Results 1 to 15 of 15

Your favorite Apple, iPhone, iPad, iOS, Jailbreak, and Cydia site.


Thread: Ex-HP Executive Calls Tim Cook a Hypocrite for His Stance on the Indiana Law

  1. #1
    What's Jailbreak? Akshay Masand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    5,897
    Thanks
    3
    Thanked 200 Times in 179 Posts

    Default Ex-HP Executive Calls Tim Cook a Hypocrite for His Stance on the Indiana Law


    Although many of Silicon Valley elite are in opposition to India’s new “religious freedom” law, former chief of HP and potential Republican presidential candidate, Carly Fiorina, seems to have taken the other side. She even went as far as accusing Apple CEO, Tim Cook, of acting hypocritically by opposing Indiana’s law but continuing to do business in what she claims are oppressive countries around the world. Fiorina said the following to The Wall Street Journal regarding the matter:

    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 percent of the markets that he's in, including China and Saudi Arabia. But I don't hear him being upset about that.
    For those of you who didn’t know, just last weekend, Cook penned an editorial sharing his opinion on state legislatures across the country for passing so-called “religious freedom” laws which he claimed were “designed to enshrine discrimination in state law.” His response was made in part to a bill that was recently enacted in Indiana which would allow businesses to cite religious beliefs when defending themselves against discrimination suits.

    Those against the law feared that it would give businesses a way to legally discriminate against gays and lesbians, after a federal appeals court ruling forced Indiana to recognize same-sex marriages last year. Following a national outcry, one which included an announcement from Salesforce CEO, Marc Benioff, that his company would pare down operations in the state as a result, Indiana’s legislature amended the bill to include specific protections against discrimination.

    Circling back to Fiorina, who considers herself a candidate for the presidency in 2016, the outcry was to be blamed on “narrow special interests.” She added that tech leaders who have opposed the law, such as Cook, have displayed “a level of hypocrisy here that really is unfortunate.”

    How do you feel about her remarks? Share your thoughts below!

    Source: The Wall Street Journal

    Twitter: @AkshayMasand

  2. #2
    She is 100% correct. I'd edit the part that says "what she claims are oppressive countries." A quick google search shows plenty of gay men being thrown off buildings and executed in other ways.

    The problem with this law is the press has intentionally mislead the public about such laws. Such laws do not allow discrimination and the businesses in middle of these cases have stated publicly they are happy to serve gay people and they have. They just don't want to be involved in the ceremony. Those laws simply provide a defense /in court./ The court can still rule against the business. Since the kerfuffle in Indiana, video has been shown where Muslim bakeries refuse to bake same sex marriage cakes, while they are ignored, and other bakeries refusing to bake cakes with pro-traditional marriage phrases. Those bakeries are being ignored as well.

    As for Cook, he is being quite hypocritical. He can say that business is one thing and his personal views are another, but he has brought Apple into his stance.

  3. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by JoeStorm View Post
    She is 100% correct. I'd edit the part that says "what she claims are oppressive countries." A quick google search shows plenty of gay men being thrown off buildings and executed in other ways.

    The problem with this law is the press has intentionally mislead the public about such laws. Such laws do not allow discrimination and the businesses in middle of these cases have stated publicly they are happy to serve gay people and they have. They just don't want to be involved in the ceremony. Those laws simply provide a defense /in court./ The court can still rule against the business. Since the kerfuffle in Indiana, video has been shown where Muslim bakeries refuse to bake same sex marriage cakes, while they are ignored, and other bakeries refusing to bake cakes with pro-traditional marriage phrases. Those bakeries are being ignored as well.

    As for Cook, he is being quite hypocritical. He can say that business is one thing and his personal views are another, but he has brought Apple into his stance.
    Yes they explicitly do allow discromination. That is in fact what makes the law in Indiana special, the ability of a private company to discriminate based on their desire not to serve people that demonstrate priciples that disagree with their religion. You should read the law.

  4. #4
    She is 100% incorrect for two primary reasons that any thinking adult can understand:

    1. Even though Tim Cook wrote an editorial against the law, he never threatened to shutter all the Apple stores in Indiana nor sell products to anyone there. So, if he's not even saying he'll discontinue doing business in Indiana, where is the hypocrisy of Apple doing business in those other countries?? Of course he clearly would not like how those places operate, but that doesn't mean he can just ignore them as customers. Why? That's point #2.

