Your favorite Apple, iPhone, iPad, iOS, Jailbreak, and Cydia site.
02-25-2014, 09:19 AM #1
Apple Enters Controversial Political Debate in Arizona
While some companies run as fast as they can away from political controversy, Apple is not one of them. In fact, this week, Apple injected itself into one of the most controversial political dilemmas playing out across the United States today.
Banding together with such corporate heavyweights as Marriott and American Airlines, Apple today is among those requesting the governor of Arizona to veto a hot-button bill that would let business owners "with strongly held religious beliefs" deny service to gays and lesbians.
Fortune magazine reports that this "anti-gay bill" may even put Apple's Mesa sapphire plant at risk. Although we don't know who at Apple phoned in their objection to Governor Brewer, some say it was likely Apple CEO Tim Cook who is the latest among a growing list of prominent industry executives to tell Governor Brewer to veto the bill that the Arizona state legislature passed last week.
"Apple is indisputably one of the world's most innovative companies and I'm thrilled to welcome them to Arizona," Governor Brewer said when Apple announced development of the new plant. "Apple will have an incredibly positive economic impact for Arizona and its decision to locate here speaks volumes about the friendly, pro-business climate we have been creating these past four years."
Apple now suggests that the "friendly, pro-business" climate they were promised would be jeopardized by the passage of this bill, should it be signed by the Governor.
02-25-2014, 09:59 AM #2some say it was likely Apple CEO Tim Cook who is the latest among a growing list of prominent industry executives to tell Governor Brewer to veto the bill that the Arizona state legislature passed last week.
02-25-2014, 10:19 AM #3
02-25-2014, 10:40 AM #4
this bill is a bad idea. Even both of Arizona's sentors and a majority of their congressional representatives have asked the governor to veto the bill!
Just replace "gays and lesbians" with "blacks" and you can quickly figure out both how wrong this bill is and how quickly it can turn into something really, really bad!
But be that as it may, an individual has a right voice their opinion on the matter and asking the governor to veto, even if it is a company CEO. And just because they have an opinion and make the request does not mean the governor has to listen. You're reading into this too much.
02-25-2014, 11:21 AM #5
- Join Date
- May 2008
- Thanked 4 Times in 1 Post
Oh come on Apple...don't be gay.
02-25-2014, 11:34 AM #6
So you guys are saying the New Mexico photographer who is getting sued has no right to refuse service to anyone?
02-25-2014, 11:35 AM #7
The legislation is bowing to pressure from religious groups, not following their constituents' opinions.
02-25-2014, 11:40 AM #8
02-25-2014, 11:50 AM #9
They have input because they have a plant in AZ and do business there.
02-25-2014, 12:34 PM #10
So if the photographer was asked to shoot gay porn I guess they would still have to say yes since people want to restrict other people from having their own beliefs.
02-25-2014, 01:00 PM #11
02-25-2014, 01:39 PM #12
Last edited by Feanor64; 02-25-2014 at 01:43 PM.
02-25-2014, 01:57 PM #13
Conservative keep playing that straw man card because they have no other recourse in arguments they can't win, but I think people are finally getting wise to it.
Last edited by fleurya; 02-25-2014 at 02:02 PM.
02-25-2014, 02:28 PM #14
Fluer, since you are late to the party please address my second post rather than going back up to the first one please. I'm trying to understand where the line is to be set.
It's funny when one blames slavery/racism on Christians when so many of them (Billy Graham, MLK, etc) were at the forefront of that movement. I think the simple minded like to bash all Christians because of the past actions of few, (some who probably were in name only) but for some reason it's okay to hate Christians.
02-25-2014, 03:09 PM #15
Or to make the situation work with your scenario, a gay couple would have to walk into a pizza place and demand they make a cheeseburger. Of course they can refuse to do that, just as they could with any customer, gay or not.
Taking sexual orientation out of the situation entirely, let's say the photographer is a good Christian man that shoots wedding photos. Now let's say a newlywed couple ask him to shoot photos of them on their wedding night to commemorate their physical union, so to speak. Should he agree to that, which is basically porn to most people, just because they are straight?
Finally, your whole second paragraph is lost on me because I didn't write the post you are responding too. But I will say this, the reason most people outside organized religion don't want to live by those so-called absolute rules is because those rules are only absolute until the religion devices to change them, making them not absolute at all. See slavery, sexism, even your daily diet and the clothes you wear, all contain examples of this false-absolutism.
02-25-2014, 03:28 PM #16
02-25-2014, 03:58 PM #17
Anything can be construed in the name of war or racism.
It is a sad day when a guy can say he believes he's a girl and he can use the girls restroom.
Homosexuals want everyone to be tolerant of them but they are tolerant of no one.
And homosexuality is not the same thing as racism. Racism is being discriminated against because of skin color. Not living a lifestyle that is detrimental. According to the cdc half of aids cases in this country are gay men.
2. STD's can be, and are, communicable to anyone regardless of sexual orientation! So that argument doesn't hold water, no matter what group has what diseases! Unless you plan to discriminate against anyone with an STD, rather than sexual orientation, that argument is useless.
3. It's only detrimental to a person who is careless with who they engage in sex with, again regardless of sexual orientation. It doesn't just jump from person to person. So how is that at all relevant to a gay person buying a meal in a restaurant? Does this restaurant give unprotected sexual favors as appetizers??
I have no problem with what people do in private. I have a problem when a teacher tells my children that it is normal for 2 guys to **** each other in the ***.
It's not normal. We have to have standards in society.
Yes, we do need standards in society. And one of them should be that when a person's opinion or private actions have no bearing a given situation, like buying a hammer, those opinions or private actions should not be used to prevent that person from buying a stupid hammer!
Children are being bombarded with it. Where do you draw the line? Where does it stop? Where is common human decency?
The next thing to happen is probably the suing of churches that preach on the sin of it. Like I said
I have no problem with what 2 people do in private. But I'm sick and tired of it being portrayed as normal when it's not. Where is the common sense?!?
You seem to be holding onto this idea that the whole world must adhere to what you consider "normal" but I'm sorry to tell you that the world doesn't revolve around you. the world is full of objectionable things not everyone believes in. That's life. And that's freedom! Deal with it! If you don't like that, and if you want to have a society where the actions and lifestyles of people should be dictated by religion, then try moving to Iran. America is not the Christian version of Iran. It is a nation with freedom of religion, and that includes freedom FROM religion. Deal with it or get out!
02-25-2014, 04:29 PM #18
Are we going to be open to pedophiles next?
02-25-2014, 04:34 PM #19
No such thing as race our DNA is just about Identical,
Separation of church and state
Being Gay has nothing to do with laws, the only laws are religious motivated which makes them unconstitutional, you cannot make laws against the constitution no matter public opinion, it takes a change in the constitution, in the end Arizona can pass a law and the US supreme court can then overturn it as well as the president can use the military to enforce the constitution.
Happened in the 1860's
May happen now
The Following User Says Thank You to WHUDS For This Useful Post:
02-25-2014, 05:12 PM #20
What about my rights to not be discriminated against?Hmm...
The Following User Says Thank You to exNavy For This Useful Post: