Slashdot Mirror
Carly Fiorina Calls Apple's Tim Cook a 'Hypocrite' On Gay Rights
HughPickens.com (3830033) writes "David Knowles reports at Bloomberg that former Hewlett-Packard CEO and potential 2016 presidential candidate Carly Fiorina called out Apple CEO Tim Cook as a hypocrite for criticizing Indiana and Arkansas over their Religious Freedom Restoration Acts while at the same time doing business in countries where gay rights are non-existent. "When Tim Cook is upset about all the places that he does business because of the way they treat gays and women, he needs to withdraw from 90% of the markets that he's in, including China and Saudi Arabia," Fiorina said. "But I don't hear him being upset about that."
In similar criticism of Hillary Clinton on the Fox News program Hannity, Fiorina argued that Clinton's advocacy on behalf of women was tarnished by donations made to the Clinton Foundation from foreign governments where women's rights are not on par with those in America. ""I must say as a woman, I find it offensive that Hillary Clinton travels the Silicon Valley, a place where I worked for a long time, and lectures Silicon Valley companies on women's rights in technology, and yet sees nothing wrong with taking money from the Algerian government, which really denies women the most basic human rights. This is called, Sean, hypocrisy." While Hillary Clinton hasn't directly addressed Fiorina's criticisms, her husband has. "You've got to decide, when you do this work, whether it will do more good than harm if someone helps you from another country," former president Bill Clinton said in March. "And I believe we have done a lot more good than harm. And I believe this is a good thing.""
In similar criticism of Hillary Clinton on the Fox News program Hannity, Fiorina argued that Clinton's advocacy on behalf of women was tarnished by donations made to the Clinton Foundation from foreign governments where women's rights are not on par with those in America. ""I must say as a woman, I find it offensive that Hillary Clinton travels the Silicon Valley, a place where I worked for a long time, and lectures Silicon Valley companies on women's rights in technology, and yet sees nothing wrong with taking money from the Algerian government, which really denies women the most basic human rights. This is called, Sean, hypocrisy." While Hillary Clinton hasn't directly addressed Fiorina's criticisms, her husband has. "You've got to decide, when you do this work, whether it will do more good than harm if someone helps you from another country," former president Bill Clinton said in March. "And I believe we have done a lot more good than harm. And I believe this is a good thing.""
The difference between SA and Indiana is that SA makes Apple a shit-ton of money.
but i agree with her on this issue
Here is a little reminder for everyone:
bad + bad != good
good + bad > bad + bad
good + good > bad + good
So if somebody complains about someone promoting good + bad, do not forget that that this is better than bad + bad, although good + good would be even better. Perhaps it's not possible to solve all the problems of the world in one step, and perhaps not everyone who cannot solve all problems of the world in one step is a hypocrite.
Thank you for your attention!
... you're a fool that will quickly find no one can be your supporter.
All of politics these years are irrelevant social justice spats?
We have real problems, like the national debt going to be $20T, meaning every man, woman, and child has over $62.5k hangin over their head (household of mother, father, and 2.3 kids = around $270k) and everyone is spatting over who can get married and a bunch of nonissues such as bad thoughts about certain groups.
It's been long past where most places cared about lifestyle and we're still spazzing about making everyone feel cuddled. Holy fuck.
She sure fixed Lucent and HP. Totally incompetent and destructive. In over her head and spouting gibberish is her stock in trade.
Does this mean that President Fiorina will cut off ties to Saudi Arabia once elected? Didn't think so....
Everybody's a hypocrite. That said, Cook & Clinton are real shitheads.
I find Carly Fiorina offensive.
Is that Carly is trying to take the early lead as 'most outrageously stupid Republican candidate'.
One one hand I agree with her sentiments. But her view needs to expand beyond attacking a couple of people. IMHO the US has a bizarre relationship with the Saudis, who seem to be able to get away with a shitload of things that other countries in the middle east get beat down for. But I cannot explain why the US turns a blind eye to it all, except possibly in the name of oil.
On the other hand, she said all of this on Hannity, and he is not known to be the bastion of logic (or even at times coherent thought). And I say this from first hand listening experience. In addition during the last US federal election Hannity was basically running an "anybody but Hillary" campaign, so I am not surprised by the "Hillary bashing" coming out on that show now.
Disclaimer, I can't vote in US elections. So don't start accusing me of being for or against any political party. I merely observe.
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
Bill Clinton talking about doing women "more good by hiring them" is like a Catholic priest saying he's giving little boys important lessons in dental hygiene. The man was regularly engaging in sexual harassment of employees directly under him. Can you picture him on the trip to free the journalists in 2009? I mean "woo doggie, ah bet they'll be real *grateful* I dun helped them out o' there! Real.... grateful. Y'all just bring dem up to my office when dey git back, hear?"
Hillary, you married him. He's a brilliant and charming man, but you betrayed women everywhere when you didn't kick his ass to the curb for sexually harassing the women working for him, and for lying under oath about it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_v._Jones
Is this for real? Is she implying that Cook should have ruined 90% of Apple's business because of his personal stance on gay rights? I dislike Apple as much as anyone can, but this is utter bullshit.
If she has qualms taking money from Algeria, can she be trusted to accept money from Saudi Arabia as President? Is she going to sit in the Oval Office and preach to them, refusing their support until they enact women's rights legislation?
-Tim Cook personally goes on record saying certain speffic laws are bad for America.
-The company he works for does business with other counties, some of which are worse then some states.
Where is the hyprocracy exactly? I must be missing something.
But something about this makes me less likely to vote for her.
While I am not entirely sure about how discriminatory the Indiana law is ( I have heard convincing arguments on both sides) the idea that Tim Cook should use the same logic when addressing an issue of rights in the US (a democratic country of which he is a citizen) as in Saudi Arabia (a monarchy with heavy religious influence, to which he is a foreigner) is absolutely ludicrous. If anything, it only says he should be more proactive about issues in the US, since it sets an example, good or bad, for the rest of the world, and it is more within his sphere of influence. This also seems to be trotting about hand in hand with the idea that Apple is somehow boycotting Indiana, which is itself a bizarre falsehood.
What is she doing about it instead?
Carly Fiorina called out Apple CEO Tim Cook as a hypocrite for criticizing Indiana and Arkansas over their Religious Freedom Restoration Acts while at the same time doing business in countries where gay rights are non-existent.
First off, since Fiorina has run a large multinational, she know damn well that the CEO's personal morality on an issue matters very little regarding where the company does businesses. This is just pandering to conservatives by someone who hopes to run for office. Did HP stop doing business in China because of Fiorina's personal sense of morality? Didn't think so.
Last time I checked, Tim Cook was a US citizen so it hardly seems inappropriate to hold your own country to a higher standard than places where you don't actually get a vote. Furthermore it's a little hard to criticize a foreign country for something that your own country is doing. Fix your home first and then you can hold the moral high ground. These "religious freedom" laws are nothing more than attempts to codify bigotry and circumvent parts of the constitution.
I find it offensive that Hillary Clinton travels the Silicon Valley, a place where I worked for a long time, and lectures Silicon Valley companies on women's rights in technology, and yet sees nothing wrong with taking money from the Algerian government, which really denies women the most basic human rights.
Aaaannnd now we get to what is really going on. Any republican presidential hopeful for the 2016 election is going to engage in a huge amount of Hillary bashing. Anyone who has actually dealt with foreign countries would (or should) know that progress in human rights sometimes comes in slow, painful, incremental steps. Someone who has been Secretary of State would know this well. The US had slavery and jim crow laws and huge civil rights abuses for most of its history. Problems we are still dealing with today. Anyone who thinks the US is in a position to lecture on human rights hasn't read a history book lately. Fiorina knows or ought to know this so she's just pandering to idiots who lack the ability to grasp nuance. Sad thing is that it works.
will she explain why off-shoring is good and will her stand on immigration be to open the door sand expand opportunities for people to come here? If not, will she accept that she is a hypocrite for arguing those positions forcefully when she was a CEO and now backs away form them when they become a political liability? As for her entering the presidential race, I'm sure many republicans are happy because she can attack Hillary and they need just to set back and watch without having to take positions they may later regret. Let her take the early fire and when she is done they have an easier path to capture the hill.
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
As a conservative, I am not impressed with her at all. When I heard she was CEO of HP, I immediately knew she was a crappy CEO. And all she seems to do for PR is call out people like Clinton and Cook. Why do people think that trying to make someone else look bad is good for their appearance?
Carly should focus on bringing solutions instead of problems.
This is all about Fiorina positioning herself for her bid for the Republican presidential candidacy, however, her comments are pure bullshit. You can't require a trillion dollar multi-national company stop doing business in every jurisdiction that has laws or policies the CEO disagrees with and It's not hypocrisy to use your free speech rights to advocate against policies that are abhorrent to you. It's also not hypocrisy to allow people from countries that have policies you're fighting against to give money to your charitable organization. However, Fiorina is holding other people to standards to she would never hold herself to, and that is hypocrisy. Of course, Fox News not only airs this bullshit but airs it uncritically and that's one of the reasons so many people despise Fox News. The only reason this is news is that she is making a bid for the presidency, otherwise this would another be "washed-up has-been says stupid things" story on page 27.
Frankly, I expect better from Fox News and I expect better from someone who wants to be president than moronic reactionary criticism.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
One one hand I agree with her sentiments.