    2. Tim Cook is not Apple, and Apple is not Tim Cook. Tim Cook, private citizen can have an opinion on whatever he wants. But Tim Cook is not the sole owner of Apple and therefore cannot choose where Apple does and does not operate. That is up to the shareholders and board of directors: his bosses. Even if Tim felt strongly enough to lead Apple in the direct she is talking about, he couldn't do it.

    Bonus point 3. Why is she singling out Apple and not going after Google or any other high profile company execs???

    This is all Classic republican BS: pointing fingers and spewing vitriol that doesn't stand up to 5 seconds of logical reasoning by any thinking adult. Luckily for republicans, the US is pretty low on thinking adults!

    Quote Originally Posted by JoeStorm View Post
    S
    The problem with this law is the press has intentionally mislead the public about such laws. Such laws do not allow discrimination and the businesses in middle of these cases have stated publicly they are happy to serve gay people and they have.
    Wrong wrong wrong. First, if the law did not allow for legal discrimination of people, why did they amend it to ensure it doesn't? Second, there have been many interviews with many business owners in Indiana and other states that plan to enact the law a similar law, like Georgia, that have gone on record saying that they intend to use the law to not serve LGBT people legally for anything; not just for marriages. In Georgia one florist said she would not serve gay couple even though gay marriage is not even legal in that state, which means she would not be violating her believes by serving them because they can't possibly get married!

    That same woman, when asked if she would serve someone who has committed other sins like adultery, said she would. While she claims to be faithful to the bible and christianity, she feels she can pick and choose which sinners to serve or not because, in her worlds, "it's a different kind of sin in my mind." These laws are not protecting religion, they allow for legal bigotry and discrimination under the guise of religion that falls apart the second you hold them to any real scrutiny. That is why these laws need to be stopped.

  5. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to fleurya For This Useful Post:

    Anthony Bouchard (2015-04-05), Zokunei (2015-04-06)

  6. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by turdsmoka View Post
    Yes they explicitly do allow discromination. That is in fact what makes the law in Indiana special, the ability of a private company to discriminate based on their desire not to serve people that demonstrate priciples that disagree with their religion. You should read the law.
    I have read the law and there isn't any discrimination in the law. Indiana doesn't have any specific anti-gay discrimination laws already. So while your first statement is true, it doesn't apply to that specific law that was proposed.

  7. #6
    anybody who is against gays. Is a POS wtf does it matter to you if a dude likes a dude girl likes girl etc

  8. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by fleurya View Post
    She is 100% incorrect for two primary reasons that any thinking adult can understand:
    How about you stop with the snark and condescension? I'm happy to discuss things with you, but not if you're going to act poorly.

    Quote Originally Posted by fleurya View Post
    1. Even though Tim Cook wrote an editorial against the law, he never threatened to shutter all the Apple stores in Indiana nor sell products to anyone there. So, if he's not even saying he'll discontinue doing business in Indiana, where is the hypocrisy of Apple doing business in those other countries?? Of course he clearly would not like how those places operate, but that doesn't mean he can just ignore them as customers. Why? That's point #2.

    2. Tim Cook is not Apple, and Apple is not Tim Cook. Tim Cook, private citizen can have an opinion on whatever he wants. But Tim Cook is not the sole owner of Apple and therefore cannot choose where Apple does and does not operate. That is up to the shareholders and board of directors: his bosses. Even if Tim felt strongly enough to lead Apple in the direct she is talking about, he couldn't do it.

    Bonus point 3. Why is she singling out Apple and not going after Google or any other high profile company execs???
    I can reply to all three with two paragraphs from Cook's letter.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tim Cook
    Our message, to people around the country and around the world, is this: Apple is open. Open to everyone, regardless of where they come from, what they look like, how they worship or who they love. Regardless of what the law might allow in Indiana or Arkansas, we will never tolerate discrimination.

    This isn’t a political issue. It isn’t a religious issue. This is about how we treat each other as human beings. Opposing discrimination takes courage. With the lives and dignity of so many people at stake, it’s time for all of us to be courageous.
    No one said he threatened to shutter all of the Apple stores. But Cook is making a very grand moral stand about a baker not wanting to bake a cake for a gay wedding while completely and conveniently ignoring that Apple is selling their products in countries that still throw gays (I'm just gonna shorten gay people to gays) off buildings and bridges. Oh, and still practice slavery as well.

