Tim Cook: Pro-discrimination ‘religious freedom’ laws are dangerous
washingtonpost.com
Tim Cook: Pro-discrimination ‘religious freedom’ laws are dangerous
1–10 of 68 posts
Re: Tim Cook: Pro-discrimination ‘religious freedom’ laws are dangerous
#2I am a strong believer of "With great power comes great responsibility" and many times have been pretty disappointed that celebrities, CEOs and the super rich have largely been silent.
Its great to see Tim Cook voicing his opinion on stuff that does not concern Apple.
Re: Tim Cook: Pro-discrimination ‘religious freedom’ laws are dangerous
#3What are Tim Cook's credentials here? Did he say anything that hasn't been said by others? Is his take novel or particularly developed?
This is an incredibly complex issue. As a left-leaning person who wants to see discrimination eradicated, but as a person who also wants to see it eradicated without it being the purview of some constellation of legal obligations, I recognize deep rooted conflicts.
Take for example the ACLU's (IMO correct) defense of Neo Nazi groups to march in solidarity. This is the type of freedom that our country is based on. It's not something I personally affirm, but I have to defend the right on principle.
Tom Cook talks up one side of the issue. His credentials have nothing to do with the topic. If we were in a critical thinking class we would recognize this as a cut and clear case of an appeal from authority.
Can we get something more substantive?
Re: Tim Cook: Pro-discrimination ‘religious freedom’ laws are dangerous
#4amazing. its like states are a different snapshots of America during different time periods.
Re: Tim Cook: Pro-discrimination ‘religious freedom’ laws are dangerous
#5I am a strong believer of "With great power comes great responsibility" and many times have been pretty disappointed that celebrities, CEOs and the super rich have largely been silent. Its great to see Tim Cook voicing his opinion on stuff that does not concern Apple.
Laws that encourage discrimination against employees do concern companies. Apple has historically cared about this stuff; here's an example[1] from 1993 of a Texas county getting upset about Apple's tolerant HR policies... Apple stood their ground and won.
1: http://www.nytimes.com/1993/12/08/us/texas-county-retreats-o...
Re: Tim Cook: Pro-discrimination ‘religious freedom’ laws are dangerous
#6What are Tim Cook's credentials here? Did he say anything that hasn't been said by others? Is his take novel or particularly developed? This is an incredibly complex issue. As a left-leaning person who wants to see discrimination eradicated, but as a person who also wants to see it eradicated without it being the purview of some constellation of legal obligations, I recognize deep rooted conflicts. Take for example t…
If you don't want Tim Cook to say the words, just read them aloud to yourself and pretend they are your words. Then analyze their substance based on the content, rather than who says them. The counter to an appeal to authority is not to ask for a different authority. (It is to become an authority yourself.)
Re: Tim Cook: Pro-discrimination ‘religious freedom’ laws are dangerous
#7> A wave of legislation, introduced in more than two dozen states, would allow people to discriminate against their neighbors.
I would hate to live in such a world where such thing would be considered illegal but ok.
> say individuals can cite their personal religious beliefs to refuse service to a customer or resist a state nondiscrimination law.
So? I don't see how this is a problem, as a business owner you are allowed to discriminate against who you do and do not want to be your customers. It happens all the time and to religious people themselves when they are boycotted by LGBT groups.
> Legislation being considered in Texas would strip the salaries and pensions of clerks who issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples
If we start with the premise that we need to be afraid of every considered bill then I don't know how you could ever not be afraid these days. Just simply a bill being considered doesn't mean anything.
> They go against the very principles our nation was founded on, and they have the potential to undo decades of progress toward greater equality.
The US was founded on principles of freedom of expression and association. The freedom to associate is also the freedom to not associate, only Tim skips over all that.
> America’s business community recognized a long time ago that discrimination, in all its forms, is bad for business.
Really Tim? All forms of discrimination? What world do you live in?
> This isn’t a political issue. It isn’t a religious issue. This is about how we treat each other as human beings. Opposing discrimination takes courage.
Except it is political (legislation), it is about religion (Freedom of association for religious reasons) and NO, it doesn't take courage to say what apparently the whole business community believes according to you Tim.
Re: Tim Cook: Pro-discrimination ‘religious freedom’ laws are dangerous
#8What are Tim Cook's credentials here? Did he say anything that hasn't been said by others? Is his take novel or particularly developed? This is an incredibly complex issue. As a left-leaning person who wants to see discrimination eradicated, but as a person who also wants to see it eradicated without it being the purview of some constellation of legal obligations, I recognize deep rooted conflicts. Take for example t…
[deleted]
Re: Tim Cook: Pro-discrimination ‘religious freedom’ laws are dangerous
#9He seems to mainly be talking about discrimination against gays, though doesn't say it directly. I wonder if he really means it that Apple won't discriminate against pedophiles, incestuous couples or the grey areas on the boundaries of age of consent? Or is it like the old "universal suffrage" that turned out only to be universal to men, and not women?
Re: Tim Cook: Pro-discrimination ‘religious freedom’ laws are dangerous
#10I am not sure whether I should feel happy that someone higher in power took their time to talk about something important, or feel disappointed that someone actually has to talk about something that seems obvious. I guess we all live in very different worlds.