You agree with pandering? You think that Cook should support bigoted laws? You think that a corporate CEO shouldn't speak out against a law that is plainly discriminatory in his own country? You think that Apple should stop doing business any place that has a law that the CEO personally disagrees with? You think that HP ever changed where they did business based on Fiorina's personal moral compass? What exactly in her sentiments do you think is anything positive?
On the other hand, she said all of this on Hannity, and he is not known to be the bastion of logic
She's pandering to the conservative base of her party because she hopes to run for office. Hannity is a great place for conservatives to do that. Logic has nothing to do with his show and never did.
Tim stated his objection to an act of the Indiana legislature. He did not say that Apple's going to refuse to do business in that state.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Being CEO of Apple, Tim's words reach millions and can have a real impact. If he runs Apple into the ground, the impact of his words are greatly diminished. Bill Clinton is right, it is not simply a black and white issue. Only an idiot sees black and white. You have to weigh these things carefully.
Other people have already repeated this talking point ad nauseum, so I guess I'm not surprised to read that Carly repeated this flawed strawman. However, her calling someone a hypocrite is a bit hilarious - not as much as the demon sheep ad, but almost. Cenk Uygur discusses and demolishes the GOP's penchant for this sort of thing here: Sean Hannity Thinks Outrage At Anti-Gay Law Should Be Redirected: https://youtu.be/B7IJ5MbRN2k
and any piss weak counter they can pull out of their non-creative minds.
Doesn't matter, all sides, you all included all change your tune and fall in line when your personal money is on the line. every single one of you, and the various token refusals don't really count. False moral victory.
Carli is good for the party and the rest of the republican candidates. She's the only one that can call Hillary a hypocritical bitch without the first response being that it's from a sexist.
... expect her to say provocative things just for the sake of drawing attention to herself. Why else would someone go on Fox News?
All the SJWs here are up in arms because some people are doing contradictory things. However, not one of you has contributed to the real change of anything you're angry about. Even when presented with a real opportunity, you would not do it if it impacted your financial security or your own personal safety.
You people are the biggest hypocrites of them all. The greatest contribution an armchair SJW could make to the world is to slit their own throat.
I would assume that both are focusing on the US because that's where they have the most influence.
That seems to be the logical conclusion to me.
It's more important than their "sexuality", so yeah he is a hypocrite.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
Just don't forget that Fiorina is a hypocrite in all the wrong ways herself.
There really is no "good" side to this debate.
Well considering she is not debating anyone, it seems there is only "one" side to this debate.
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
I thought Apple pushed iSlam into the market...
While I am not entirely sure about how discriminatory the Indiana law is
I think it is clearly an attempt to allow people to act in bigoted ways against unprotected minority groups under the aegis of protecting their "religious" rights. It allows religious people to impose their religious morals on others while limiting the government's ability to protect others from those impositions. Personally I think it is a gross violation of separation of church and state cleverly disguised to appear to support that very same principle. It seems most targeted at LGBT individuals but I have little doubt it will be used against atheists and probably various non-protected minorities as well.
Wikipedia has a reasonable summary of the bill. Frankly there is very little I've seen to suggest it is anything other than an attempt by religious conservatives to codify their right to discriminate against others into law.
It's called don't pick a fight you can't win. You could also tell Tim Cook to put his money where his mouth is, but it isn't his money. It's the shareholders' money, and he is ultimately beholden to them. Indiana is a market they can afford to lose, so he chose to draw a line in the sand there. Calling him a hypocrite is just political theater, as usual. This is one CEO trying to get a leg up on another one (a competitor no less) and at the same time garner political points from her party.
But Ms F- is worse than the profanity
I'm actually not sure exactly what the issue is with taking money from people who support things you do not. You might need a bit of PR, but it should just about write itself.
"I know the racists neo-Nazis contributed to my campaign, and people have said I should refuse the donation. However, I have decide I do not want them to have the money to spread their stupid and wrong views. I think the money would be much better used to spread the exact opposite matter, and any chance for them to voluntarily give away their own funding should be taken advantage of."
If you still really need to distance yourself, take the exact same amount of money and donate it to someone else or some other organization that stands for the exact opposite, instead of just giving it back to the very people you don't want to support.
"Hypocrisy" has a clear definition. Tim Cook is NOT a hypocrite on that issue. Fiorina is WRONG.
The worst that can be said is that Tim Cook has a "double standard" when it comes to advocating for gay rights in the USofA vs other countries.
Yet he also appears to be effective in advocating for gay rights in the USofA. Where is Fiorina's advocacy?
Fiorina is being a "concern troll" on these issues.
Even worse, she is being a concern troll for topics that she does not personally support. How much Saudi business did she turn down at HP? How much of her money has she spent on advocating for gay rights?
Hasn't that been the goal of much of the Republican establishment lately? I think they're waking up, but there's been more than a whiff of the "gold that's tested by fire" in their attitude towards dissent with the snarky RINO (Republican in Name Only) epithet that gets tossed around at anyone. For Pete's sake, when you start claiming that Ronald Regan, Richard Nixon and Barry Goldwater are RINO's... that doesn't leave much ground to stand on. Sure, what's left is theoretically, "pure" and unimpeachable (maybe that's why they throw Nixon under the bus... sorry, couldn't resist), but when you examine it, that base is vanishingly small, if it actually exists at all.
While I agree with you that she is not presidential material, can we tone done the misogyny a bit. It really makes it hard to support your argument.
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
The world is full of hypocrisy - is Fiorina just noticing this now?
> 'When I heard she was CEO of HP, I immediately knew she was a crappy CEO.'
OK, so is this a troll, or are you serious?
Slashdot is filled with (mostly) tech crowd. A lot of people that frequent here either worked under her leadership, worked with people that did work under her leadership or have a story of someone that worked under her. Find how many people in tech have good stories about her. Keep trying. Not gonna happen. You know why that is? She was horrible.
I can write a long-winded message, but you aren't going to read it, so here's the skinny (With references below):
She took engineer-focused companies from silicon valley (HP / CompaQ, companies with R&D) and turned them into 'traditional businesses' by destroying all long-term goals for short-term profit ala 80's corporate raiding. Then she was kicked out with a huge golden parachute.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tandem_Computers#Acquisition_by_Hewlett_Packard.2C_TNS.2FE_migration_to_Itanium
One of the things that actually happened that really hurt the company was consolidating groups / offshoring work, then having to RE-HIRE recently fired employees as contractors at 2 to 3 times their base salary until they could get things smoothed out.
First, let me be clear that I'm not disputing that she's merely strewing birdseed for the conservative election pigeons. Of COURSE she is doing that. However, your response is full of logical inconsistencies:
Did you have the same response when he was righteously sermonizing on how the people of Indiana and Arkansas choose to run their lives? It seems that his personal morality matters very MUCH on where Apple will choose to do business (and fwiw, the predictable chain of other "conscientious" attention-whores who likewise lined up to promptly jump on the bandwagon criticizing those states).
I don't recall her leaping to the public pulpit to lecture anyone on their choices, either?
Yet in the US social progress needs to come IMMEDIATELY, as soon as someone stamps their precious little foot?
As opposed to deeply tendentious people who cheerfully support (rationalizing where necessary) a presidential candidate who has - illegally - received campaign donations from foreign governments despite their heinous civil rights records. Hey, the ends justify the means, right?
-Styopa
1> Those countries aren't America.
2> He's doing business with them even though they don't agree with each other like you said.
To me this doesn't make him a hypocrite but more open and accepting of others who don't share his values unlike some people in Indiana and quite possibly yourself if you endorse government legislated bigotry in peoples lives to deny freedoms to your fellow Americans.
> I'm actually not sure exactly what the issue is with taking money from people who support things you do not.
Ask your social studies teacher, or your parents, about some of the issues involving campaign contributions in our society.
There is Palin, but Fiorina is new and more experienced.
I don't know if that is a step up from failed CEO or not? Slashdot poll?
April 3, 2015. Los Angeles, CA. In a desperate attempt to gain national exposure, Carly Fiorina said some inflammatory things while implying that she will run for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination. Many observers believe that the remark is part of a thinly-veiled PR stunt intended to boost her chances of landing a lucrative Fox News reporter gig in 2016 or 2017. Meanwhile, others think she really does plan to run for President so she can make more impossible promises and then begin a merger with China and lay off 20% of Americans who aren't pulling their weight before resigning mid-way through her first term.
I'd create a "Black Pot" award and send it to people - especially politicians and people with political aspirations like Fiorina.
The trouble is, Congress would bankrupt the organization in a month.
Carly could have cast a better Bruce Willis impersonator (Michael Hurd?).. but Tim Cook as David Addison.. sure I can picture it.
All of the Tea Bagger claims that she made are true. My bitch hired the best private investigators to find these facts out.
I can see this both ways. On the one hand, Fiorina is right. Saudi Arabia, China, etc. have despicable human rights records and roundly deserve criticism and boycotts.
On the other hand, Apple is a US-based company and is much more likely to have influence in the US than elsewhere. We should recognize that we need to fight injustice everywhere, but just because we aren't able to effectively fight it in China that doesn't mean we should throw up our hands and ignore it in the US.
What Apple et. al. really should do is ensure that their employees in China are as well-treated on the job as American workers. Not to do that would be utterly hypocritical.
I find her passion about business to be a complete lie! Why then, did she run HP almost to the ground? What a reprehensible hypocrite! If she likes business, she should've paid everyone minimum wage to promote competition and skirt anti-trust laws!
