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.""

Comments

Saudi Arabia, etc.

[Anonymous Coward]

The difference between SA and Indiana is that SA makes Apple a shit-ton of money.

Re:Saudi Arabia, etc.

[Rei]

Well, there's also the fact that it's easier to put pressure on Indiana than on Saudi Arabia.

It's easy to demand that companies step into the foreign policy realm, and I'm sympathetic to that argument - but as a general rule, a company taking a foreign policy stance has no effect other than simply giving up the market altogether. It's on the domestic side that they have a lot more influence.

If one wants pressure on countries with these sort of behaviors, it should come from the top: the White House. However, things like womens' and gay rights are usually seen as "interfering in the domestic affairs of other countries", and they're often hesitant to do that., preferring instead fo keep relations friendly to maintain support for issues that they consider of greater geopolitical import, such as containing rogue states, preventing proliferation, stopping terrorist groups, etc. Of course, this opens them up to charges of hypocrisy.

Re:Saudi Arabia, etc.

[Anonymous Coward]

The difference between SA and Indiana is that SA makes Apple a shit-ton of money.

The difference between SA and Indiana is that Indiana protects religious freedom and despite not providing uniquely gay services, no businesses really discriminate against gays, while Saudi Arabia stones gays to death.

Re:Saudi Arabia, etc.

[jcr]

Really? How many gays have been executed by the government of Indiana for their sexual orientation?

-jcr

Re:Saudi Arabia, etc.

[njnnja]

a company taking a foreign policy stance has no effect other than simply giving up the market altogether. It's on the domestic side that they have a lot more influence.

But if a company believes in a goal so much that they are willing to influence on the domestic side, then shouldn't they also care enough about it to be willing to give up on the foreign market? The fact that they don't makes it seem like it's just another publicity stunt. Not that there is anything wrong with a company doing a publicity stunt, but we shouldn't give them any moral *credit* for doing so.

Re: Saudi Arabia, etc.

[Anonymous Coward]

I think we can believe that the gay man may actually believe in gay rights. He can't do jack shit about SA but give up money as a publicity stunt. He helped get indiana to change the law. He's the ceo because he can tell when something would be without benefit.

Re: Saudi Arabia, etc.

[CaptSlaq]

> All of a sudden, that piece of paper is so important because homosexuals are the ones with traditional views of marriage.

The marriage contract opens the doors to wide range of economic benefits. Denying those benefits is ultimately what's wrong.

Then perhaps the right path to that is to get the benefits divorced from what many believe to be a religious institution.

Re: Saudi Arabia, etc.

[gewalker]

Well, since you asked for it Law that forces pastor to marry gays in Idaho city

Re: Saudi Arabia, etc.

[gstoddart]

I content that as long as religious people hold a legal distinction which prevents other people from discriminating against them, that religious people should hold no special ability to refuse service based on their beliefs.

If religious people wish to hold a special right to discriminate, they should themselves lose any right to be protected from discrimination. Or they should shut the fuck up.

You can believe any damned thing you like, but the right to refuse service to a customer is a right NOBODY else has, which means religious people are asking to hold both a protected place in society, and enjoy rights nobody else has.

You want to know hypocrisy? It's someone who wants to use their legally protected status which prevents them from being discriminated against to claim the right to discriminate against someone else.

The stupidity of the argument which says "you are free to not patronize a business which can legally refuse to serve you" is moronic and full of hypocrisy. It draws a false equivalence which says "you are bad to refuse to buy from assholes who want the legal right to refuse to serve you".

If these people want the right to refuse service, they should all be in favor of losing their right to be discriminated against ... or they're just full of shit assholes who think themselves special.

In which case they're no better than the Taliban or ISIL ... it's just people claiming their religion gives them the right to do anything they so choose.

Re: Saudi Arabia, etc.

[LordLimecat]

Forcing a pastor to marry someone they convictionally believe is ineligible to marry is about as pure an example of violating religious beliefs as you can find. You are in essence forcing them to create a legal contract between God and them that they think is invalid and sinful to create.

Might as well take a page from the Romans and force them to offer incense to the president.

It draws a false equivalence which says "you are bad to refuse to buy from assholes who want the legal right to refuse to serve you".

No, Im asking why there is a double standard whereby you can "ethically" refuse to patronize a business whose beliefs you disagree with, but they cannot ethically refuse to service you.

In which case they're no better than the Taliban or ISIL ... it's just people claiming their religion gives them the right to do anything they so choose.

You're insisting that you have the right to force other people to violate their beliefs to fit your whims.

Re:Saudi Arabia, etc.

[Kyusaku Natsume]

The same Carly that almost destroyed singlehandedly the legacy of 3 of the greatest legends of Silicon Valley: Compaq, Hewlett-Packard and Digital Equipment Corporation. She better should shut up.

