Slashdot Mirror
Apple's Tim Cook Calls Out "Religious Freedom" Laws As Discriminatory
An anonymous reader writes It will come as no surprise that Apple's CEO Tim Cook doesn't agree with so-called religious freedom laws. Cook says, "[they] rationalize injustice by pretending to defend something many of us hold dear," and has penned an op-ed piece for The Washington Post which reads in part: "A wave of legislation, introduced in more than two dozen states, would allow people to discriminate against their neighbors. Some, such as the bill enacted in Indiana last week that drew a national outcry and one passed in Arkansas, say individuals can cite their personal religious beliefs to refuse service to a customer or resist a state nondiscrimination law. Others are more transparent in their effort to discriminate. Legislation being considered in Texas would strip the salaries and pensions of clerks who issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples — even if the Supreme Court strikes down Texas' marriage ban later this year. In total, there are nearly 100 bills designed to enshrine discrimination in state law. These bills rationalize injustice by pretending to defend something many of us hold dear. They go against the very principles our nation was founded on, and they have the potential to undo decades of progress toward greater equality."
Bestiality is illegal. Homosexuality is not.
You mean like the 19 other states that already have similar laws? http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/03/27/19-states-that-have-religious-freedom-laws-like-indianas-that-no-one-is-boycotting/
Or maybe you're referring to the lead theocratic, Bill Clinton, who signed a federal RFRA law back in 1993?
Go look how many times this claim has been made, how many times it has been refuted (including a good refutation in the VERY STORY you post here), and then tell me that the pro-RFRA folks are being intellectual honest.
Never mind, by even parroting this claim you have proven you have not trouble with lying at all.
The "Religion of State" is just as much a religion as those you are maligning. It requires faith, has a common belief structure, and has a god. Bills like this fight against theocracy. You are pushing for it.
That is complete nonsense. Faith is believing in something without evidence. These laws are pushing one religion's beliefs onto others - it is religious fascism just like the nuts in the Middle East. With these Christians forcing their stone age ignorant beliefs on other are creating a theocracy.
Legislation being considered in Texas would strip the salaries and pensions of clerks who issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples
- looky there! That is the STATE forcing religion on other people.
And contrary to the delusions of most christians, they are the majority in this country and the only ones doing any persecuting are them.
Feeding the troll.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Its so clear then please point out in the constitution where it says "separation of church and state." I'll wait go and find it.
Having trouble finding it? Here is a link to the constitution I'm still waiting for where "separation of church and state" in the constitution. When you find it let me know how that is more clear than "Shall Not Be Infringed" in the second. Oh you think its in the Bill of Rights well go look and let me know where. Show me the quote.
Conversely you can let me know how respecting the religious views of others (i.e. not " prohibiting the free exercise thereof") is Congress making a "law respecting an establishment of religion."
If you ask very nicely I may actually tell you where the phrase "separation of church and state" comes from, but if/when I do the whole quote will undermine your beliefs.
These laws don't give you the right to say "We don't serve your kind here." at a public accommodation. That would be a violation of the law. You are not exempt from complying with laws where the government has a compelling interest.
What is somewhat amusing is that when the Federal law that provides the same protection as these State laws was passed under Clinton, it was to allow the use of ceremonial drugs in Native American rituals and the Amish to avoid some building codes.
Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
Bill Clinton Passed the original as did all the Democrats at the time
As I live in Arkansas I actually got around to reading the bill (HB 1228) this morning. Everything people are complaining about is complete FUD. It's really quite mundane... and LOTS of other states already have similar laws on the books. It _basically_ instructs the courts to take into consideration sincerely-held religious convictions in discrimination cases except where there is an impracticality in enforcing the laws without the state encroaching on them.
This does NOT mean that teh gheys will be denied service at restaurants.
It DOES mean that I may be spared legal consequences if I decline to build a gay porn website for somebody and am sued for discrimination.
Jesus, the guy who would always do what you would do.
Despite an oppressive Roman occupation, Jesus never had much to say about the Romans. He outmaneuvered questions designed to embroil him in the local politics. He refused efforts to crown him as king. He refused to defend himself when he stood accused before them.