    So while Tim Cook is not Apple, it is extremely clear that Cook IS TALKING for Apple. Cook IS bringing Apple into this. Cook is not talking as a private citizen. Since Cook is putting Apple into the middle, Apple's business practices are now fair game.

    Not sure while she is singling out Cook. Cook is gay, seems to be making this personal, and Cook is bringing the weight of Apple into this. I haven't read a national letter by Brin, Page, or some other high profile company exec.

    Quote Originally Posted by fleurya View Post
    Wrong wrong wrong. First, if the law did not allow for legal discrimination of people, why did they amend it to ensure it doesn't?
    Answered in post before.

    Quote Originally Posted by fleurya View Post
    Second, there have been many interviews with many business owners in Indiana and other states that plan to enact the law a similar law, like Georgia, that have gone on record saying that they intend to use the law to not serve LGBT people legally for anything; not just for marriages. In Georgia one florist said she would not serve gay couple even though gay marriage is not even legal in that state, which means she would not be violating her believes by serving them because they can't possibly get married!
    I have no idea what you are talking about. Even in states with RFRA, refusing simple service like a meal IS ILLEGAL. It doesn't not allow for discrimination. I thought you were wrong about that video so I just looked it up.

    You are. Willingly. She said that she would refuse service for a gay couple AT A COMMITMENT CEREMONY.

    Quote Originally Posted by By condescending reporter
    If you had gay customers come in here to buy flowers and they said "we want you to come to our commitment ceremony and bring the flowers", because marriage isn't allowed in this state yet. Would you do it?
    THIS is the problem. People twisting things, taking things out of context, and flat out speaking wrong information.

    Quote Originally Posted by fleurya View Post
    That same woman, when asked if she would serve someone who has committed other sins like adultery, said she would. While she claims to be faithful to the bible and christianity, she feels she can pick and choose which sinners to serve or not because, in her worlds, "it's a different kind of sin in my mind." These laws are not protecting religion, they allow for legal bigotry and discrimination under the guise of religion that falls apart the second you hold them to any real scrutiny. That is why these laws need to be stopped.
    I'm not a religious person. But even I know that there are degrees to sins. I'm 100% positive that you know that are as well. Don't be that guy that quotes the Bible while trying to apply it in the way you want it to apply. The Bible says not to kill and says not to lie. Are you going to treat those the same? Before you go off on a tangent, I'm not comparing anything. I'm just pointing out your ridiculous argument that people shouldn't treat sins differently.

    Look, I'm not saying there isn't discrimination, racism, or prejudice in the world. Of course there is. But RFRA laws do not legalize it. If someone refuses to serve a black person or a gay person a meal, even in a state with a RFRA law, THAT'S STILL ILLEGAL. RFRA laws DO NOT LEGALIZE DISCRIMINATION. Saying that do shows a serious ignorance about what the law does. The law simply gives the business a legal defense IN COURT.

  9. #8
    The fact still remains that she is incorrect that he is being a hypocrite. Because he doesn't denounce every single human rights offender in his note does not make him a hypocrite.

    When an embattled Governor Pence was being interviewed to try to defend his position on signing the law, he was asked point blank if the law could be used to discriminate. He could not give a definite no answer because he knew it was possible, and many experts that are not random internet commenters believe the same. So you'll have to excuse me if I don't take your word on your legal interpretation.

    Yes she did say she would refuse to sell them flowers. You are quoting different parts of the interview. Toward the end of the interview I watched on CNN the interviewer asked "would you serve them" not if she would go and participate in the ceremony or even that the she would be serving them for. But she flat out said she would refuse them. Besides flkorists don't participate in the events anyway. They make the flower arrangements, drop them at the location and leave. They're not asked to be in the wedding party. Also a commitment ceremony is not marriage, so it has nothing to do with any made up biblical definition of marriage. That was exactly my point.

    Actually all sins are equal according to the bible except sins resulting in death and blasphemy against the Spirit. Her decision to weigh sins differently outside of the word of God is in itself a sin because she is casting judgement and overriding the Word of God. Funny you should mention me being "the guy" who picks and chooses parts of the bible to interpret, because that's exactly what all judeo Christian sects do. You can't find one person who literally abides by every word of the bible. It's impossible. And that makes such laws even more insane to contemplate.