I will contend that in this day and age, when we talk about any -ism in this country, what we are really talking about is "capitalism". (There is evidence that it's always been that way, of course, but I'm going to keep this as succinct as possible.)
Rich people will always put profit first. If the product doesn't sell to women, no big deal; if it does, marketing blitz including a few token scholarships. Support a few redundant laws that establish women as a protected class, even. (Side note: let's ask Fiorina how she feels about supporting women with children below the poverty line and watch the fireworks.)
If gay rights is an issue, address it where it's at least tolerated without an overwhelming amount of violence as being progressive, and look like a hero paying lip service to American exceptionalism. Anywhere where it is not largely accepted, pipe down; no need to drive up operating costs. (Let's ask Republicans about alternative suppliers that support gay rights, though...isn't this game fun?)
For extra fun, let's see if we can bait Fiorina into calling Democrats hypocrites on things like racism, or belief.
Some people don't believe in fairies. I don't believe in The Patriarchy.
Good point. Like always. FUCK APPLE!
Everyone in the tech world knows Fiorina's an idiot. I guess now the California Republican Party can find it out, too. Lucky them!
But I don't know why I'm complaining. She makes Hillary look great! The more clowns the R's pack into their car, the more their makeup rubs onto the ringmasters who are trying to drive. Fun times...
That is all.
>Hypocrite: one who puts on a mask and feigns himself to be what he is not
Sounds about right to me?
The worst that can be said is that Tim Cook has a "double standard"
Double standard is the definition of hypocrite.
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/hypocrite
about the opinions of a failure CEO?
Fiorina - Yea, because I take my advice from people like this, I mean it worked out so well for HP afterall..
Giving them money would be hypocrisy. Taking their money, that's something else.
On the other hand, manufacturing in China, that's hypocritical.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
It's called don't pick a fight you can't win.
So what you are saying is he should pull manufacturing from China ? You know where he is the customer ? Unfortunately gay rights doesn't seem to be worth 10 cents a phone
So because Tim Cook (or anyone else) can't improve gay rights everywhere means that he shouldn't even try at all?
If Google can withdraw from China, a huge market, then other companies do not have an excuse. They are in those countries because they can make money and don't really care what else happens. If Indiana fought back hard against them, they would just run to the federal government and, through the use of political donations and lobbyists, get their way. With a few exceptions, how can anyone defend big companies in this day and age?
Carly proves the old adage about the pot calling the kettle black! Cook at least is an admitted gay, which gives him some perspective and right to do this. Carly? Not so much.
what Carly Fiorina thinks about.. anything?
I didn't even care what she thought when she was a tech CEO -- despite the fact I use a lot of HP systems.
That one is my favorite. "But there were racist Democrats half a century ago, so now Republicans are immune from criticism!"
You are welcome on my lawn.
You could also tell Tim Cook to put his money where his mouth is, but it isn't his money. It's the shareholders' money, and he is ultimately beholden to them.
Really? Tim Cook disagrees with you... " “If you want me to do things only for ROI reasons, you should get out of this stock,” "
She, and the lady from Alaska, both have the ability to do the impossible.
They make Hillary look good.
Hopefully the Repubs will figure out that all they need is a reasonable candidate who does not pander to the right wing crazies of their own party.
I submit that if you care enough to know about religious freedom and gays in Indiana, you know that Saudi Arabia and other countries are punishing and killing gays.
really has the presidential race become a game of Halo?
If anyone knows hypocrisy, Fiorina qualifies.
You're looking for quotes? See my journal.
Brilliant point Crash.
How much Saudi business did she turn down at HP? How much of her money has she spent on advocating for gay rights?
Are you being dense or disingenuous? She's not the one blathering on about gay rights, so these questions are a strawman at best. When Carly starts prancing around the world stage talking about how bad Arkansas is, while saying nothing about a place that is 10x worse -- because that would affect her bottom line -- then maybe you'll have something to talk about. Right now, you're just deflecting.
Timmy won't stop doing business in China because our government says all manufacturing is to be done there (thanks Bill Clinton and MFN status for China, pocketed lots of campaign contributions for that) so that decision it is ok to be anti-gay because he's making the benjamins!
Now Indiana, there's not much money involved there, so he can safely pump up his big ego.
He's gay and claims to be a Christian. Pretty hypocritical if you ask me (or Moses or Jesus or the Apostle Paul).
Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
I am outraged that many people consider opposing gay marriage a bigger sin than creating Javascript! I don't want to hear about politics here, unless it something like, 'Ted Cruz cancels SLS'.
In 1993 Bill Clinton signed the federal RFRA into law. The bills were introduced by Ted Kennedy in the senate, and Chuck Schumer in the house. Every single house member voted for it. All but three in the senate voted for it. What has changed since 1993? Were all the politicians who voted for it back then being discriminatory? If not, how is the Indiana legislature any different?
Stuff for fucking morons.
I agree with this on principle, however, in practice, it would mean we don't deal with any other country outside of Europe. Impractical.
The world has different ideas of morality than Americans. Even Americans have different ideas about morality within the country. Tolerance, oddly enough, means tolerating the intolerant.
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
So... What did Jesus say about homosexuality?
(No referencing the Old Testament. Unless you're A: Willing to be judged by all of it and B: ignoring the New Covenant but.
1. Does it matter if their hypocrites? Being a hypocrite doesn't make you wrong. This just looks like a smear campaign.
2. Cook and Clinton have big mouthes about these issues in the US, where it will actually do some good. Getting pissy about gay rights in Saudi Arabia isn't going to do shit and is basically pointless because hardcore Islam.
... she is arguing against globalization, which is usually the darling of the 1-percent set. Curious, indeed.
I know, right... The low-IQ mods must be out today.
If there was a hint of honesty in any of them, they'd comment to undo the +5 mod they've inappropriately given, just based on this misinfo alone.
Honesty means nothing to some people. The ends justify the means.
She's spent literally a decade touting herself as the product of Silicon Valley. And now she's mad Hillary visits SV? What kind of hypocrisy is that?
What I hate the most about Republicans is how they blame their opponents for the exact same thing they've done themselves. It's like that one asshole guy who shit on Bill Clinton's morality and was cheating on his wife the entire time. Carly's rant about Hillary described herself as well -- so where's her self-criticism?
At least Carly Fiorina has made it clear she's no hypocrite by throwing her hat into the ring for the presidency, of Algeria.
Outside /. and the business section of newspapers (I think I remember newspapers), the rest of the world will say: Fiorina who?
... Because... um... I guess she hates gays and women and can therefore do business with whatever oppressive regimes she wants? Carly's a non-starter in the Republican race because it's way too easy to point out that having successfully run HP into the ground, she now wants a chance to do the same for the country. She seems to want to be a character in an Ayn Rand novel. Presumably like Rand Paul, she grew up spanking it to Atlas Shrugged. And we've already seen how that style of management works on the small scale. It won't work any better at the level of a large country.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
The US presidential race is corrupted and infiltrated by foreign powers and simpeltons!! My God, that's espionatic! But then again, I'm looking it from far beyond the sea.
The whole idea behind keeping such divisive topics in the forefront (ie abortion, immigration, gay rights, etc) is to keep the country divided.
So you think that discrimination and bigotry will magically go away if we decide to not talk about them anymore and pretend everything is alright? These are important topics that need to be discussed.
She pulled HP out of all those countries that didn't have decent women rights. Oh yeah, only thing is, she didn't.
Awesome. Can we get the printed manual on gay gestapo rules since you obviously wrote the book?
I'm fed up with all these whining sexist bitches like Fiorina (one of the richest women in the US) that think they're soooo hard done by because vagina.
She'd be a LOT more credible if she stood up for actual equality and PEOPLE'S rights instead ranting about only women's rights.
She's pointing out that it's hypocrisy to advocate for one while refusing to advocate in a much worse case like Saudi Arabia.
She doesn't have to advocate herself in order to say this. She just has to be *consistent*. She can be consistent by not advocating for both just as much as by advocating for both.
No, she's not. She's pointing out that someone else is being hypocritical. She didn't say he should get out of Saudi Arabia; she objected to the *combination* of being in Saudi Arabia but not wanting to do business in Indiana.
So you're advocating it is fine to support China, Saudi and other horrible countries. That is the only way your argument can stand.
Stating an obvious but widely ignored fact doesn't make her a "concern troll.' Absurdity is absurdity even if it is conveniently ignored because we value having cheaper products at Walmart more than making slave nations and 911 supporters more powerful.
Ultimately, this is the issue. Identity politics prevent people from says words unless they are the proper ethnicity, sex, background, etc. I'd be more interested in why no one in America can duplicate Hillary's commodities work, or her ability to raise foreign donor money, actually from said Saudis.
Apple is owned by its shareholders, not Tim Cook. If Tim Cook was to withdraw from all those countries for his personal beliefs, no matter what they are, he would be deposed by the shareholders and sued to high heaven. He can speak out all he wants (and he should) but he ultimately answers to his shareholders.
It's better to burn out than to fade away
No one lives by the old testament, not even US Conservatives. It's selective interpretation, just like the Taliban do.
She's pointing out that it's hypocrisy to advocate for one while refusing to advocate in a much worse case like Saudi Arabia.
But that's not hypocrisy. Look up the definition.
Every Christian is a sinner. In case you didn't know, there are Christians who have gotten a divorce, murdered people, stolen things, committed adultery, etc. Nobody is perfect, and that is the whole point of Christianity, that you are saved as an imperfect being.
Pretty rich for an Irish company to be criticizing a state in the USA.