If I may be so bold as to guess, I would say no, Jesus would not vocally oppose this bill. Nor would he endorse it. Jesus did not see government as a means to achieve his objectives. He taught in the synagogues. He clashed with religious leaders. He went to the oppressed and ministered to them directly. He would not be interested in your politics (or mine). But he would be strongly interested in affecting the compassion, selflessness, humility, and general godliness of the people involved.
When things get complex, multiply by the complex conjugate.
You mean like the 19 other states that already have similar laws? http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
Or maybe you're referring to the lead theocratic, Bill Clinton, who signed a federal RFRA law back in 1993?
Ya know; it's time this particular rubric is laid to rest.
The Indiana RFRA (IRIFRA) is NOT, as Gov. Pence would have you believe, simply a Copypasta of the Federal RFRA; and as usual, the Devil's in the Details. Here's a couple of differences:
1. The Federal RFRA Restricts its application to suits involving the Government or its employees and agents. The IRFRA specifically states that the Government does NOT have to be a Party to the Action; and furthermore, that the Government may INTERVENE in any action on the RFRA issues.
2. The Federal RFRA does NOT preclude lawsuits regarding RFRA issues; the IRFRA specifically states that the RFRA can be used as an "Affirmative Defense" in lawsuits. An "Affirmative Defense" is just one step from immunitization. For example, a Statute of Limitations is an Affirmative Defense. It does NOT hinge on the Merits of the case; but rather what amounts to a Jurisdictional issue.
Those two things alone make the IRFRA nothing like the Federal RFRA.
And as proof of the fact that this is nothing more, and nothing less, than an end-run against the LGBT community, you need look no farther than the picture of Gov. Pence at the PRIVATE (that is, by INVITATION-ONLY) signing of the IRFRA Bill into Law. The people who are standing CLOSEST to Pence (again, no accident) for the Photo-Op, just HAPPEN to be the same 3 or 4 people who have been the MOST vocal opponents to Gay Marriage in the State. By the way, the Press (let alone the Public) wasn't invited.
BTW, I live in Indiana, where a LOT more information regarding this has been presented than leaks out into the National/International news.
This highlights why a supposedly neutral law is de facto discriminatory.
If a business excludes gays, or atheists, or muslims, they lose some business and maybe get a bit of outrage if it gets enough attention, but chances are the effect on their bottom line will be minimal.
If a business excludes Christians, they go out of business.
So while in theory it is religion neutral, in practice, some types of exclusion can be practiced with minimal negative consequences while others are simply not an option for reasons outside the actual words of the law.
So I have a question. If I wanted to buy a smartphone that wasn't made by teenagers handling dangerous chemicals on 16 hour shifts for pennies an hour, what brand phone would I buy, and how much could I expect to pay for it?
Does there even exist such a smartphone?
A quick google search brings up:
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/oct/15/the-phone-co-op-offers-uks-first-ethical-smartphone
I just finished Reza Aslan's "Jesus the Zealot," and much was said about the Roman occupation, and the Levite collaborators, even in the sanitized gospels that were whitewashed for a Roman audience.
"Give to Caesar that which is Caesar's, and give to God what is God's," is actually a direct challenge to throw the Romans out of Judea, a statement made within the Court of the Gentiles on the temple grounds. Tearing down and rebuilding the temple in three days, as a challenge to the high priest Caiaphas, also directly threatened the Roman order.
The Roman governors of Judea were alternately viciously efficient or incompetent, and a spirit of rebellion reached a crescendo after the crucifixion, when Judea was free from Roman rule for four years, then crushed by the armies of Vespasian and his son Titus, who utterly destroyed Jerusalem.
Past supporters of RFRA acts include Barack Obama (who voted for one as Illinois State Senator) and Bill Clinton (who signed one into law as President). So Tim Cook's position is not in the political mainstream and in fact it is even outside the liberal Democrat mainstream. The news here is Tim Cook inappropriately dragging Apple into a political war to endorse his own radical politics, not anything going on in Indiana.
Cooks' statements are also not based on any actual facts. See background on RFRA here.
