Slashdot Mirror
Apple Urges Arizona Governor To Veto Anti-Gay Legislation
Hugh Pickens DOT Com writes "According to NBC, Apple has confirmed that it urged Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer to veto a bill that would allow business owners with strongly held religious beliefs to deny service to gays and lesbians. Last November Tim Cook announced that Apple was building a sapphire glass plant in Mesa, AZ, that would bring 2,000 new jobs to the state. 'Apple is indisputably one of the world's most innovative companies and I'm thrilled to welcome them to Arizona,' said Gov. Brewer at the time. 'Apple will have an incredibly positive economic impact for Arizona and its decision to locate here speaks volumes about the friendly, pro-business climate we have been creating these past four years.' According to Philip Elmer-DeWitt, it sounds like Tim Cook may be having second thoughts about how 'friendly' and 'pro-business' the climate in Arizona really is."
I imagine a gay CEO isn't too enthused about doing business with a state that thinks it's ok to refuse to do business with someone because they're gay. It's a two-way street, Arizona.
Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.
No. It would be similar to allowing restaurants to refuse to serve black customers.
This is not about business. It is about the personal beliefs and prejudices of the person owning that business. Those beliefs are not the same as business.
Let me get this straight. Because China does bad things, Arizona a free pass?
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
why, exactly, should they have that right? it's fair enough for a business to exclude particular individuals who have caused problems in the past (e.g. shoplifiting or being an annoying PITA), but to exclude people simply because they are a member of a particular group ("women", "gays", "blacks", "teenagers", whatever) - or *appear* to be a member of such a group - is discrimination....and that's definitely unethical and almost certainly illegal.
that door is already wide open - "no gays" is no different to "no blacks". it's the same fucking thing.
Yes, he's one of the first openly gay major corporation CEOs, which has gotten some amount of commentary... But only some as it turns out to have very little impact on his ability to do his job.
My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
Did it ever occur to you that this might be more complicated than it seems from the outside, and that the politics going on here might not actually reflect the bulk of the population?
Would you like to tell us what country you're in, so that we can share with you how we feel about your country's choices?
The modern homosexual rights movement started in the United States, and has derived the vast bulk of its force from the United States. The United States has the first gay rights group, the first gay bookstore, the first gay bar, the first gay political group, the first gay autobiography in modern times, the first magazine openly for gays and about gay culture; we invented and performed the first sex reassignment (Sweden was the first to make that legal, but that's because it was never illegal here; we performed the first one seven years before anyone else made it legal;) we were the first to successfully fight discharge over orientation, though far from the first to allow gays in the military directly; we were the first modern Western country to have a gay leader at the senator level, though we have not yet hit the presidential level and Iceland has; if you remove France, who got it in the late 1700s, we were the first Western country to eliminate sodomy laws; we had the first gay kiss on a major magazine cover (probably first at all, but who can exhaustively search minor magazines?,) we started the transsexual rights movement, the first officially sanctioned university group for gay advocacy, we invented pride parades and hold them everywhere; we created gay as a protected class for discrimination, also trans, and we'll probably be the first to poly; we had the first gay ordained minister; we invented the rainbow flag (sorry, I wish it was less ugly) and thereby probably the first major pride symbol (but I can't exclude so maybe there's something earlier?,) we started the Gay Games, we missed the first statuory discrimination ban by months, we had the first city and first territory (state, thank you) to extend marriage benefits to gay partners, we came to terms with AIDS way ahead of the pack, we did gay adoption first, etc.
Are you sure Americans are anti-gay, and not just a country of a third of a billion people who have a handful of bad apples, a media system faking controversy to generate viewership, a slashdot reader who's forgotten what percentage of the internet is trolling, and a parochial political system pandering to margins to get voted in?
The phrase "utter fucking cunts" suggests the UK, and to look at Wikipedia's gay rights map, it looks like the US and the UK are world leaders, and that the US is ahead of the UK.
Looks like England is ahead of the US, but hey, California's ahead of England, and California is both larger than and nearly as populous as Britain, so I think that's the actual natural comparison. You guys don't have national gay marriage observation yet. We *do*. (We don't have national performance yet, but that's no big deal; just take a $200 trip to California. It's still binding in every hateful corner of the South. The UK has no such privilege.) North America is the only continent where this is wall to wall legally supported; Eastern Europe misses it by four countries (no illegal but four no recognition,) and South America by six (five no recognition, one illegal.)
Africa has only one country where gay marriage is legal, and Asia has only one (and shockingly it's not Japan) plus six more where it's not recognized.
Uganda just recently worsened their practice to making homosexuality a capital offense. Cameroon, Iran, Nigeria, and Ethiopia all carry the death penalty (these are all nations in the Britain population range.)
The United States is vascillating over whether it's legal for a private business to choose to ask someone to leave over their preference. And we're so shocked by this that there's a national uproar.
We've had several states where this has been legal for decades, and our states are often the size of what you think of as small countries.
So slice it and dice it however you want, but I think the US is actually doing quite well with regards to homosexuality law, thanks.
Please don't blame me and my countryfolk for the things that happen on TV.
StoneCypher is Full of BS
"I opposed it because marriage is none of the Federal government's f*ing business. "
but it is. It shouldn't be, but it is.There are thousands of federal rules and laws with the word married in them. So denying gay marriage is denying those right.
That's why I'm for it. Would I rather the government got rid of those laws? yes.
Then there are thousand of uses of the word married in insurance, contract, housing, and so on.
Opposing the laws in this context is bigotry and depriving people of rights. You may not hate people who are gay, but you are acting just like people who do.
