• Your favorite

    Apple

    ,

    iPhone

    ,

    iPad

    ,

    iOS

    ,
    Jailbreak
    , and
    Cydia
    site.
  • 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.

    Source: Fortune
    This article was originally published in forum thread: Apple Enters Controversial Political Debate in Arizona started by Michael Essany View original post
    Comments 29 Comments
    1. bigbaba's Avatar
      bigbaba -
      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.
      While I don't want to touch on the matter of the bill I just wanted to highlight how modern day democracy is a sham. These elected individuals have the duty to represent the views of their constituents NOT the views of some corporate CEO. It should be the people who live in the region who's opinions should decide the outcome of this bill, not someone who lives in a completely different state!
    1. buggsy2's Avatar
      buggsy2 -
      Quote Originally Posted by bigbaba View Post
      While I don't want to touch on the matter of the bill I just wanted to highlight how modern day democracy is a sham. These elected individuals have the duty to represent the views of their constituents
      I see your point but the first job of a representative is to follow the US Constitution, something Arizona doesn't seem to grasp well.
    1. fleurya's Avatar
      fleurya -
      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!

      Quote Originally Posted by bigbaba View Post
      While I don't want to touch on the matter of the bill I just wanted to highlight how modern day democracy is a sham. These elected individuals have the duty to represent the views of their constituents NOT the views of some corporate CEO. It should be the people who live in the region who's opinions should decide the outcome of this bill, not someone who lives in a completely different state!
      Haven't you heard? Corporations are people too! Just ask any republican and thank "Citizens United" for that.

      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.
    1. pedwily's Avatar
      pedwily -
      Oh come on Apple...don't be gay.
    1. Villebilly's Avatar
      Villebilly -
      So you guys are saying the New Mexico photographer who is getting sued has no right to refuse service to anyone?
    1. barrist's Avatar
      barrist -
      Quote Originally Posted by bigbaba View Post
      While I don't want to touch on the matter of the bill I just wanted to highlight how modern day democracy is a sham. These elected individuals have the duty to represent the views of their constituents NOT the views of some corporate CEO. It should be the people who live in the region who's opinions should decide the outcome of this bill, not someone who lives in a completely different state!
      Most Arizonans support gay marriage.

      http://www.azcentral.com/news/politi...marijuana.html

      The legislation is bowing to pressure from religious groups, not following their constituents' opinions.
    1. barrist's Avatar
      barrist -
      Quote Originally Posted by Villebilly View Post
      So you guys are saying the New Mexico photographer who is getting sued has no right to refuse service to anyone?
      Would you have a different opinion if she refused service to blacks? the only difference is, most of society has moved passed explicit racial discrimination like blacks-only restaurants but not all have gotten over their homophobia. Once that transition occurs, which it will, this will all look silly to the next generation.
    1. luvmytj's Avatar
      luvmytj -
      They have input because they have a plant in AZ and do business there.
    1. Villebilly's Avatar
      Villebilly -
      Quote Originally Posted by barrist View Post
      Would you have a different opinion if she refused service to blacks? the only difference is, most of society has moved passed explicit racial discrimination like blacks-only restaurants but not all have gotten over their homophobia. Once that transition occurs, which it will, this will all look silly to the next generation.
      So there is no difference between race and whatever sex you want to have??? I don't know any religions that ban certain races...
      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.
    1. buggsy2's Avatar
      buggsy2 -
      Quote Originally Posted by Villebilly View Post
      So there is no difference between race and whatever sex you want to have??? I don't know any religions that ban certain races...
      You don't know much then. Look up Mormon history. Look up the role of Christianity in justifying slavery, segregation, and overt racism.
    1. Feanor64's Avatar
      Feanor64 -
      Quote Originally Posted by buggsy2 View Post
      You don't know much then. Look up Mormon history. Look up the role of Christianity in justifying slavery, segregation, and overt racism.
      Doesn't matter Jesus said love everyone and that's a fact jack. But there is a difference between loving someone and agreeing with them. Look it up. Bibles are everywhere. 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. Some things defy common sense. 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. And they are a very small part of the population. 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. 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?!?
    1. fleurya's Avatar
      fleurya -
      Quote Originally Posted by Villebilly View Post
      So you guys are saying the New Mexico photographer who is getting sued has no right to refuse service to anyone?
      Straw man fallacy. Refusing service based on sexual orientation and refusing service for no reason at all are not exactly the same thing.

      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.
    1. Villebilly's Avatar
      Villebilly -
      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.
    1. fleurya's Avatar
      fleurya -
      Quote Originally Posted by Villebilly View Post
      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.
      Ok, well that post was even worse because there is no comparison between your scenario and what is going on with this legislation. The gay person going into a business isn't asking the business to provide some product or service they don't normally, which is what you are saying in your scenario. For your scenario to work, let's say the photographer is a family portrait photographer, and a gay couple just wants the photographer to take a basic family portrait, clothes and all. In that case, yes it is unreasonable to refuse.

      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.
    1. bigbaba's Avatar
      bigbaba -
      Quote Originally Posted by buggsy2 View Post
      I see your point but the first job of a representative is to follow the US Constitution, something Arizona doesn't seem to grasp well.
      I guess that is what the supreme court is for.

      Quote Originally Posted by fleurya View Post
      Haven't you heard? Corporations are people too! Just ask any republican and thank "Citizens United" for that.
      I'd like to see where corporations have been given the right to vote...

