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.""
She sure fixed Lucent and HP. Totally incompetent and destructive. In over her head and spouting gibberish is her stock in trade.
Or not be a Republican? She needs to look at her own party before she ever has the right to complain about someone else being a hypocrite.
Anonymous Cowards generally receive no replies because you're a coward and I'm a bitch
Then why is The Apple Store in Fishers, Indiana announced to be closed through spring and summer?
I'm very confused. Wasn't Carla Fiorina an instrument of HP's down-slide with her involvement in the "Pre-texting" scandal where she hired private investigators to spy on the other board members? How soon we forget. It was a similar situation with RCA's board near it's end that pushed the decision to sell to GE.
A lot of people including religious folks like myself might be OK with that. But the issue at stake now is whether personal objections to someone elses behavior can be allowed. From what I see in this thread and from the objections to the law in the news, the intention is that a christian pastor could be forced to marry 2 people against his personal convictions, and that a shopkeep could be forced to serve customers whose actions he disapproves of.
Why is that a problem? Well, from the Chik-fil-a and other boycotts, I get the impression that the gay rights advocates strongly support the idea of boycotting a business based on what they believe. Yet, the intention here is that the business not have the same rights-- to refuse service because of their customer's beliefs. Is bizarre system truly what is wanted, or is it a double standard because THEIR beliefs are "correct"?
Not only that-- would it truly be bigotry if I found out my neighbor was in an adulterous relationship, or abused his children, or was opposed to adoption services for orphans, and because of those flaws I refused to serve him in my business out of principle? Many christians would say that being in a homosexual relationship is analogous to adultery or fornication, but dare to refuse to serve THEM over such a principle and its bigotry. What?
People need to understand that there is a difference between bigotry and disapproving of an ethos or behavior. This isnt about finding a class of person and saying "i hate them", its about saying "I dont support that lifestyle". You dont like it? Fine, dont go to those businesses-- just be aware you're doing literally the same thing that Indiana businesses are arguing for by boycotting a lifestyle or ethos.
No - he's actually wanting Cook to not speak out. Period.
We see here how Republicans love free speech. maybe they should run their party in Saudi Arabia - after all to not do so elsewhere, where things are even worse for Liberty and Freedom would be hypocritical.
Maybe North Korea, too.
That is all.
I have yet to see ANY gay marriage law that forces pastors to marry people they do not want to marry.
Yep. The realities of political influence over Indiana and Saudi Arabia have nothing to do with Fiorina's statement. It's all about the political calculation she's making. And that seems to be "fighting gay rights is a non-starter in America today, but running for office in America as a Republican requires that I fight gay rights. So I'll put out a false equivalency that's transparently stupid (because stupid doesn't matter once you get into the realm of he said, she said) and accuse a business leader of hypocrisy as a cover for my own hypocrisy in supporting a law I don't really believe in - but have to pretend to believe in in order to be a viable candidate".
Carly, you are toast - not that you didn't start out as toast. Your only role in 2016 (if you have a role at all) is to be able to level catty 'critiques' of Hillary because, y'know, you're a woman too. I'm glad to see you're so eager to sell your soul for such a trivial moment in the spotlight.
Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
Name me ONE other context in which a business owner can refuse to serve someone.
Every other context that does not involve a "protected class". This is a fundamental right of businesses. A grocer can refuse to sell you anything at all for any reason at all (and this has been upheld by SCOTUS on a number of different contexts) so long as it does not violate the very specific exceptions (ie, protected classes-- race, disability, etc).
If you want more source than that, here
So Are "Right to Refuse Service to Anyone" Signs in Restaurants Legal?
Yes, however they still do not give a restaurant the power to refuse service on the basis of race, color, religion, or national origin.
or here or good old yahoo answers (which gets it basically right!).
For all of your vehemence, you seem to be ignorant of what the law is and says. The equal protections acts created exceptions to a general rule that businesses DO have the right to toss you out if they dont like you, your behavior, or your haircut.
If your puny little religious mind thinks you deserve to be able to refuse service,
My puny religious mind is going off of widely understood legal precedent, and showing how that is rational. Maybe you should do the same.