"is it okay for the state to tell someone who they must do business with? "
Yes. When a group is in a position they can't get services, and goods.
There are many more specific and clear reason written by people smarter than me*.
*I know , right?
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
I would not call him "openly" gay. He is unmarried. He has been seen to be in romantic situations with men. He has coyly refused to respond to questions of his sexuality. He is openly supportive of gay rights, and gay groups. People have referred to him as gay and he does not deny it.
Not sure that is openly gay, but it is certainly not actively not gay I guess.
I don't go around telling people I am gay, but then again when I am asked I do say "I do have a Husband" and smile. So I take calling him "openly" gay with a grain of salt.
That is unless he has said something that I am not familiar with, the closest was that discrimination statement at Auburn University.
Huh?
Wedding cakes is an easy one.
How about pharmacist in a town with only one pharmacy? Will you deny them their life saving/ needed medications?
How about gas station on a lonely open Arizona highway with only one gas station for the next 100 miles? Will you strand them on the road?
Hotel in a town with only one and the next nearest is 2 hours away? Will you send them away at midnight to drive overly tired to the next town or sleep in their car?
Where do you draw the line? Only one employee? Only certain types of business? If you do that then you have watered down the argument that it is a violation of a religious freedom. Either it is, or is not. Either it is defensible in its entire application or it is not. Making it more nuanced does not make it better or more right, it just makes it more complicated and more likely to either be ignored or misapplied.
Huh?
Why don't they just buy a wedding cake from someone who wants to sell them one?
Because if you allow anyone to discriminate based on race or sexual preference, then you allow everyone to discriminate based on race or sexual preference. It may be a single bakery refusing to sell a cake to a single icky gay couple that started the fuss, but the the consequence of the law may make it difficult or impossible for any gay person to buy any product from any store. Or to force a two-tiered system of businesses where gays can only do business with a subset of "gay friendly" businesses (which, one imagines, would be boycotted by upstanding Christians).
If you're in the business of making cakes, then make the damn cake. If you're in the business of being a religious busybody, then don't sell cakes.
I did not oppose a Federal gay marriage law out of hate for gays. I opposed it because marriage is none of the Federal government's f*ing business.
Since marriage is none of the government's business then why should they be able to tell you who you cannot marry?
Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
Which is, in itself, a beautiful thing. Back when Steve Jobs first hired him, it was big news in the business rags, about the first openly gay CxO of a Fortune Whatever corporation. Nowadays, nobody talks about it, because almost nobody cares, and lots of younger folks don't even know it. Which is exactly as it should be.
In that part I am in complete and total agreement, and always have been: Government has no part in marriage.
Other nations have (quite successfully) attached the civil law aspects to a contract, leaving religious groups free to do whatever they want with marriage.
Moving on...
On the second issue of businesses dealing with marriage, that is a balancing act that is currently in a horrible condition. This specific law in Arizona is about COMPELLING businesses to accept customers. It stands in stark contrast to the Constitution and guarantees about free speech, free association, and free religion. The key point about the Arizona law is one of legal compulsion, which is a very big deal.
In a post up above there is a list of businesses who are in lawsuits because they hold that non-traditional wedding events violate their Constitutionally-guaranteed rights. Compelling a business to act is an extreme thing to do, and should be VERY thoughtfully considered. When governments broadly compel action, allowing zero tolerance and zero exceptions, removing all rational thought from the process, it often results in amazingly horrible results.
Should a business be COMPELLED to accept customers in a non-discriminatory way? For the venue, let's take racial discrimination first. If we look back a few decades when the organizations were in full swing, should the government COMPEL a venue to host a Black Panther rally and a KKK rally on the same day just because they have enough open rooms? You can imagine a riot breaking out in the lounge that management could easily avoid. Moving back to this Arizona law, today some states COMPEL businesses to accept non-traditional marriage events if they have room, and do not allow the business to consider other factors like safety of their guests, beliefs of other guests, or predominant religious views held within the organization.
On to other business, should a photographer be COMPELLED to take pictures at a non-traditional wedding, not just homosexual, but perhaps also a Dom/Sub 'bonding' or a plural marriage adding a spouse? Should they be COMPELLED to create artistic photographs, watch and record the kissing and petting and other (usually light) sexual behavior at the events? Does the photographer lose their rights to free association, free speech and expression, and the religious freedom to not attend an event of a different faith?
On another business, should a band be COMPELLED to attend one of these events just because they have performed at other events? Should they be COMPELLED to attend the venue, even if it takes place in a bar (for a band who doesn't drink for religious reasons), or takes place in a very smoky lounge (health concerns) or takes place in a church they dislike (compelled religious observance?) or for any other reason a facility contrary to their beliefs or associations?
And the last business since it has become popular in this /. topic, should sex workers be COMPELLED to accept homosexual events and clients? Should the porn star who has maintained a straight career be compelled to engage in homosexual acts? After all, they're just a contractor like the musician, photographer, or venue. They are a small business of one, should they be COMPELLED to accept any client, gay or straight? Or on a racial level, should they be COMPELLED to have any race relations because it would be discriminatory? Should they be COMPELLED to have any legally-aged relation, denying them their choice because of age discrimination concerns?
When you get into situations where government is COMPELLING a group to act, or when an organization or group like the gay community is trying to FORCE businesses to do something under the full authority of law, there really needs to be a lot of thought involved. This law says they are not compelled, and if it is in error, it is likely erring on the side of safety. If there is a choice between freedom or compulsion, I'd go with freedom.
//TODO: Think of witty sig statement