Fox News opened a office at slashdot ?
> Fiorina is being a "concern troll"
This is the most accurate and succinct description of this as far as I can tell.
Republicans are never painted, wholesale, as being racists. Democrats do not pride themselves as the "anti-racism" party.
What planet are you from where this is a reality? Are you a complete idiot or are you just pretending to be one on the internet?
But nobody can agree on how to fix the debt. Some believe it's best to let it gradually solve itself, and/or pay it down during future boom years. After all, our huge WW2 debt was fixed this way.
Others believe in so-called "austerity", but the record on austerity was poor during the Hoover years, UK, Europe in general, and Kentucky. Austerity seems to make economies stagnant, compounding the problem by keeping revenues low.
Plus, one can argue we are already in a period of austerity, as total gov't spending has been mostly flat relative to GDP (local, state, and fed).
I doubt the differing opinions are likely to come together if politicians simply think and talk about it long enough. Sometimes opinions just plain differ. The right is always going to believe that "smaller gov't" is the only fix and the left will believe a stimulus the best fix and centrists will always believe something in between is the best. After a good many political debates over the years, I've concluded that most are stuck in their viewpoints on such and are not changeable.
Table-ized A.I.
So Carly Fiorina is a candidate who has nothing to offer. All she is able to do is mud sling at others who are far better than her. She's a classic tear down candidate and as such should not be voted for. Unless she runs against someone worse like Hillary. *sigh*
Do we really want to hold our own states to the same standard as Saudi Arabia? Does Tim Cook, Apple, or anybody in the US have the same influence in both areas?
Fiorina is definitely going to run. She's pandering to the dumbest set of Republican voters.
Agreed. She's saying she has no intentions of getting anything done. I haven't a shred of doubt she buys a product from one of those countries she talks about. I'm just glad she got this baseless asinine mud slinging out of the way early so I can write her off.
At least Cook is in a position where he can continue to "make a difference" which is why he said he came out in the first place. Can't expect to get everyone to follow you overnight if ever.
Chewbacon
The Bible is like Wikipedia: written by a bunch of people and verifiable by questionable sources.
I think the real hypocrisy is that Tim isn't speaking out to the same degree about the discrimination in his own company/state. The widespread discrimination against women and minorities is well documented, but I guess as a white male those kinds of discrimination aren't worth talking about, even though he really could have a significant impact on these issues that go well beyond a speaking point. And he could help a lot more people. What percentage of the population of Indiana is gay, a few percentage points? What percentage of Silicon Valley is female or non-white? A whole lot more than a single digit percentage.
when she was CEO of HP......obviously she must be against women's rights and gay rights. Thanks for letting us know, Carly.
Seriously, Tim should be proud to have brought out the schoolyard bully in Carly.
"You've got to decide, when you do this work, whether it will do more good than harm if someone helps you from another country,"
Translation: "You've got to decide, when you do this work, whether the check is big enough to cover the costs of getting you elected and thus warranting a political policy kickback later on down the road."
In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
I'm probably burning all my karma points with this but here goes... There are a lot of people out there that have views I find distasteful but I don't believe that I should be able to deny them the ability to earn a living because of that (beyond voting with my pocketbook) so here is my question: Why is it ok for the government to force a business to cater a gay pride event or be destroyed but not ok to force an African American businessman to cater a white pride event? Maybe I have misunderstood the majorities position on this but I don't think I should be allowed to use the government as a tool to destroy a business owned by a black family because they don't wish to be stuck in the back kitchen serving a group of whites.
He's gay and claims to be a Christian. Pretty hypocritical if you ask me (or Moses or Jesus or the Apostle Paul).
Moses was not a Christian.
Jesus said nothing on this subject.
Paul believed no one at all should have sex, ever again.
The worst that can be said is that Tim Cook has a "double standard" when it comes to advocating for gay rights in the USofA vs other countries.
Given that he lives in the US, that's not unreasonable. He can't campaign for progress in other countries before attempting to fix his own. That would make him a hypocrite.
The Christian Wahabbi movement has been going strong since 1901, turning minds and hearts and denying the 1800 years of religious culture.
If you want to discredit a group, all you need to do is find an unreasonable member of the group and put them on camera so that others believe that they represent the interests of the group. Fiorina is being used by Fox/Right to discredit the left, and she either doesn't realize it or is party to it.
Example: If I wanted to erode the rights of professional athletes, I wouldn't interview Jonny Intellectual Allamerican, I'd interview Bob Cockfight Wifebeater and attempt to make him the face of all professional athletes.
If he was expressing Apple policy, then Apple's behavior as a company is certainly hypocritical. If, by the CEO's statement, Apple is taking a social stand as a matter of principle, then it should apply to all aspects of their business including where they do business. If Tim Cook was expressing Tim Cook's opinion, then who cares. Celebrity doesn't (or at least shouldn't) confer any special status to his opinion. He's welcome to it but, I don't have to agree or even care what his opinion is (I don't). I do find it curious that he will publicly oppose an Indiana law but not the laws of countries where Apple has real 'skin in the game.'
He's gay and claims to be a Christian. Pretty hypocritical if you ask me (or Moses or Jesus or the Apostle Paul).
Anyone who has two shirts should share with the one who has none, and anyone who has food should do the same. -- Luke 3:11
How many shirts do you own, PRMan?
-1, Too Many Layers Of Abstraction
How can Republicans criticize Obamacare when they support Israel that has universal health care?
I think Carly is confusing the battles (perhaps intentionally). Indiana (as part of the US) actually has a law that talks about freedoms for all men (lets assume it means all people) and specifically calls for a separation of church and state so religious influence can not be forced upon the local population.. Countries like China and Saudi Arabia do not have those notions in their foundation. So its more of the hypocrisy of the US and the states that is at fault.. (all men are created equal.. ok.. well, they are not "men" so it doesn't apply.. Marriage shall be applied equally.. well, lets narrowly define what a marriage is instead of the general understanding that its an institutional/legal contract between two consenting adults, so we can exclude them).
Tim cook, as a CEO, has quite limited powers of influence outside of his "country".. So Apple doesn't sell in China.. (boo hoo.. the people there will buy their phones elsewhere, or import, like what they did before). But in the US, he shuts down plants, well, that has actual measurable impact because it impacts everyone there, and people no matter what they feel will vote with their wallets. (ie: No job (or a lower paying job, property values go down because of lower income/less jobs, education suffers (less money available to educational sector because its re-allocated to more "important" services (debatable but whatever), etc.. Those won't happen there, so its matter of picking your battle where you can actually have an impact. (and don't forget, CEO is not absolute ruler.. he runs a publicly traded company with shareholders, so he still has to turn a profit (or make sure all the majority shareholders are ok with lower profits for "a cause" otherwise, just what.. he gets kicked out, and any impact he was attempting to make would get pushed out with him. Its a delicate line and one that is not easily walked.
And don't forget, the bigger you are, your own local government (US) will often times encourage you to not rock the boat too much if they want to take to task another action. We don't live in a bubble that we can do absolutely ANYTHING we want.
God made the Idiot for practice, and then He made the School Board -- Mark Twain Look for http://Thebar.steelbeachca
nope the point of Christianity is you can continue to sin and screw everyone, as long a you repent to your invisible daddy in the sky you're fine, fuck everyone else.
1) you aren't camapgning against Tim Cook
2) Complaining about someone who complains about a place that is a against gay rights makes you sound like you are against day rights
3) Which countries did HP do business with when she was in charge that don't have a good record on women's rights?
Yeah none of those will come and bite you in the ass.
> He's gay and claims to be a Christian. Pretty hypocritical if you ask me (or Moses or Jesus or the Apostle Paul).
That's like saying anyone eats shellfish can't be a real christian.
Religion is not a computer program. It isn't simply a list of statements to be executed without the application of human judgment.
Curious how a CEO, who 'gave' corporate funds (what should have been shareholder profits) to feed numerous political spending has a sense she can speak out about a CEO of another company, who is just speaking out, without putting a check in the mail.
That Tim Cook, in his role of CEO, is a slave to the almighty dollar.
It's easy to have "convictions" when they cost you nothing (like in the Indiana case). But the real test of a conviction is whether or not you are willing to suffer for it.
Is Tim's conviction so great that he would risk a shareholder revolt and possible loss of his job?
Apparently not, this is all just a show. Changing Indiana law is going to benefit nobody. Tempest in a teapot. It would be nice if our leaders, business & political, could show some real conviction instead of grandstanding like a Pharisee..
http://tenthousandplaces.org/2015/04/01/bake-for-them-two/
Consider:
1. Jesus said "if you love me, keep my commandments." AFTER having said that He and His father were one - so you CANNOT ask for His positions on things w/o the Old Testament (given that He and/or His Father, depending on how you understand the Trinity, is the author of those laws).
2.Given that so many of the things Jesus said included quotes of the Old Testament (which the people of his day immediately recognized and people today who are Biblically-literate recognize) It is a logical impossibility to ask for Jesus' position on anything without reference to the Old Testament.
3. Jesus' claims of who he was were all based on the Old Testament, so if you rule it out, you rule Him out, and then by inference invalidate everything he said; he becomes just another failed-and-dead would-be prophet we should all ignore.
4. More than once, Jesus quoted Old Testament law on marriage (which excluded gays, homosexuality having been declared a forbidden abomination, not just a sin lumped-in with all other sins) and he doubled-down on that law emphasizing that God took marriage VERY seriously - like the folloing quote, where he starts with an Old Testament quote and then makes it even more severe:
"It has been said, ‘Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.’ But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery."
This claim that Jesus said nothing about homosexuality is a tired old bit of pro-gay propaganda that only works on ignorant people (as-in people who have not read the Bible but think they know it) and those who want to support homosexuality and are simply looking for any possible fig leaf. Jesus was repeatedly asked if he was invalidating the old laws and he emphatically denied that he was. THOSE laws banned homosexual ACTIVITY, and made it clear that marriage involved a man and a woman, SOMETIMES multiple wives (primarily as a protection for widows in a world with no social welfare safety nets rather than as sexy harems), but NEVER more than one male in the marriage.
Why do lefties always demand Soviet-style uniformity?
She's not even demanding her supporters be flawless. She's saying that Cook shouldn't speak out on an issue that he has strong views on because of a completely unrelated situation elsewhere.
(BTW I don't necessarily agree with my fellow liberal's interpretation of the Indiana law, though I admit I'm no lawyer and there may be something huge I'm missing, but Cook has every right to say what he believes about something happening in his own damned country, and those who demand he remain silent should go boil their heads.)
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
She's not really calling for social justice, she's a right wing politician.
What offends her is not that Apple makes money from countries where people discriminate against women and gays, what offends her is not that the government has alliances with countries where people discriminate against women and gays - no one thinks that president Fiona would break off relations with the whole middle east and Africa.
What she means is that she hates liberals for caring about gays at all. Ie., she's against liberal social justice.
That she's so confused that she supports the feminist half of it, but attacks all of it should make it clear why you shouldn't vote for the right. Too emotional, too tribal to make any sense at all.
I wonder what HP's policy for manufacturing and sourcing are with regards to human rights?
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
[a] The Old Testament contains many laws.
[b] The Old Testament contains many punishments for violation of those laws, which indicate what should be done to the violator AND (via severity, informs the people of the seriousness of the infraction)
[c] The Old Testament legal code was aimed at the Old Testament Jewish people living under that law who, if they were obeying it, would have been without sin and therefore eligible to judge and punish any violators
Jesus came along as said, in effect: [A] and [B] are STILL VALID, and God still takes them seriously and will punish for their violation, but you people have not been living properly within those laws and are not sin-free so you have no legal right to judge (on the LEGAL sense) the sins of others for their violations and carry-out those punishments but you are STILL required to discern right from wrong, and not do wrong (Jesus even specifically condemned people who would try to convince others that various sins are not sins).
Jesus provided ABSOLUTELY no "cover" for homosexuality, and his added condemnation for those who try to convince others that sins are not sins is a particular warning to this generation which seeks NOT to say:
"tolerate my sins (which are between me and God), and I will tolerate your sins (which are between you and God)"
but rather:
"MY sins are no longer sins, you must tolerate and even participate in celebrations of my sins, and I am now defining a NEW anti-Biblical 'sin' of 'opposing sin' and declaring YOU guilty of THAT!".
from http://heidelblog.net/2014/04/homosexual-and-homosexuality-in-the-new-testament/ as originally posted by that site's owner Noted Reformed Theologian R. Scott Clark. Posted here without his explicit permission.
“Homosexual” And “Homosexuality” In The New Testament
Below are some notes I compiled as part of a broader discussion about how Christians ought to think about homosexuality. The argument was made that the Bible does not really speak clearly to the question of homosexual behavior. In response I offered a brief account of Paul’s language in 1Corinthians 6:9 and 1Timothy 1:10.
The argument is sometimes made that Christian opposition to homosexuality is grounded solely in the Mosaic (Old Covenant) civil laws and thus, if Christians oppose homosexuality they must also seek to enforce the rest of the Mosaic civil and ceremonial legislation. If, however, there is clear teaching against homosexuality in the NT, that argument fails. In fact, the Mosaic civil laws in the Torah, the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Bible) were intentionally temporary and typological and the Christian view is that they were fulfilled by Christ. The NT opposition to homosexuality is grounded not in the Mosaic civil legislation but in nature or natural law. The NT arguments against homosexuality are, in that way, like its teaching on marriage and the Sabbath: they are grounded in nature, in creation, and natural law and thus existed long before the institution of the Mosaic (Old Covenant) civil and ceremonial laws and have universal application. The moral law was summarized (typologically) in the Ten Commandments (in Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5) and in Matthew 22:37–40, and widely throughout the NT.
Finally, just this morning I received a note in which it is claimed that the very concept of homosexuality did not exist until the 1860s. That claim is completely false. The ancient world, including the New Testament not only had a concept of homosexuality but a vocabulary to describe it, as will be seen below.
In 1Corinthians 6:9 and 1Timothy 1:10 Paul condemns the “” (arsenokoitai). The standard definition (Bauer, Arnt, Gingrich, Danker) is “a male who practices homosexuality, pederast, sodomite.” This is the way the word was understood in early Christian, post-canonical usage though it occurs in the same sense in the Sibylline Oracles (6th cent BC) ii.73. See Moulton and Milligan s.v.
Of course we want to avoid the etymological fallacy (deducing the meaning of a word by adding up its letters or component parts) because it does not always work and can produce misleading results but in this case it works because usage confirms what adding up the letters suggests. (arsen) = male and (koites) = bed or euphemistically for sexual relations.
However uncomfortable it makes us late moderns, the text of 1Corinthians 6:9 is quite clear:
Or do you not know that the unjust () will not inherit the kingdom of God? Neither will you who deceive () nor the sexually immoral () nor idolaters (), nor adulterers (), nor the effeminate (), nor homosexuals ().
I translate as “effeminate” because of the way it’s used in the LXX (the Greek translation of the Hebrew/Aramaic Scriptures) for the “soft parts” and is used elsewhere in the sense of “effeminate, of a catamite, a male who submits his body to unnatural lewdness, 1 Corinthians 6:9 (BAGD, s.v.).
Paul was quite familiar with Corinth as a fairly depraved, cosmopolitan port city and he was well aware of the sorts of sexual immorality that were openly practiced there as elsewhere (e.g., Ephesus had pornographic graffiti that would make us blush). It seems clear that one thing, effeminate men who submit themselves to sexual abuse, perhaps homosexual prostitutes, led him to the last category, homosexuals.
Paul is announcing God’s judgment on several classes of sinful behaviors and warning those who commit them
The worst that can be said is that Tim Cook has a "double standard" when it comes to advocating for gay rights in the USofA vs other countries.
I'm not even sure it's a "double standard". The US is (supposedly) built on the premise of equality and fairness for *all* its citizens. The same cannot be said for (all) other countries or cultures. I'm not supporting the bias of those other countries/cultures, just saying that Indiana and Arkansas are not China and Saudi Arabia. I'm pretty sure Carly knows this, but is being, as you said, a "concern troll" - which makes her the hypocrite.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
There is not a blanket refusal of services to "Christians," "Atheists" or what ever other classification we can come up with. What is being discusses is a very narrow good/service to something that some people find distasteful, so they would prefer not to take part in one.
That's what's being discussed, as if this were a narrow law for protecting religious cake-bakers. Maybe that's what they have in mind when they write this stuff. But it also will protect doctors who refuse to see adopted children of gay couples (this has already happened in Michigan thanks to the federal RFRA). The law they passed in Indiana goes further than the RFRA and other religious freedom laws across the country, which prohibit intrusions on religious freedom by the government. This one extends that policy to include not only to protection from government, but similar "intrusions on religious freedom" by private parties., which necessitates the removal of the "anti-discrimination" window dressing that the prior religious freedom laws have. Before Indiana passed the law, it was sent a letter by 30 law professors, pointing out the likely consequences:
The proposed law seeks to override this reasoned balance among rights by bluntly and categorically granting religious liberty rights a special status. In so doing, the proposed law jeopardizes parallel compelling state interests such as public health and safety, equality, and other fundamental liberties. What is more, without language that prohibits the shifting of the costs of religious liberty rights secured under the state RFRA to third party rights-holders that do not share the religious beliefs of the claimants, the proposed RFRA risks exposing the state to valid claims that it has violated Article 1, Section 4 of the Indiana Constitution, a provision that prohibits the law from preferring religious over non-religious policies and practices. Further, adopting a measure such as the proposed RFRAs, one that creates a legal mechanism by which the costs of religious liberty may be shifted to third parties, raises serious Establishment Clause concerns under the federal Constitution insofar as it risks governmental endorsement or support of religion, and can be reasonably read as the state advancing religious interests. The use of state power in the services of religion or religious interests clearly runs afoul of the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment and of Article 1 of the Indiana Constitution.
In our expert opinion, the clear evidence suggests otherwise and unmistakably demonstrates that the broad language of the proposed state RFRA will more likely create confusion, conflict, and a wave of litigation that will threaten the clarity of religious liberty rights in Indiana while undermining the stateâ(TM)s ability to enforce other compelling interests. This confusion and conflict will increasingly take the form of private actors, such as employers, landlords, small business owners, or corporations, taking the law into their own hands and acting in ways that violate generally applicable laws on the grounds that they have a religious justification for doing so. Members of the public will then be asked to bear the cost of their employer's, their landlord's, their local shopkeeper's, or a police officer's private religious beliefs. As we have learned on the federal level, RFRAs do not "open a door" to conversation, but rather invite new conflict that takes the form of litigation. This collision of public rights and individual religious beliefs will produce a flood of litigation, whereby Indiana courts will be asked to rebalance what has been a workable and respectful harmony of rights and responsibilities in a pluralistic society.