      Quote Originally Posted by barrist View Post
      Most Arizonans support gay marriage.

      http://www.azcentral.com/news/politi...marijuana.html

      The legislation is bowing to pressure from religious groups, not following their constituents' opinions.
      Religious groups who form blocks of voters who are citizens and have the right to vote; not a corporation who is looking to invest billions of dollars into the economy...it's this retail aspect of democracy which ruins the United States.
    1. fleurya's Avatar
      fleurya -
      Quote Originally Posted by Feanor64 View Post
      Doesn't matter Jesus said love everyone and that's a fact jack. But there is a difference between loving someone and agreeing with them. Look it up.
      First, if every Christian followed the bible like that, please explain all the slavery, segregation, lynchings, etc that happened in the name of Christianity in the past 2,000 years. Also, nobody said that a restaurant selling food has to agree with a person's sexual orientation to sell them a sandwich. Agreement doesn't factor into the transaction at all! Do you check to make sure you agree with everything a person or business believes in before you do business with them? If you did, you've never get anything done!

      Anything can be construed in the name of war or racism.
      Including the Bible! Which is what is going on here exactly! Show me in the Bible where Jesus refused to help someone because of their religion, sexual orientation, etc. I bet I can find some examples of the opposite!

      It is a sad day when a guy can say he believes he's a girl and he can use the girls restroom.
      I didn't see that anywhere in this legislation, so why are you bringing it up?

      Homosexuals want everyone to be tolerant of them but they are tolerant of no one.
      Really? I don't see legislation being passed that allows gays to refuse service to people, nor are they trying to get any such legislation passed. How is gay person wanting to walk into a restaurant and buy a meal that any other person would buy, regardless of sexual orientation, being intolerant? Again, I go back to the agreement argument. If I walk into a hardware store to buy a hammer, and the store owner is republican and I'm independent, am I being intolerant of his political preference simply because I have my own different preference? NO! Is has no bearing on the act of buying a hammer! So why would it make sense to refuse me?

      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.
      1. But at one time race was considered detrimental! There were all kinds of so-called scientists that attested with no real proof to the notion that black people were physically inferior to whites, and to spread their blackness to others was detrimental to others! Ever heard of Eugenics? Look into it!
      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 ***.
      You shouldn't be okay with your teacher telling you kid anything sexually-related at all outside of an explanation of the physical anatomy! What if your kid's teacher thinks it's perfectly normal to have multiple partners at the same time in S&M scenarios? Are you okay with that as long as no boy parts touch other boy parts?? YOU should be teaching you kid those things, not the schools! If any public school is trying to teach any sexual orientation as right or wrong, they are wrong no matter what. If a kid asks, they can tell the kid to ask their parents!

      It's not normal. We have to have standards in society.
      "Normal" is always a matter of opinion. I don't think it's normal for a person to jump out of a perfectly good airplane or off a cliff, but if they want to do that they can. And it doesn't effect me at all. And it doesn't effect a situation where that person wants to walk into a hardware store and buy a hammer!
      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?
      Oh please. Your "think of the children" argument is weak against all the horrible things children are already exposed to in society that they shouldn't be. Graphic sexual scenes in TV and movies, brutal murdering, sexually objectifying women wearing barely nothing on magazines. Where's all your outrage for those things? I'd personally rather a child see a small innocent kiss between two grown men than the graphic nearly nude sex or murder scenes that you can find on prime time TV any given night. But that's my opinion, and I don't base whether or not I watch other shows on network by just one show that has nothing to do with another show. And if my child happens to see such content, it's my job as a parent to teach them about what they saw in the way I want to teach them.

      The next thing to happen is probably the suing of churches that preach on the sin of it. Like I said
      Straw man argument, and just idiotic to boot. The only time I can recall of any group attempting to infringe on the actions of a religion is when Christian organizations try to stop the building of mosques because of their irrational fear of people of another faith and disapproval, and disrespect, of their faith.

      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?!?
      Again, everyone's idea of "normal' differs. There are tons of things people don't think are normal, or they don't want their kids to see. I wouldn't want my daughter to think it's normal to wear a bikini and sit on a motorcycle so guys can stare at her, but you can find that on a magazine anywhere. Are you going to go on a crusade to make sure all magazine cover photos only display what people think is "normal" and not objectionable to their point of view? Of course not. And if my daughter were to see that, or anything I find objectionable, it's my job to teach her that I think it is wrong if I want her to believe that. Just like if your child saw 2 men holding hands in public, it would be your job to teach your child that it is wrong if you believe it is.

      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!
    1. ThatOneProfile's Avatar
      ThatOneProfile -
      Are we going to be open to pedophiles next?
    1. WHUDS's Avatar
      WHUDS -
      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
      The 1960's
      May happen now
    1. exNavy's Avatar
      exNavy -
      Quote Originally Posted by fleurya View Post
      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!
      Your argument doesn't work. I have no issue with a black person marrying another black person. I DO have a problem with a man "marrying" a man or a woman "marrying" a woman. It goes against my religious beliefs. I think a business owner should not be FORCED to violate their conscience because someone else doesn't have one.

      What about my rights to not be discriminated against?
    1. Villebilly's Avatar
      Villebilly -
      Some major rants and tangents here. I prefer to stick to the facts. We are talking about legislating PRIVATE businesses, not major corporations. The idea of refusing people hamburgers is some idiots way of taking something to an extreme - last time I checked McDonalds doesn't ask your sex preference.
      Not only are businesses asked to do something that goes against the owners personal religious beliefs (yes some still have convictions) but it may cause owners to force employees to do work going against the employees religious beliefs.
      As mentioned before, rather than make up wild scenarios, a New Mexico photographer is being sued for turning down the chance to do a gay wedding because of his religious beliefs. So what if it's a Sunday wedding and the photographer says I don't work on Sundays cause of beliefs. You believe it's okay to force them and their employees to against what they stand for?
      Same as before, if you are photographer and are asked to shoot something pornographic, it's not okay to say no?