
“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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
@ -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.
@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.
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.
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.?
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!
.
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.
Sorry, the real point of religion is controlling the behavior of your followers.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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!
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
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.
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.
Wait.. Does WSJ supports Indian’s new law? Or Does WSJ support LBGT community?
It doesn’t make a sense that if they supports LBGT community and criticize Tim Cook. Apple is a corporate… so is Governor’s office which I consider it is a corporate to me.
“Can’t we all just get along?”
Not entirely sure if any of this actually applies to Tim Cook or the Hoosier state – but you cannot pretend that intolerance toward bigotry is somehow un-American or somehow not an entirely necessary part of protecting everyone’s freedom.
Slaughtering Nazis and slave owners is a grim but entirely necessary part of America’s history. Letting bigotry go unopposed is the possibly the most un-American and cowardly way to give up your essential freedom. For freedom to exist, in reality and not just in words, the bigots must be put in their rightful place, whether it be a barred cell or buried casket.
Exactly as I wrote centuries ago. You gotta do what ya gotta do, so ignore what other people say and just get on with it. Cook could have saved himself a big mess by just acting instead of drawing the spotlight onto himself.
UH! Why is “Just Acting” any different from drawing the spotlight on himself. You have just drawn the spotlight on your self for your absence of logic! You do not have the right to tell another person how to act.
As I recall, Jobs spent a lot of money on charities and political contributions, but he seldom if ever gave a press conference about it, nor did he claim he was speaking on behalf of all of Apple, even if in some circumstances Apple money was used.
That’s the biggest problem with the gay movement — a lot of them are going over the line asking for special treatment or going out of their way to make everyone around them uncomfortable. That’s actually undermining their cause. Cook may or may not be morally right, but the last thing he needs to do is to take out full-page WaPo ads and declare he’s speaking for all of Apple while on his crusade. He could accomplish so much more by doing good deeds silently.
Yeah, special rights like not being fired for being gay, or kicked out of your apartment for bringing home a date one night. Rights are not negotiable. The only thing those who think this way have going for them is convincing themselves that being gay is a choice, much as they decided growing up to be straight. Being gay is not a preference, it’s an orientation, an inherent trait they were born with. Time to move on.
Special treatment? WTF are you talking about? This law was about letting businesses deny gay people their services, like they’re blacks in the Jim Crow south. Their other major legal struggle is the right to get married. This is all stuff us heterosexual people can with no problem, none of it is remotely special treatment! C’mon, asshole, is that the best bullshit you got?
“This law was about letting businesses deny gay people their services, like they’re blacks in the Jim Crow south.”
Scaremonger much? The same law has been on the books on the federal level and in many states for YEARS now! Boy people are being lynched left and right, aren’t they?! That’s all I hear about, blacks and gays being lynched because that’s what these laws allow you to do. And blacks and gays being refused service left and right because of their race or sexual preference?
That’s an outright lie. If you can’t at least be honest in your argument then hit the road and let the adults discuss it.
That only works if you ignore the legal context: other states with similar laws also have legal provisions to protect gay people against this type of discrimination. Indiana did not have that at the time this law passed, hence the controversy.
Also, you seem strangely unaware that black people and gay people are subject to everyday discrimination in America, and even targets of horrific acts of violence. I don’t expect someone who’s gone this far in life completely unaware of this reality to accept it overnight, but I implore to seek facts on this outside of your insulated bubbles and to think critically.
Let me add that all this about Indiana’s law is moot at this point, now that the state has fast tracked an amendment to the law that clearly states that it cannot be used to justify discrimination based on sexual orientation. No doubt this was in response to the massive backlash the state has received from citizens and business leaders, including Cook. Some extreme leftists still aren’t satisfied with this, but I think the majority considers the matter resolved.
Actually, it’s apparently still legal to fire people based on their sexual orientation in Indiana – so there’s still a legit civil rights issue to settle in that state.
All you rightwing nuts whining about intolerance.. I bet if some business owner refused to serve Christians on moral grounds you’d be OK with that, right?
Refusal to advocate bigotry is not intolerance. If you don’t want to serve anyone who has the means of payment, then don’t run a business. You either serve everyone or you don’t.
Not speaking as a Christian — but, if a business refused me service, I would depart their premises, and find another who wished to provide me the same service.
In the U.S.A., there are many other businesses for me to choose to patronize with regard to most things that matter and are important to my literal physical survival and/or safety, much less life’s less critical frivolities, should one business refuse my voluntary patronage.
Niffy
Going to another business is certainly a logical choice, if that’s open to you. However, in our country, public, non-religious businesses are secular public accommodations benefiting from support by the state with public tax incentives and infrastructure support. Those taxes accrue from everyone, not just religionists. That makes denying business to any civil person who walks in the door with the wherewithal to pay for their products illegal. That’s why religious legislatures are trying to slip through laws providing these religious exemptions. If they don’t want to provide goods and services to the general public, reincorporate as a religious organization, and be done with the charade.