Not long ago Apple stood for fanatical devotion to great design. Now it stands for tasteless bling and Tim Cook's political agenda. We all know the heartbreaking history of that company. It is made even sadder by Cook's failure to stay true to the vision.
from:
Apple: Insanely great design.
to:
Apple: Indiana is a bunch of Anti-homosexual Christian Bigots.
Tim Cook is not qualified to lead Apple. Not because he is gay (nothing wrong with that in my opinion) but because he is ruining the corporate image by putting his personal politics ahead of Apple's interests. If any other employee at Apple used the Apple name to endorse his own personal political views, that employee wold be fired. The same policy should apply to Cook.
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
"For example, a Statute of Limitations is an Affirmative Defense."
Bullshit. A statute of limitations is just that ... it is a LIMIT, not an affirmative defense. An affirmative defense is a JUSTIFICATION OR EXCUSE.
Bzzt! WRONG!
From the Indiana Rules of Trial Procedure, Rule 8(C):
"(C) Affirmative defenses. A responsive pleading shall set forth affirmatively and carry the burden of proving: accord and satisfaction, arbitration and award, discharge in bankruptcy, duress, estoppel, failure of consideration, fraud, illegality, injury by fellow servant, laches, license, payment, release, res judicata, statute of frauds, statute of limitations, waiver, lack of jurisdiction over the subject-matter, lack of jurisdiction over the person, improper venue, insufficiency of process or service of process, the same action pending in another state court of this state, and any other matter constituting an avoidance, matter of abatement, or affirmative defense. A party required to affirmatively plead any matters, including matters formerly required to be pleaded affirmatively by reply, shall have the burden of proving such matters. The burden of proof imposed by this or any other provision of these rules is subject to the rules of evidence or any statute fixing a different rule. If the pleading mistakenly designates a defense as a counterclaim or a counterclaim as a defense, the court shall treat the pleading as if there had been a proper designation." [Ind.Trial.Rule 8(C), emphasis added].
Here's another definition of "Affirmative Defense, specifically referencing "Statute of Limitations".
"Affirmative Defense" is a "Term of Art", idiot. Learn what those words mean (all of them).
But I will contend the state is become atheistic. So the state is acting on behalf of atheists constantly and it is disadvantaging all other religions.
This is because while courts do in fact acknowledge that Atheism is a religion, they are applying a Separation of Church and State doctrine to prevent any religion or mention of God from the state.
And no God is Atheism.
Thus my problem with the courts ruling based on a nonexistent separation of church and state in the constitution rather than the clear freedom of religious express and prohibition of the establishment of a state religion(which the courts have established defacto instead of dejure, re atheism.)
How in the hell are you supposed to determine that anyway? If you own a cake shop do you make all your customers sign an affidavit that they're straight? Force them to reveal the gender of their spouse?
And that's why YOUR side of the argument loses. These laws won't result in "No gays allowed" signs, because, unlike with race, you can't just look at someone and tell if he's gay. All these laws will result in are things like some bakeries run by very religious individuals not make cakes for same-sex marriages. Which is perfectly fine, because other bakeries will, so no one gets hurt.
Do you really think it's alright to force a deeply religious baker to make a cake for a gay wedding if the baker is devoutly religious and thinks he's helping the people to sin? Yes, the baker is wrong-headed and should change his mind, but people aren't perfect, attitudes take a long time, sometimes a generation or two, to change. You'd be causing the baker significant emotional distress. Probably, the baker would shut down and get a different job. And what you get in return for harming that baker is that gay couples wanting to marry don't have to type in "gay friendly bakery near Memphis, TN" once in their lives.
This isn't like racial segregation. There are superficial similarities, but this isn't going to end with gay-only schools and gay-only hospitals and gay-only restaurants. Such a system would be impossible to enforce, and very few people really would want to do that anyway: gays have already been tolerated in Western society for a very long time, since before slavery was eliminated even.
This isn't about hate. It's about religious freedom. You just think the people who will exercising their religious freedom are stupid and wrong, so you don't want them to be able to exercise it. They are wrong, and likely stupid for some value of stupid. So are the people exercising their freedom of speech to deny the Holocaust. But you don't lose your freedom of speech for being stupid and wrong, and you don't lose your freedom of religion, either.
vi ~/.emacs # I'm probably going to Hell for this.