Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Tim Cook: Pro-discrimination ‘religious freedom’ laws are dangerous

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 68 posts

Re: Tim Cook: Pro-discrimination ‘religious freedom’ laws are dangerous

#41

Post by coldtea »

threeseed wrote: post #32
xnull2guest wrote: post #3

What 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…

Tim Cook is the CEO of one of the world's largest and most influential companies. This alone makes him absolutely qualified to comment.

...on his industry...

Re: Tim Cook: Pro-discrimination ‘religious freedom’ laws are dangerous

#42

Post by forrestthewoods »

The text of the bill seems really.... non-offensive.

"A governmental entity may substantially burden a person's exercise of religion only if the governmental entity demonstrates that application of the burden to the person: (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest." [1]

That seems... pretty reasonable? The government can't limit exercise of religious freedom unless they have a reason and they do so in the least restrictive way possible?

Sexual orientation could be added as a protected class. That'd perhaps be the best of both worlds? There's seemingly not been a lot of traction on that. I'm not sure why exactly. Can anyone explain?

[1] http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/indianas-religious-freed...

Re: Tim Cook: Pro-discrimination ‘religious freedom’ laws are dangerous

#43

Post by kimdouglasmason »

xnull2guest wrote: post #17
plorg wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For one, this issue seems to be one which he is personally taking on himself. Part of it seems to be his identity as a gay man. He also takes pains to frame the issue with regards to a faith which is deeply personal to him. I don't know that he is necessarily trying to use this as a rhetorical cudgel, to beat the conclusion into the minds of those who support discriminatory legislation. This letter/editorial seems to…

It is not Tim Cook who is using this as rhetorical cudgel. It is the Washington Post's rhetoric and the WP's readership, and by proxy HN, that are subjects of that rhetoric.

Wat?

Tim Cook wrote it. He's a gay man.

But apparently it's not Tim Cook who is using this as a 'rhetorical cudgel' (whatever that is). It's WaPo.

I don't know what to make of this. One interpretation is that WaPo have enlisted Tim Cook as some kind of patsy or useful idiot. The same Tim Cook who is CEO of one of the world's largest and most profitable corporations.

As Dr Evil would say, 'Riiiiiiight....'

I suspect Tim Cook is stating his actual opinion on this one; as a gay man, who doesn't want laws passed in his own country that would allow businesses to withhold service solely because he's a gay man. Seems sensible to me.

Re: Tim Cook: Pro-discrimination ‘religious freedom’ laws are dangerous

#44

Post by threeseed »

coldtea wrote: post #41
threeseed wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tim Cook is the CEO of one of the world's largest and most influential companies. This alone makes him absolutely qualified to comment.

...on his industry...

Business leaders have every right to comment on issues that affect their employees for whose health and safety they are legally responsible for.

Re: Tim Cook: Pro-discrimination ‘religious freedom’ laws are dangerous

#45

Post by xnull2guest »

kimdouglasmason wrote: post #43
xnull2guest wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is not Tim Cook who is using this as rhetorical cudgel. It is the Washington Post's rhetoric and the WP's readership, and by proxy HN, that are subjects of that rhetoric.

Wat? Tim Cook wrote it. He's a gay man. But apparently it's not Tim Cook who is using this as a 'rhetorical cudgel' (whatever that is). It's WaPo. I don't know what to make of this. One interpretation is that WaPo have enlisted Tim Cook as some kind of patsy or useful idiot. The same Tim Cook who is CEO of one of the world's largest and most profitable corporations. As Dr Evil would say, 'Riiiiiiight....' I suspect T…

Who said Tom Cook was enlisted? That's not a very charitable interpretation...

Here's the interpretation. Tom Cook has ideas. They aren't particularly interesting ones (they aren't 'idiotic', rather they seem mundane). Tom Cook made statements including his ideas. He is nobody's patsy.

WP made an appeal from authority in its article about Tom Cook. It implied that his ideas were interesting somehow because he is an authority figure. But on their own - no the ideas are not anything new.

Re: Tim Cook: Pro-discrimination ‘religious freedom’ laws are dangerous

#46

Post by xnull2guest »

threeseed wrote: post #44
coldtea wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

...on his industry...