Note the word ONLY in that statement. ROI is still high on the list, bashing Indiana shows that it is not ONLY about ROI, bashing SA, well that may lead to investor lawsuits.
When you cant win, ad hominem.
So how was it a double standard. Remember to compare apples to apples.
When you cant win, ad hominem.
The craziest thing is that she doesn't want to make Tim Cook and Apple better.
She is using Apple and business in China as an example of why she should be able to make American worse.
you lack reading comprehension skills, or you are being dishonest.
When you wrote: "Moses was not a Christian.", you would only be correct from a Jewish perspective (i.e. the perpective of one who does not accept the New Testament). Moses lived before Jesus was born as a man, BUT Moses spoke with, saw, believed in, and obeyed God - and Jesus decalred that He and His Father were actually one and the same. He said that anybody who had seen Him had indeed also seen The Father (God), therefore by-definition Moses is viewed by Christians as having seen believed-in and followed Jesus/God. Christians are NOT polytheists, viewing God, Jesus, and The Holy Spirit as three spearate entities (which is the way SOME Muslims pretend that Chrisitans see things in order to condemn them as polytheists and whip-up hatred against them), rather they accept the teaching of Jesus that there are three distinct identities which all belong to the one God - and they leave it as something limited humans simply cannot completely understand. (c'mon now! Slashdotters are SUPPOSED to bo OK with thing like time loops, aliases, avatars, etc!)
When you wrote: "Jesus said nothing on this subject." you are TOTALLY wrong. Jesus explicitly said on multiple occasions that the Old Testament laws (which included straight-marriage, and bans on homosexuality) were not only still valid, but should be taked more seriously. He did not NEED to specifically mention the "LGBT" acronym in modern English, just like road sign can say "fines for traffic violations are doubled in construction areas" without quoting the entire motor vehicle code! You guys who keep repeating the mantra "Jesus never mentioned homosexuality" are just playing an extremely dishonest word game of a particular type that the Bible specificilly condemned as one of the worst sins: misleading others to think a sin is not a sin.
When you wrote: "Paul believed no one at all should have sex, ever again." you completely lost it. First, CITE the PARAGRAPH where Paul in-context said this (Paul wrote in paragraphs, the sentence (verse) numbers were inserted later by scholars to aid in navigating the text). You cannot, of course, because he said no such thing. Paul himself remained single and devoted himself to his religious duties. In his writings,he recommended a celibate life to those of his followers who judged themselves suited to such a life, so that they could devote more of their time and energy to the faith. He then stated that leaders of the church should be MARRIED MEN who had demonstrated their responsibility by properly managing the affairs of their families. By YOUR reckoning, the church would have died-out immediately with nobody able to lead a church. Note: The early Catholic church leaders adopted the celibacy thing, embracing Paul's recommendation for missionaries, failing to adopt his recommendation for church leaders, but it's NOT Biblical law (which is why it occasionally bubbles-up that they ought to ditch the celibacy tradition, which is uniquely Catholic among all Christian denominations, but the move seems unable to overcome the inertia of tradition)
There are racists in any group. Have you heard the racism coming from Sharpton?
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Jeezus, if you're going to start using words correctly, you'll torpedo the whole conversation!
everything becomes "political", and when something is political, it is fodder for a food-fight. It also serves the interests of the establishment Wall-St-linked part of BOTH political parties to keep the masses arguing over social issues so they do NOT focus on money matters, where they've been bailing out their friends and giving other peoples' money to their supporters (bread and circuses!)
For DECADES, left-wingers insisted that they wanted govenment OUT of "the bedroom" (OUT of all moral and cultural issues). Now, however, they have been completely unmasked. They NEVER actually wanted government out of these issues, they wanted government 100% IN on these issues, but on THEIR SIDE. They did not want people to "tolerate" homosexuals, they DEMAND that everybody be forced to celebrate and honor homosexuality and homosexual marriage. People have been FIRED from their jobs in police and fire departments for not participating in "gay pride" parades, and have been prosecuted in the courts for not participating in the celebrations of gay weddings.
The point of the law is not to make it legal to refuse services. It would give people the right to not engage in contracts because of their beliefs.
A walk in service provider could not refuse to sell an already made cake, but may refuse to make one. And even that may not be legal, given court rulings in other states. There's a gay rights activist lawyer who penned an op-ed in Indiana that stated this whole point.
(As a thought exercise, just replace the people doing the buying and selling: if a KKK member walked in to a gay bakery and wanted a wedding cake shaped like a burning cross, could the gay baker refuse to make the cake? I would say yes, even without the RFRA or similar laws. I think it is hypocritical if you say the gay baker can say no to the KKK, but a christian/muslim/whatever can't. But only on demonstrably contract based services for things explicitly tied to the practices/actions that person finds objectionable.)
Long story short: if your business is based on walk-ins, you have to serve the customer.
More importantly, it would give conscientious objectors or religious people the grounds to not have to buy or pay for services they object to. See birth control, abortions, etc. Even then, they could still be forced too if the government found it had a compelling interest and that interest was served in the least invasive way. (Like when a muslim woman wants to wear a burkha, she still has to have her license photo without it and expose her face when asked by a police officer at a traffic stop. It's a minimal violation of their religion for an obvious interest from the state.)
Finally, why can't we peacefully respect the differences between people? An true christian is not hating a gay person by not baking a cake; they believe homosexuality is a sin and are choosing not to participate in what they feel is a perversion of a contract between a man, a woman, and God. You can make a very strong case that the christian is wrong, but they have the right to peacefully practice their belief, don't they?
So... What did Jesus say about homosexuality?
(No referencing the Old Testament. Unless you're A: Willing to be judged by all of it and B: ignoring the New Covenant but.
Love thy Neighbor?
Tim Cook's personal opinion should absolutely form the basis for how he runs a publicly traded company that he doesn't own all by himself, and conversely, the fact that he's the CEO of a multinational company that sells personal consumer electronics to residents of many nations, many of which are repressive, should absolutely mean that he's not allowed to voice his own opinion. Totes, yo!
Also, while Car was in char at HP, did that company refuse to do business with or within any country that doesn't allow for the same rights she enjoys here?
I can't wait to see how quickly here soon to be laughable presidential campaign crashes and burns when people figure out who she really is and what she's all about.
Why are the Clintons asking for, and receiving, money from the Algerian government?
Government debt is different from your personal debt, The US government could spend over $500 billion dollars per year in debt and not grow the debt as a percentage of the GDP, Government income to relative to the taxable money, as the economy grows, the population grows, and inflation goes, the government revenue also grows. Basically, the current GDP is 17.7 trillion dollars, so inflation(1.5-2%) with growth (3%) is $885 dollar increase for the following year, as long as the government deficit spending is that or less, the debt is as a percent of the gdp staying the same or shrinking.
So long as the US governments debt is denominated in US dollars, and the US government still controls the US dollar, then their is nothing to worry about, as debt is simply something governments have, and it is always measured in values comparable to the national GDP($17.7 trillion for 2014).
Only the most foolish of idiot governments would want their debt denominated in a foreign currency, or a currency in which the government does not control the central bank(see: Greece).
We in the US have neither problem, our problem is within our slash and burn politics of the right wing, that thinks massive cuts to the highest economic multiplier things in our budget(health care, social security, food stamps), will somehow not shrink growth to the point that it is negative, and reduce tax collections to the extent that the cuts have been canceled out(again see: Greece).
If this is about where he lives then he shouldn't use his position as Apple CEO in it, should he?
Apple operates globally.
At first I had no idea why Fiorina would run for president. . .but now I get it, she's the attack dog for Hillary.
Amazingly similar to how Underwood used Jackie Sharp to attack Dunbar in House of Cards.
Also says "all liars" are excluded from the Kingdom of God.
Ever lie?
All are convicted under the Law. Grace is the only resolution, from an eternal perspective.
Still remains that if something is a sin, there are probably quite pragmatic reasons for it being stated as being one, and grace does not protect you from earthly bad decisions. 25 million deaths from a pandemic such as AIDS would be a pretty good argument for calling it "missing the mark". Curiously, Paul states the -the- penalty for this sin is received "in their own bodies". Maybe focus on that, and the objective immorality of "want orgasm now, might spread disease killing millions... meh" regardless of whether being viewed from a secular or religious viewpoint.
Sorry atheists, "the opposite of whatever religion says on an issue is therefore right" doesn't get you out of the cause-and-effect consequences of doing stupid, selfish, ultimately sociopathic actions either.
She would love to work at Apple, but hates the thought that she'd be known as "iCarly."
Jesus said nothing. Paul did comment on it, however, so Christians often use that as the basis of their new testament argument. Also the new covenant doesn't mean you completely ignore mosaic law, but I admit to being quite confounded by the distinction. Bottom line, though is that Jesus said to "love your neighbor as yourself." It's in two of the gospels. He didn't make exceptions for homosexuals. And Jesus DID comment on divorce (Matthew 19:9) and you don't see a lot of Christians denying services to remarried people whose original spouses didn't commit adultery.
Now it all makes sense! Republicans don't care a single damn bit about anything but the dollars and cents, so of course they have no problem with the cognitive dissonance of small government banning gay marriage, or states rights except for gay marriage, or obeying the Constitution except for wiretapping, marijuana, and whatever other minor inconveniences the dirty liberals point out in their daily activities. On these subjects they don't even cognito.
But taking money from someone? Hypocrite!
