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

166 Comments

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

    1. 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.

      1. 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.

        1. 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.

          1. 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.

          2. 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?

            1. “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.

            2. 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.

            3. 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.

  3. 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.

    1. 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

      1. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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.

  6. 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…

    1. 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.

  7. 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.

Reader Feedback

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