Denying something to someone without merit is discrimination. Examples are: “No dogs / Jews / Blacks/ etc” signs; “Whites Only” / “Coloured Only”; Not extending loan / credit to single (unmarried) women; Don’t Ask – Don’t tell (i.e. not letting homosexuals serve in the military unless they hide their sexual orientation); no inter-racial marriage; no inter-ethnic marriage….
There are quite many situations where purveyors of some business selling product or service chose to refuse service to people of different sex / race / ethnicity / disability status with the excuse that it was against their religion. Throughout history, religion has been a frequent justification behind these types of discrimination.
Today, such discrimination is largely gone. Nobody in their sane mind will claim that because they are a devout Christian, their faith dictates that they cannot and will not bake a wedding cake for a wedding of a black man to a white woman. Not long ago, this was quite common in America, and quite accepted. It is not any longer. But substitute that white woman with a white man, and you get discrimination today.
The whole discussion of the Indiana law has been clearly blown out of proportion, considering the relatively minuscule number of cases where the law may be invoked. Obviously, though, the issue is simply of basic human rights and what America as a tolerant society is willing to do in order to prevent discrimination. In the past, invoking religious believes to hide behind discrimination worked well for most cases. Today, it almost doesn’t anymore. The way American society slowly moves forward, it is clearly just a matter of time when such discrimination will be a matter of past, in the same basket with inter-faith and inter-racial marriages.
There is really no need for this much noise; the outcome is as inevitable as it is just.
The very nature of Life is to create difference and this is the key to its success.
Religion denies this, and is therefore wrong and cannot provide cover for intolerance.
The WSJ is gay-bashing while hiding like cowards under the skirts of the church.
I often read the WSJ but never the editorials.
In essence, the Wall Street Journal has the God Given Right to attack anyone they want to., but no Liberal has that right! What slime!
Last time I checked, if someone who owns a Mac contacts me for tech support, I have “right” to refuse helping them.
Or am I wrong???
Do I “have to” under penalty of the law, fix their Mac?
Please educate me…
In reply to Think: If you have a Mac Repair Shop located within a State that has a law that prohibits discrimination in public accommodation on the basis of sexual orientation, then if a heterosexual person comes into your store asking for Mac repair, then you are required by law to serve them even if you do not like heterosexuals. You cannot refuse to serve them because they just happen to be straight.
On the other hand, if heterosexual came to you with a Windows computer, you could refuse to serve them because you only fix Macs.
If a Christian goes to a kosher Jewish Delicatessen and orders a corned beef on rye, the delicatessen must sell it. However, the Christian cannot claim discrimination if the deli refuses to put bacon on the sandwich, since the deli doesn’t serve bacon to anybody.
MDN has always loved to make demographic hay of android users v. iphone users.
Cook has a business to run, and it makes sense for him to guide the business towards where his customers are.
Support for gay marriage increases with educational level and income level. Supporters of gay marriage are also more likely to live in the Northeast or West, and less likely to live in the South or Midwest. They are also more likely to live in urban areas.
Support for gay marriage follows pretty much a consistent drop with income and education level, is lowest in the South, and in rural areas.
Gay marriage supporters are “Northeasterners, college graduates, $100,000-plus income earners” while support for gay marriage “falls below a majority among Southerners, those who haven’t gone beyond high school, those living in rural areas.”
Just looking at he demographics, Apple’s actions make sense. Supporters of gay marriage meet all the demographic factors of Mac/iOS users, while the gay marriage opponents match closely with the demographics of hardcore android suffers.
So Tim wasn’t taking much of a chance in opposing the Indiana statute — its opponents are his customers, while the law’s supporters are busy sending their anti-gay messages on PCs and Samsung phones.
“Liberal Intolerance”?? WOW the pot calling the kettle black!
Classic right wing slight of hand trick. Call the victim the perpetrator.
A black man enters a public dining room, and attempts to order food.. The owner refuses to serve him because he is black. No “conservative” or “liberal” would deny that is unlawful discrimination. Now a man enters a public dining room , and attempts to order food. The owner asks “are you a good Christian man”. He replies “no I am an atheist”. The owner refuses to serve him. How cannot that be unlawful discrimination? How does that change if the man is gay? How does that change if the man is Jewish? Or female not wearing the “proper clothing” required by certain religions? Where does this end?
This is what God says about sexual immorality and it trumps all laws of the land, even the Supreme Court of the United States of America. He will never change his mind!!!!!.
Leviticus Chapter 18: Versus 22-23
22. You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination. 23. Nor shall you mate with any animal, to defile yourself with it. Nor shall any woman stand before an animal to mate with it. It is perversion.
The thing is, there was this brown skinned working class Jew guy, who spent his free time hanging out prostitutes and lepers, and he said that following the exact letter of the bible’s law was not as important as having compassion for others. As for sinners, and people who get rejected for being considered “unclean” or “immoral”: he said these people in particular should receive extra compassion, not less. The other thing about this guy: his name was Jesus Christ, he died to save you and every other sinner from his father’s harsh judgement.
To WadeP1964: This is what God says about slavery, which trips all laws of the land, even the Supreme Court of the United States of America. He will never change his mind!!!!!
“However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you.”