The problems mostly require or inevitably involves hiding things. Making a PR stunt out of a situation, especially with people with such polarizing, opposite views short circuits a lot of that.
In what manner do gay rights differ from straight rights?
Fiorina orchestrated the HP/Compaq merger which even the founders of HP were against. She ran for Senator from California with some of the weirdest ads ever (the guy wearing a bad sheep costume with red glowing eyes, really?) Now Fiorina is bashing a very successful CEO for speaking out against anti-gay discrimination in his own country.
Where is Fiorina's support for gay rights? Where is Fiorina's Republican Party's support for gay rights???
It would be very nice if Tim Cook could change the world by making every country support gay rights. Unfortunately, Fiorina's own Republican Party makes gay rights a battle even here in the USA.
Fiorina should shut up unless she wants to talk about her own party's abysmal record on gay rights and women's rights issues.
Tim Cook is protesting a law that gives businesses the freedom to boycott customers by....
boycotting customers.
Now THAT is truly hypocritical!
I think we can believe that the gay man may actually believe in gay rights.
That is not the debate. The debate is what does he believe in more, saving $35 on the manufacture of an iPhone or gay rights. So far saving the $35 seems more important.
$35 being the estimated increased cost of building an iPhone in the US where gays have rights.
Hypocrite.
You keep using that word.
I do not think it means what you think it means.
For Tim Cook she compares completely different circumstances (doing business with a company that has poor human rights vs enacting legislation to restrict human rights).
For Clinton, she gives no evidence whatsoever that receiving money from these countries has influenced the Clinton Foundation's policies in any detrimental way towards women.
This is just typical political grandstanding and nonsense.
Tim Cook is NOT a hypocrite on that issue The worst that can be said is that Tim Cook has a "double standard" when it comes to advocating for gay rights in the USofA vs other countries.
No. One can also say Cook chooses profits over gay rights. If he can save $35 on the manufacture of an iPhone by manufacturing in a country that is hostile to gays he will do it. That seems hypocrisy not double standard, he is materially benefitting from his silence and/or lack of action.
$35 is the estimated increase in manufacturing costs for making iPhones in the USA where gays have rights.
I'm guess you didn't actually read what Tim Cook said.
Our message, to people around the country and around the world, is this: Apple is open. Open to everyone, regardless of where they come from, what they look like, how they worship or who they love. Regardless of what the law might allow in Indiana or Arkansas, we will never tolerate discrimination.
By saying that his message to people "around the world" is that Apple will not tolerate discrimination, and then continuing to do business in countries that are very much discriminatory, he is engaging in hypocrisy.
If you don't think so, hit me with your definition. Mine is "the claim or pretense of holding beliefs, feelings, standards, qualities, opinions, behaviors, virtues, motivations, or other characteristics that one does not actually hold."
He claims to have this principle of not tolerating discrimination, yet he does. Care to explain how that's wrong?
Basically some of you are saying that you would have sided with the third reich instead of someone like Bonhoeffer? He died in prison for refusing to go along with teachings that he found reprehensible. He took a stand against tyranny and paid for it with his life.
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
The national "debt" is a made-up number. It is the money the Federal Government "owes" to the Federal Reserve (who can create or destroy money at will, depending on the economics). The only reason to control the "debt" is inflation. As long as inflation is under control, it does not matter what the "debt" is. Calling it "debt" shifts the power from government (admittedly flawed representatives of imperfect people) to banks (private entities who do not care about people). Checkbook analogies fall short when trying to understand the goals and issues of managing a national currency.
Hold on, being against something isn't the same as not openly advocating for it.
If Fiorina is for women's rights but does business with countries that don't have strong women's rights, that's sad. But it only becomes hypocritical when she openly says "We're not going to tolerate discrimination against women" and then continues to do business with those countries, while singling out and punishing one or two smaller targets. That's the very definition of hypocrisy.
Your question assumes a dichotomy that the apostles wrote Jesus's own words, and yet somehow disagreed with him on homosexuality. Didn't happen. Show me another instance where any apostle ultimately disagrees with Jesus (other than Judas?).
Homosexuality was a sexual normalcy in many civilizations during this time, most certainly including Rome.
Romans 1:24-27
No, you're actually arguing against a strawman. The argument is that homosexuality was not important enough to be mentioned by Jesus. However, since there is very little archaeological evidence or written references* to a historical Jesus, it's entirely likely that Paul made it all up. So from that perspective you'd be correct but there'd be no particular reason to listen to it.
* Josephus was an obvious fake, but that 3rd century monk was correct that some mention should have been in there.
Fiorina is a corporate rapist and now she's hoping to buy an election soon so she can rape at the Federal level. Ruining one company isn't enough, apparently.
I didn't say she's hypocritical, although she would have to be if she was for women's rights or gay rights. I'll leave it up for her to choose which poison she's harboring.
A common mistake to assume that teh dietary law (which was abrogated) and the moral law are the same thing. Only a person with no comprehension of literature would assume such.
I think Ms. Fiorina is simply wrong because Tim Cook is being VERY CONSISTENT on Indiana and Saudi Arabia.
In one case he's supporting puritanical fanatics who want to use state power to control the beliefs and behaviors of citizens, forcing them to follow his beliefs.
In the other case he is supporting exactly the same thing.
Whether you're a woman in Saudi Arabia who wants to decide for herself who she will spend time with, who she will produce children for, who she will cook for, etc.., or whether you're a baker in Indiana who wants to decide for herself who she will spend time with, who she will produce baked goods for, who she will cater for, etc., Tim Cook does not have your back (except perhaps with a whip). Tim wants to allow people to compel you to do things against your will.
30 years ago I supported the right of gays to decide who they would engage in activities with without government interference. Today i support the right of bakers to do the same thing. Somehow this support for freedom once made me a progressive and now makes me a bigot. Suppose being a progressive and being a bigot are the same thing?
I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
Aside from the polarized commentary it's difficult to determine exactly how offensive the proposed legislation really is. I don't believe Indiana should be trampling anyone's rights be them gay or religious or both.
That being said Tim Cook might come off as less of a hypocrite if he explained all of the things Apple is doing to try to improve things for the LGBT community in China - where the human rights situation is far worse and where Apple does almost ALL of its manufacturing? Apple IS involved in trying to improve China's human rights record right? Surely they must have some pull there?
You ruined HP. You lost your last election. Go home.
"Hypocrisy" has a clear definition. Tim Cook is NOT a hypocrite on that issue. Fiorina is WRONG.
The worst that can be said is that Tim Cook has a "double standard" when it comes to advocating for gay rights in the USofA vs other countries.
Yet he also appears to be effective in advocating for gay rights in the USofA. Where is Fiorina's advocacy?
Fiorina is being a "concern troll" on these issues.
Even worse, she is being a concern troll for topics that she does not personally support. How much Saudi business did she turn down at HP? How much of her money has she spent on advocating for gay rights?
Fiorina is not claiming to advocate gay rights. She's criticizing a boycott of tech companies on states with Religious Freedom Act laws when they don't apply the same business practices to nations which do not advocate women's rights.
Fiorina is actually right to call Apple and others hypocrites mostly because of the nature of Religious Freedom Restoration laws. The original Religious Freedom Restoration Act was a bill signed by Bill Clinton in 1993 that basically applied everything in the Indiana law to the entirety of the United States, Federal, State and Municipal. It was ruled unconstitutional in the application to State and Municipal, but is still in force at the Federal level. Since then, 20 states have passed these laws to make them apply to the State. So Fiorina is right to call Apple a hypocrite, just not for the reason she states. She's right because boycotting Indiana for passing this law is hypocritical when they do not appear to be boycotting Virginia or Connecticut or Kansas where these laws were already passed and are in effect. She's wrong to claim this about other countries, as those cultures are different. But I do agree that within the United States to boycott one state without boycotting the 19 others and the federal government who all have these laws in place is hypocrtical.
Tim Cook isn't running for president. Stop trying to campaign against him.
Yeah, but Democrats being Democrats, their racism was enacted into law.
Back in 2001 while ensconced at HP I had little love for Fiorina, the fact is she now has the obvious high ground. Now if she were still at HP and the Saudi's wanted to buy servers to track gay people realize she would probably take the deal.
Cook should look at the facts of the law in Indiana and chill.
'I don't know what it's called. I just know the sound it makes, when it takes a man's life.' ~ Four Leaf Tayback
So... What did Jesus say about homosexuality?
What did Jesus say about slavery? The abolition of slavery in the West has it's roots firmly in the Christian worldview (we are created equals in the image of God)...and yet Jesus never condemned slavery - what gives!? Same goes for homosexuality in my view.
So... What did Jesus say about homosexuality?
Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.” -- Matthew 22:37-40
Also (though not said by Jesus)
For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” -- Galatians 5:14
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
You most certainly be gay and Christian. Just like you can be *name human condition here* and be Christian.
Did you miss that part of the Bible where Jesus literally preferred the company of sinners and told us not to judge?
Oh and did you miss the part about the new covenant and the fact Jesus said nothing about homosexuality? And also the part about Gentiles simply not being required to go with the OT Laws?
Hmmmm?
Wow. And I thought I was the only Christian on Earth..
That is, well, a big jump to a conclusion there, son. Not mentioning something is not active refusal. At the moment, the situation in places like Saudi Arabia is such that advocacy there could even hurt the ones you are trying to help. Also the "we" factor is not to be ignored, as in "we Americans are better than that. Stop going backwards, Indiana" works better than preaching from the outside. All this assumes that Tim Cook has enough time and resources to call out every case of discrimination, of course. I personally feel Tim doesn't mention SA because it's basically like saying water is wet.