Re:Saudi Arabia, etc.

[CodeArtisan]

In other news, most Wall Street banks aren't located on Wall Street.

Re: Saudi Arabia, etc.

[myth24601]

Some people wouldn't have any standards if they didn't have double standards.

Basic arithmetics of good

[Anonymous Coward]

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!

If you demand all your supporters be flawless...

[dmgxmichael]

... you're a fool that will quickly find no one can be your supporter.

Why does it seem

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Why does it seem

[Anonymous Coward]

It's because the Republican Party is on life support. They've been dying since the Rockefeller/Goldwater primary in 1964. When he defeated Rockefeller in the primary, it basically shut down the liberal Republicans. During the general election against Johnson, he only carried 6 states (his home state of Arizona and 5 deep south states). That same year the Republicans got the "States' Rights Democratic Party" folk, often referred to as Dixiecrats, such as Strom Thurmond because the Democrats were getting increasingly liberal. Thurmond himself changed his party affiliation after passage of the Civil Voting Rights Act of 1964. Eisenhower tried to shift the party to a more moderate position because the nation liked him more than they liked the GOP but his efforts ultimately failed and the liberal wing of the party vanished completely. Then in the 80s they picked up the so-called "Christian" evangelicals and rode that horse until a black guy got elected and suddenly the Tea Party popped up because they were "Taxed Enough Already" which was amazing considering we had been at the lowest tax brackets in US history at the time.

Only reason they have control of Congress right now is the left, for some stupid reason, only shows up to vote in the presidential elections. Obama's notion to make voting mandatory in the US would probably send the Republicans into the dustbin of history to join the Whigs.

Re:Why does it seem

[Holi]

The whole idea behind keeping such divisive topics in the forefront (ie abortion, immigration, gay rights, etc) is to keep the country divided. It makes it so much easier to move public opinion when everyone is distracted.

Re:Why does it seem

[LaurenCates]

We're in an era of "how do you feel?"

That is to say, in order to win hearts and minds, politicians, journalists, and others are trying to override the "mind" part, using engagement of feelings before the brain can even smack the snooze alarm. Feelings are simple, analysis is hard. Lure people into doing the simple thing so they have no desire to get to the hard thing.

Thus, we hear things like Hillary asking if we'd like to see a woman president. A lot of the media nowadays is laser-focused on making sure women achieve parity whether or not it's practical so much that if you dare question that sentiment (never mind the obvious agenda that favors Hillary over most other candidates), you're branded a misogynist.

Now people's feelings are overwhelmed with the ideas of justice and suppressing hatred (and how those things make us feel) that the question "But is the woman in question the right person for the job?" gets lost in all all the other noise, rhetoric and general shouting over each other.

So...

[Simulant]

Does this mean that President Fiorina will cut off ties to Saudi Arabia once elected? Didn't think so....

So he should have ruined Apple

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

This is ridiculous

[Headw1nd]

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.

So when she starts talking jobs

[Registered Coward v2]

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.

Partisan Bullshit

[tbannist]

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.

What bit of this pandering do you agree with?

[sjbe]

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.

Re:What bit of this pandering do you agree with?

[CrimsonAvenger]

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?

So, he should oppose laws that harm gays in minor ways, but not worry so much about the laws that hurt them in major ways? Because if the Indiana thing is an indication of how much he opposes laws that harm gays in minor ways, then why isn't he upset by Saudi (or most of Africa, for that matter) laws that harm gays in major ways (I'd think imprisonment or death is a bigger problem than where to get your wedding cake made, but that may just be me)?

Which, basically, is what whatshername said - that he got his knickers in a twist over a minor issue while ignoring major issues....

Re:What bit of this pandering do you agree with?

[frank_adrian314159]

As human beings, we have limited agency. Tim Cook's words hold great sway here in the US. Much less in a place like Saudi Arabia.

Why do you want him to waste his political capital in fruitless words about the House of Saud and their backwards religion when he can affect change here and now? Why are Republicans all about doing ineffective things? I guess Sean had an expert in that when he brought in Fiorina as a guest!

It's worth noting...

[jcr]

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

Re:If you demand all your supporters be flawless..

[khasim]

"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?

Re:not very often that i agree with carly fioni

[Jaime2]

Are you suggesting that Cook should not speak out against any social issue until he fully researches how the issue is handled everywhere in the world and only after he has prepared a complete response that is all-encompassing?

Fiorina's statement is a standard deflection technique to change focus from the good things an opponent does to something less good.

Re:If you demand all your supporters be flawless..

[PRMan]

He's gay and claims to be a Christian. Pretty hypocritical if you ask me (or Moses or Jesus or the Apostle Paul).

Re:If you demand all your supporters be flawless..

[Anonymous Coward]

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.