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.""
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....
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.
Trump's plan to get rid of Mueller appears to be 'be so guilty of so many things that Mueller works himself to death.'
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.
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.
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.
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.
Really? How many gays have been executed by the government of Indiana for their sexual orientation?
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
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."
... expect her to say provocative things just for the sake of drawing attention to herself. Why else would someone go on Fox News?
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.
"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?
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.
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.
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.
Why would those situations be equivalent?
Indiana is the low hanging fruit in this case: For US political purposes, politicians that cultivate 'pro-business' images either also cultivate 'values', or tend to work with those who do. Here, the legislature was hoping to throw the 'values' voters a bone by solving a mostly imaginary problem, ideally without any political cost to themselves(except a little extra antipathy from the liberals who weren't going to vote for them anyway).
That puts Apple(and the assorted other companies that have denounced the move, it's a bit of a list) in a fairly strong position: they can't necessarily stop Indiana from doing something; but they can make it clear that you can't burnish your social-conservative credentials without risking your pro-business credentials. It's a natural 'wedge' issue. If Apple and others say nothing, people who are basically interested in business get to pander to social conservatives for free. If they say something, that won't change the game for politicians whose primary support is social conservative; but it will make the ones who listen to the local chamber of commerce much jumpier about doing this sort of thing.
Without access to that particular political dynamic, their ability to influence a foreign market is a great deal weaker, if present at all.
> 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.
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.
I have yet to see ANY gay marriage law that forces pastors to marry people they do not want to marry.
Well, since you asked for it Law that forces pastor to marry gays in Idaho city
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.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
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.
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.
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...
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.
Mexico: 100% conservative's America now!
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.
In other news, most Wall Street banks aren't located on Wall Street.
perhaps he holds Indiana to higher standards than he expects from the most despotic countries on the planet?