If WadeP1964 has his way, we’ll bring back slavery. Woop-dee-doo!!
To WadeP1964: Forgot to give you chapter and verse:
Leviticus 25:44-46
However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way.
Well here’s my two-cents worth. Take it or leave it. I’m a celibate gay Christian living in the South. Many in the gay community are defined by the fact that they are gay. There are, however, those of us who hold other agendas than our sex organs and what we may or may not do with them in higher esteem. In my case, my God is more important to me than my sex organs. Call me a self- hater. I do not care although I strongly suggest you get to know me before bandying about such names. It’s not myself that I hate. It is the hypocrisy of the militant gay movement that I hate. Tim Cook doesn’t speak for me. As a matter of fact, if he weren’t the CEO of Apple, his voice, like mine, would be relegated FAR below the op-Ed section of the NY Times. Therefore, he speaks for Apple, and that could be costly for Cook and/or Apple. I have seriously rethought my intent of buying the Apple Watch – not because it’s an Apple products, but because it’s seen as Cook’s baby. It will be a success – but without me. The day will come when a gay owned business will be asked to print business cards that they find offensive – God hates fags, for instance. What to do at that time when Mr and Mr Gay are ordered by law to print those cards against their conscience or face loss of their whole business? These are dangerous times when inconsistencies are overlooked. But the time will come when we get back to the tribe understanding that an amendment in the foundational documents of the nation which provides for freedom of religion and association does indeed supersede any law that Congress could conceive. Now on a more personal note, if I were to get married, i most definitely would not want anyone at that ceremony who was basically praying that the union would be a failure. That said, I think it’s obvious that these “cases” are ill-conceived and not thought through to their natural ends. And I really thought more of Tim Cook than he has proven to be in his writings. Some things are just incompatible and one person’s religious beliefs and another person’s sexual beliefs/actions are a good example. Lastly, why not order a damn cake without a topper, go buy your own topper and never mention its for a gay ceremony. Some things are done for the purpose of contriving issues of nothing. The gay movement will be hurt by this issue in the long run just as the WSJ, regardless of ownership, rightly points out without using the more obvious example that I chose.
To rettogo: The problem isn’t that one day Mr Gay Printer will be required to print a message that he finds offensive on a business card. Mr Gay already is presumably required to print business cards for Mr Anti-Gay, as long as the message isn’t offensive.
Mr anti-gay Baker refused to sell a cake. It wasn’t the message printed in the icing on the cake. He refused to sell a cake, period.
Furthermore, Mr anti-gay Baker wasn’t asked to attend the wedding ceremony. Only his cake was invited.
The inconsistency that I find in your argument and the arguments of the rest of conservative media is that you are conflating providing a service with what you’re required to print on the product. You seem to feel it is the exact same thing, but it’s not. It is a straw man argument, that is, an informal fallacy based on the misrepresentation of an opponent’s argument.
Actually Tim Cook is speaking for everyone when he says NOBODY should be discriminated against.
That includes gays, non-practicing gays (as yourself), straight people with different religions, atheists, cheesemongers, … everyone.
That bitch s one of the most repulsive conservatives out there- and that’s saying a lot. An incompetent hypocrite who did business with the same countries and failed at her job. Religious rights do not trump human rights. That’s like a Muslim not allowing women in his store. Tim Cook is my hero. I’m straight, will never have an abortion (neither will my wife), yet nothing disgusts me more than closet racism, homophobia, sexism. or religious divisiveness and violence.
What we know as human rights are… The right to pursue happiness, life and liberty. And the founding document of the nation that created all the laws cited herein say…. Those rights are endowed by our Creator. Take away the Creator and you remove the moral foundation of the nation. Without God as author of human rights, what man or government deems certain desires to be rights? The world of relativism is murky and dangerous.
You want to push your particular creator stories on others.
But if it was someone else’s religion with their creator’s rules, you would suddenly scream for tolerance.
What is wrong with you people? It is ok for you to believe what you want, but it is hubris to ignore the fact that YOU could be wrong. YOUR beliefs should not be used to rule others.
nevermark,
rettogo is quite correct — the U.S. Declaration of Independence clearly uses the following verbiage, to wit:
“. . . all men . . . are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights . . .”
Rights given by the “Creator” is not a fictional idea that Thomas Jefferson simply created — rather, this fundemental imperative has a much older series of important philosophical discussions and debates/historical references from which Jefferson and the Founding Fathers were drawing upon, in presenting this argument.
It would behoove you to consider investigating the many chronicled arguments and debates made by the many past and learned luminaries of law and philosophy regarding this point — some of which predate the entire Christian era by many centuries.
Niffy
Refreshing to see an article that tells it the way it actually is. As opposed to Media Apple fanboys loving Tim Cook. He is fundamentally wrong with his one-sided views. The world is more complicated than that. Respect goes both ways. Apple has essentially become a rainbow flag waving corporate tool for the liberal agenda. Pretty sad.
And yet this same guy would have said NO if he was asked to participate in a ceremony that his father was against. All the time still loving and having compassion for those people, but not participating in it. You forgot to mention that part.