Oh boy a lot of dumb comments to downvote already. Keep it coming.
Do you mean poorly thought out or just different opinions? If the latter, perhaps you can show why you disagree?
Tim Cook: Pro-discrimination ‘religious freedom’ laws are dangerous
21–30 of 68 posts
Re: Tim Cook: Pro-discrimination ‘religious freedom’ laws are dangerous
#22Oh boy a lot of dumb comments to downvote already. Keep it coming.
I agree. Sometimes certain articles really bring out the worst in people that use this site.
Re: Tim Cook: Pro-discrimination ‘religious freedom’ laws are dangerous
#23> 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 all…
> 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. So freedom for a business to not associate with anybody who is not white is ok?
It is not okay.
But it's also not something that is (ought to be) under the juris prudence of the law.
Re: Tim Cook: Pro-discrimination ‘religious freedom’ laws are dangerous
#24[deleted]
Re: Tim Cook: Pro-discrimination ‘religious freedom’ laws are dangerous
#25Previous discussion of the same article from 2 hrs prior that was flag killed (not sure why): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9287287
I think the top comments there make it quite clear why it was flagged; they weren't socialist. This one seems headed in the same direction.
Re: Tim Cook: Pro-discrimination ‘religious freedom’ laws are dangerous
#26> That’s why, on behalf of Apple, I’m standing up to oppose this new wave of > legislation — wherever it emerges. I’m writing in the hopes that many more will > join this movement. From North Carolina to Nevada, these bills under > consideration truly will hurt jobs, growth and the economic vibrancy of parts of > the country where a 21st-century economy was once welcomed with open arms. This is bizarre. In what way d…
Simple example: Your new gay employee needs to move to a new city to start his job, but is denied any service from realtors after they asked for his sexual orientation. Still he manages to find a new apartment but has to drive 30 miles to the next super market, because the local ones decline to serve him.
Re: Tim Cook: Pro-discrimination ‘religious freedom’ laws are dangerous
#27He 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?
what
Re: Tim Cook: Pro-discrimination ‘religious freedom’ laws are dangerous
#28Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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. So freedom for a business to not associate with anybody who is not white is ok?
It is not okay. But it's also not something that is (ought to be) under the juris prudence of the law.
Fun story:
There's a thing you can do with real estate called a "restrictive covenant". Basically this means that as part of the agreement to sell a piece of property, you attach a rider like "but the purchaser isn't allowed to do X with the property, and must pass this restriction on to future purchasers".
This is pretty basic and pretty well established to be legal. For example, people sometimes use restrictive covenants on land they want to ensure is preserved/undeveloped.
Back in the day, though, many people used this to enforce racial segregation. There would be a restrictive covenant along the lines of "Purchaser agrees never to sell the property to a black person, and to pass this restriction on to future purchasers".
This came up in court eventually during the era of the civil rights movement, and the US Supreme Court took an interesting approach (Shelley v. Kraemer, for anyone interested in the full details): restrictive covenants which restrict sale according to race are legal, but unenforceable. Private individuals are free to discriminate as much as they want, but the government, which is legally bound not to discriminate, cannot intervene to enforce it, since doing so would require the government to take part in the discrimination (which is illegal/unconstitutional).
Re: Tim Cook: Pro-discrimination ‘religious freedom’ laws are dangerous
#29I wonder if this piece is enough for Apple to become the next target of boycotts from religious groups. There's many places of worship whom hold different views and are Apple customers.
Personally, I'm on Cook's side. Just pointing out the line that potentially may have been drawn.
Re: Tim Cook: Pro-discrimination ‘religious freedom’ laws are dangerous
#30I don't like him citing that discrimation is "bad for business" as anecdotal justification. Tim is the role model, not Apple.
But he says that's it's the consensus in the business community, who are you to deny that?
The business community has figured out a lot of things great for business. Non-Discrimination is on the list, but so is wage-fixing (on one hand) and providing alcohol to minors (on the other).
Leveraging Apple's weight here just seems inappropriately selective to me.