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

61–68 of 68 posts

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

#61

Post by tzs »

forrestthewoods wrote: post #42

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 g…

Several cities in Indian have added sexual orientation as a protected class. This law effectively overrides that if the person doing the discrimination claims it is for religious reasons.

In other jurisdictions when their RFRA laws conflicted with their anti-discrimination laws, the anti-discrimination laws have tended to win. The anti-discrimination laws won because the RFRA laws were interpreted as prohibiting government action that burdened the exercise of religion. They did not provide a defense when a person was sued under an anti-discrimination law by a person claiming to have been discriminated against, because government was not a party to the lawsuit.

The Indiana law contains specific language that says it applies to lawsuits even if no government entity is a party.

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

#62

Post by [deleted] »

xnull2guest wrote: post #56
kimdouglasmason wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The opinions of powerful people are indeed appeals from authority by the media that (selectively) publish them. So I would agree with this, sans the universal (there are powerful people who are experts in an area of law as a counterexample). How could a media outlet make it more clear something is an opinion? They could put it in the title and in the body of the article as a start. They could add content to contextua…

[deleted]

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

#63

Post by xnull2guest »

threeseed wrote: post #60
xnull2guest wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You live in a fantasy land if you think his comments aren't interesting. Most ordinary people are very interested in what Apple's position on issues given how popular and progressive they are. Politicans would be even more interested given that (a) most states would love to be the next home of a manufacturing/data center, (b) Tim Cook is widely respected and is in a position to influence other CEOs. Whether YOU think…

> You live in a fantasy land if you think his comments aren't interesting.

Ad hominem.

> Most ordinary people are very interested in what Apple's position on issues given how popular and progressive they are.

Tautology and appeal to the masses.

> Politicans would be even more interested given that (a) most states would love to be the next home of a manufacturing/data center, (b) Tim Cook is widely respected and is in a position to influence other CEOs.

Right, that's the point I've been making. The interest in Tom Cook's opinion isn't derived from how good an idea it is - the interest is from his power status. We agree here.

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

#64

Post by forrestthewoods »

tzs wrote: post #61
forrestthewoods wrote: post #42

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 g…

Several cities in Indian have added sexual orientation as a protected class. This law effectively overrides that if the person doing the discrimination claims it is for religious reasons. In other jurisdictions when their RFRA laws conflicted with their anti-discrimination laws, the anti-discrimination laws have tended to win. The anti-discrimination laws won because the RFRA laws were interpreted as prohibiting gove…

On your first point, it doesn't quite override that if they claim it's for religious reasons. It simply sets the benchmark with which the law must be judged. There must be a substantial burden. There must be a compelling government interest. And the restriction must be the least restricting way to achieve that interest.

That at bare minimum makes it not as apocalyptic as more than a few news reports had led me to believe.

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

#65

Post by jbob2000 »

abalone wrote: post #31

I'm curious what Cook's position is on the Israel/Palestine conflict. Apple's making heavy investments in Israel and Cook has met with Netanyahu who's extremely right wing. Netanyahu's party wants no Palestinian state west of Jordan and for Israel to be an officially Jewish state. Gaza's essentially an open air prison. Of all the things Apple's involved with, that seems to be the most at odds with his expressed value…

There has to be a word for this phenomenon: no matter the conversation, someone always finds a way to bring it back to israel/palestine.

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

#66

Post by LargeWu »

generic_user wrote: post #55
greglindahl wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

I find wealthy public figures using there power and influence to push personal vanity causes in the public square as rather cheap and selfish. Not just Cook but in general. You do not magically gain moral or ethical credentials simply because you have managed to become extremely rich selling cellphones. The tone of the piece simply echoes the Anti-Religious Freedom talking points that have made the rounds in the libe…

Civil rights is a "vanity cause"?

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

#67

Post by FireBeyond »

jbob2000 wrote: post #65
abalone wrote: post #31

I'm curious what Cook's position is on the Israel/Palestine conflict. Apple's making heavy investments in Israel and Cook has met with Netanyahu who's extremely right wing. Netanyahu's party wants no Palestinian state west of Jordan and for Israel to be an officially Jewish state. Gaza's essentially an open air prison. Of all the things Apple's involved with, that seems to be the most at odds with his expressed value…

There has to be a word for this phenomenon: no matter the conversation, someone always finds a way to bring it back to israel/palestine.

Maybe so, but this isn't so far fetched. Tim Cook is making public statements on human rights and their infringement by the state. His company is making substantial investments in Israel (in the hundreds of millions to billions range) and has had meetings with Netanyahu as a result - a politician who doesn't have a particularly subjective position - his position on Gaza and such is fairly concrete and described above.

So yes, we could ask, is Tim Cook a champion of human rights violations by the state against some or all repressed individuals?

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

#68

Post by Retra »

xnull2guest wrote: post #58
kimdouglasmason wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Essentially: Because it isn't news if it isn't 'new'.

Some of us actually were born yesterday, you know.
Post reply on HN