Business leaders have every right to comment on issues that affect their employees for whose health and safety they are legally responsible for.

Yes they do.

It doesn't mean that their comments are interesting. The headline is an implication that Cook's ideas on the issue are interesting. They aren't - they are mundane. But Cook is looked up to. So it is an appeal to authority - it is his authority that gives his ideas weight; not his ideas that give themselves authority.

Re: Tim Cook: Pro-discrimination ‘religious freedom’ laws are dangerous

#47

Post by kimdouglasmason »

gotothrowaway wrote: post #30
shard972 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

On this one, I think both shard972 and gotothrowaway are both equally correct.

Business isn't a monolithic entity, nor is the 'business community'. I'm not sure arguing down this line makes much sense, as it's very very easy to construct straw-men.

Remember that Tim Cook and Donald Trump are both in the business community. I wonder how much they have in common...

Re: Tim Cook: Pro-discrimination ‘religious freedom’ laws are dangerous

#48

Post by kimdouglasmason »

xnull2guest wrote: post #45
kimdouglasmason wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wat? Tim Cook wrote it. He's a gay man. But apparently it's not Tim Cook who is using this as a 'rhetorical cudgel' (whatever that is). It's WaPo. I don't know what to make of this. One interpretation is that WaPo have enlisted Tim Cook as some kind of patsy or useful idiot. The same Tim Cook who is CEO of one of the world's largest and most profitable corporations. As Dr Evil would say, 'Riiiiiiight....' I suspect T…

Who said Tom Cook was enlisted? That's not a very charitable interpretation... Here's the interpretation. Tom Cook has ideas. They aren't particularly interesting ones (they aren't 'idiotic', rather they seem mundane). Tom Cook made statements including his ideas. He is nobody's patsy. WP made an appeal from authority in its article about Tom Cook. It implied that his ideas were interesting somehow because he is an a…

Did they? It's in their 'opinions' section; it's an op-ed. The headline is "Tim Cook: Pro-discrimination ‘religious freedom’ laws are dangerous".

I honestly don't know how a newspaper can make it more clear that something is the opinion of an individual person.

If this is an appeal from authority, then so is every op-ed written by every powerful or popular person ever.

Re: Tim Cook: Pro-discrimination ‘religious freedom’ laws are dangerous

#49

Post by kimdouglasmason »

xnull2guest wrote: post #11
Retra wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.)

That's not what's going on here. The Washington Post is making an appeal from authority based on the headline alone. The WP readership is going to understand that as "Person I look up to says something I might agree with". No one can pretend that away. Then, the argument itself isn't anything particularly deep - and of course it isn't. Cook doesn't have the credentials to add anything meaningful to the discussion.

Why does the argument have to be 'new' or 'deep'. Many of the best arguments are extremely old (perhaps timeless would be a better way of saying it), and are also very simple in their logic.

Re: Tim Cook: Pro-discrimination ‘religious freedom’ laws are dangerous

#50

Post by allendoerfer »

I think in general, businesses should be free to decide with whom they do business, which many posters in this and the flag-killed earlier thread already stated. Being a heterosexual white male doing business this right comes to my mind first, because the right not to be discriminated mostly benefits me only secondarily. Nevertheless you have to acknowledge when other people's rights trump yours. I think it is undebatable that this should be the case here, even if you are concerned with religious beliefs, which I am not.

I also think, that religion should get no special treatment by law. In Germany we have § 166 StGB, which is highly in conflict with freedom of expression, because it says, that you can be put in prison for up to 3 years if you hurt somebody's religious feelings publicly. Courts mostly ignore the law anyway by valuing freedom of press/art/etc. above it.

On the other hand if you join any big German party, you have to confirm, that you are not a member of Scientology (what I totally support), arguing, that it is not a religion, but a sect trying to get traction here. So religious laws do not apply for everything you call your religion anyway, making them senseless in a way, because the small ones do need protection more than the big ones, but are effectively less protected.

I can rarely think of a religious rights law, that is not covered by a civil liberty law or should not exists anyway.

If I could mix the perfect religious legislation i would choose the French approach, Laïcité [0], and add the German right for children to get religious education in school to prevent extremism by giving up the interpretation to other groups.

[0]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La%C3%AFcit%C3%A9

Post reply on HN