Though Apple does not release sales numbers by country, it's pretty safe to say that Indiana is still a bigger business than Saudi Arabia is, due to demographics and sales outlets. So I don't give that argument much weight.
Really?
You are welcome on my lawn.
For a loyal member of the Republican Party to criticize Cook and Clinton on these points is hypocrisy.
http://alternatives.rzero.com/
So... What did Jesus say about homosexuality?
(No referencing the Old Testament. Unless you're A: Willing to be judged by all of it and B: ignoring the New Covenant but.
Seriously?? Or are you just troll baiting?
And what did Jesus say about bestiality and child molestation - nothing.
And what did he say about smoking marijuana, meth and crack and drowning kittens in the bathtub - nothing again.
So I guess that means he's okay with it?? Get real.
The apostle Paul referred to the OT several times in his NT writing. He made the distinction between those precepts that have eternal moral significance, like murder, stealing, adultery and homosexuality etc, from those that were only intended for Israel and found their fulfillment in Christ, like animal sacrifice, circumcision, the dietary law, holy days etc. Look at Christ's disciples before and after his resurrection. They were very imperfect people, like Christians are today.
Romans 1:21-27
Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
I Cor 6:9-10
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
Galatians 5:19-21
Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, AND SUCH LIKE (i.e. other items not on this list but which are similar or related): of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
Yet gay supporters continually make the mistake of false equivalence by comparing homosexuality with eating pork/shellfish and wearing mixed garments in order to justify it. Every commandment wasn't on the same moral plane. Even Jesus referred to certain precepts as being more weightier than others. (Matthew 23:23)
Homosexuality was judged by God in the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah during the time of Abraham - 430 years before the Mosaic law. It was condemned by Moses in the Law and by the NT writings of Paul and Jude. Interesting that Jude referred to S&G as an example for us today.
Regards
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfro...
https://www.lewrockwell.com/20...
http://www.westernjournalism.c...
http://www.theblaze.com/storie...
Yes.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
SOURCES: Newsmax, Lew Rockwell and The Blaze.
Very funny.
You are welcome on my lawn.
In the name of a "Greater Good" many lesser evils may be done.
Yep lets say I shot and killed you this would reduce the population by 1 which would reduce the impact on the Earth we live on. Now yes killing you would be a bad thing but it would be the the Greater Good of the planet and our grandchildren.
good + bad "" good
Bad is bad. If you believe in something you stand for it. Anything else is just an excuse. If you make money running around giving lectures and promoting rights you don't take money from the source of the problem.
Case in point. I see the amount of spying on us as an act of treason against the people of this country. I work in Internet Security. I have been offered many jobs working for the government at very high rates of pay yet I have not and will not for NO amount of money take a job committing an act of treason. I work in the private sector of less money.
You either fully stand for what you believe in or your just another lying asshole running their mouth.
Cary ain't got room to talk either. You know she did business with all those countries when working for HP. Is she saying HP never did business with a country that didn't give rights to women and gays?
Another case in point. Let's say the Algerian government called me and wanted me to work for them. I wouldn't for no amount of money. Why? I believe in Human rights. People like Carly the asshole and others talk about "Human Rights" yet then divide it down to women gays and whatever group. Real "Human Rights" include everyone. Isn't a woman a Human? Isn't a gay man a Human? By dividing it in classes we can then attack those we do not like. We can then also include classes that AREN'T HUMAN such as corporations as beings.
What is a Human a being that walks on two legs, breaths air, and evidently dies. Humans have two sexes.
With things like this it is either a 1 or a 0. It either is or it ain't. Your words are just words your actions are what actually speak your worth.
My question to the world is when will we stop judging people's worth like all the assholes involved with this like Carly and Cliton by their words and judge them by their actions. Both should be in jail.
So, you are saying that because you don't trust those sources, the statements must be lies.
Are you that blinded by your beliefs in the infallibility of the left that you can't even read the articles and attempt to understand that these things happened?
He called the Ferguson protesters Pimps and Hoes. Would he be ok with a white person saying the same thing?
He calls white people crackers, like derogatory names are acceptable for white people, when you know he would be flipping out if someone called a black person by any of the numerous derogatory names.
He defamed a New York prosecutor, Steven Pagones, saying he was involved in the rape of Tawana Brawley, that was found overwhelmingly to be fabricated.
He called Hasidic Jews "Diamond Merchants"
Heck, the Blaze link has snippets of video/audio from actual Sharpton speeches, see for yourself.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
"Hypocrisy" has a clear definition. Tim Cook is NOT a hypocrite on that issue. Fiorina is WRONG.
Websters seems to disagree with you:
Hypocrite - "a person who claims or pretends to have certain beliefs about what is right but who behaves in a way that disagrees with those beliefs".
I think one could say that doing business with regimes that actually execute people for being gay while claiming Indiana is "anti-gay" is, to most rational people, rather hypocritical.
Based on the definition Cook is a hypocrite, but you knew that, but preferred not to see it that way since it does not fit your worldview.
"You've got to decide, when you do this work, whether it will do more good than harm if someone helps you from another country," former president Bill Clinton said in March. "And I believe we have done a lot more good than harm. And I believe this is a good thing."" Non-Sequitorial platitudes from Bill Clinton. Shocker. Saying nothing, while evoking emotion is his forte.
“Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’ ? - Matt. 19 4-5 NIV
It may not be specifically related to homosexuality, but it's fairly clear that Jesus believed his father (the Creator, G-d) "made them male and female" for the purpose of becoming "one flesh" through the act of intercourse with the opposite sex.
It's not Jesus speaking here, but Paul and it's still New Testament:
"Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God." - 1 Corinth. 6:9-10 NIV
Paul seems fairly blunt that "men who have sex with men" will not "inherit the kingdom of God", so I'd say the New Testament stance is anti-homosexual, anti-greed, anti-drunk, etc.
Just sayin' since you asked...
I don't want to go too far down this rabbit-hole, but since the "Find where Jesus said it" argument pops up every time gay rights issues appear in the news, I feel it's worth pointing out that Jesus quotes Old Testament passages in the New Testament. So the OT is kind of unavoidable even if you want to use a strict "Red Letters only" reading of Christian Scripture.
So there is no "Either OT OR NT (except maybe Paul)" dichotomy. If you want to take Jesus seriously, you have to take seriously the indications that he used the Hebrew Scriptures himself. Not saying that there is no room at all for nuance or alterations of covenant, only that the above argument isn't quite as clever as so many believe it is. Generally the whole OT is considered valid and binding on Christians, but with the nuance that certain ceremonial and legal norms pertaining to the ancient Israeli kingdom are fulfilled in some sense by Jesus himself and by certain prophetic events. That's why, for example, no major Christian group has advocated the sacrificial system outlined in Leviticus. But there is still considered to be moral and theological significance in some passages of the same. This is why it is seen as legitimate to quote certain passages reinforcing the idea that, for instance, homosexual acts are immoral. Whether or not these passages are to be read as part of the moral law or the civil/ceremonial law is a matter of dispute between liberal and conservative Christians. But neither group understands the Bible to be purely a list of equally-applicable moral statements. Not even fundamentalists believe that.
FWIW, I am not a Christian but have spent most of my childhood studying the Christian Bible and both Protestand and Catholic theology. I just want to point out that if you want to co-opt religious people's scriptures to argue against their political beliefs (a perfectly valid strategy), you might want to not embarrass yourself by revealing your ignorance of the basic ways in which Christians read the Bible. I would say the same thing about relatively uneducated arguments made by Christians themselves. Or about the way Westerners try to bludgeon Muslims with the Qur'an, as though they've never encountered the passages you're trying to use against them.
I don't think you can fairly say Paul made it all up. There's plenty of textual evidence for many writers of the New Testament.
As far as the existence of the person Jesus, there is "near unanimity among scholars that Jesus existed historically"[1]. Tacitus and the Talmud, while painting Jesus negatively, establish and show some proof.
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus
I'm not going to change any minds here - just pointing out that there's some established scholarship.
So, there's a Republican candidate running on a platform of "I vow to say that anything a Democrat says or does is Unamerican, Treasonous, a war on Religion (Christianity of course being the only valid religion) and/or hypocritical. How? Mainly by waiting for them to say how everything I believe in is discriminatory and disgusting then attacking them as hypocrites and liars because they only criticized me for saying I think gay people are subhumans who don't deserve the same rights as people who live by the tenets set forth in a 2000 year old novel, while completely failing to mention some some 3rd world Warlord who kills gay people outright. I will then go on Fox News and tell the world how it's Hillary and Obama's fault that the Warlord hates gays because they failed to go back in time and make Richard Simmons answer a fan letter that was sent by said Warlord to him in 1979; all while Sean Hannity performs analingous on me just off camera."
/. plans to report on every bit of stupidity that falls out of political candidates mouths, well... it'll be just like every other "news" site in the U.S.
What makes that newsworthy?
If
Let gays deal with gays issues;
Let women deal with women issues;
Casteism
What T.Cook says or doesn't say is insignificant compared to what the influx of the american (western) culture that comes from selling the Apple (and similar) stuff does to these countries' human (and similar) rights. It might not be evident instantly, but the base currents are changing.
I've never been to Indiana, but I guess the case is pretty different there, so a more direct approach might be needed.