    Keep believe the law doesn't make a case for legalizing discrimination for people that are not already explicitly protected from discrimination by other laws, but when the governor that signed the law won't come out and make that claim with his team of experts, you should question your interpretation of the law and related laws.

  10. The Following User Says Thank You to fleurya For This Useful Post:

    Zokunei (2015-04-06)

  11. #9
    Livin the iPhone Life bigboyz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    North East Coast
    Posts
    2,095
    Thanks
    19
    Thanked 430 Times in 265 Posts

    Look how mans laws always cause such distress. I thought laws were supposed to cause order..not chaos?

  12. #10
    One thing that is overlooked: yes, Saudis are s* in terms of discrimination and human rights, but they've always been that way. That in the US, a state is taking steps back from democracy and human rights to what is in essence the start of "christian sharia law" is even more disturbing.

  13. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by bigboyz View Post
    Look how mans laws always cause such distress. I thought laws were supposed to cause order..not chaos?
    law seeks to unjustly opress a group of people, then it will cause chaos.

  14. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by cpotoso View Post
    One thing that is overlooked: yes, Saudis are s* in terms of discrimination and human rights, but they've always been that way. That in the US, a state is taking steps back from democracy and human rights to what is in essence the start of "christian sharia law" is even more disturbing.
    Couldn't have said it better. these people don't want religious freedom. They want Christian law. this has been proven over and over. When a "religous freedom law" is passed and any non-christian group tries to act under that law, they are often denied, threatened, or worse. christian signs and billboards can be found all over the US. Put up one muslin or atheist sign and see how long it lasts before being valdilized or destroyed.

  15. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by cpotoso View Post
    That in the US, a state is taking steps back from democracy and human rights to what is in essence the start of "christian sharia law" is even more disturbing.
    Quote Originally Posted by fleurya View Post
    law seeks to unjustly opress a group of people, then it will cause chaos.
    Quote Originally Posted by fleurya View Post
    Couldn't have said it better. these people don't want religious freedom. They want Christian law.
    It really is amazing how ignorant some of you are. It's painfully obvious none you who are speaking like above have actually read the Indiana law in question. Rather people like yourselves keep echoing the piss-poor journalism on this matter, much of which is downright disinformation.

    I have read the Indiana law in question several times over, and there is simply nothing in there that allows for any such discrimination, or oppression, against any group. Nothing. Nada. Anyone saying that it does is only helping propagate blatant falsehoods. This is one of the ugliest and most untruthful propaganda campaigns I've seen in a while. And I've seen many of the reels used all over WWII from the various sides.

  16. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by fleurya View Post
    The fact still remains that she is incorrect that he is being a hypocrite. Because he doesn't denounce every single human rights offender in his note does not make him a hypocrite.

    When an embattled Governor Pence was being interviewed to try to defend his position on signing the law, he was asked point blank if the law could be used to discriminate. He could not give a definite no answer because he knew it was possible, and many experts that are not random internet commenters believe the same. So you'll have to excuse me if I don't take your word on your legal interpretation.

    Yes she did say she would refuse to sell them flowers. You are quoting different parts of the interview. Toward the end of the interview I watched on CNN the interviewer asked "would you serve them" not if she would go and participate in the ceremony or even that the she would be serving them for. But she flat out said she would refuse them. Besides flkorists don't participate in the events anyway. They make the flower arrangements, drop them at the location and leave. They're not asked to be in the wedding party. Also a commitment ceremony is not marriage, so it has nothing to do with any made up biblical definition of marriage. That was exactly my point.

    Actually all sins are equal according to the bible except sins resulting in death and blasphemy against the Spirit. Her decision to weigh sins differently outside of the word of God is in itself a sin because she is casting judgement and overriding the Word of God. Funny you should mention me being "the guy" who picks and chooses parts of the bible to interpret, because that's exactly what all judeo Christian sects do. You can't find one person who literally abides by every word of the bible. It's impossible. And that makes such laws even more insane to contemplate.

    Keep believe the law doesn't make a case for legalizing discrimination for people that are not already explicitly protected from discrimination by other laws, but when the governor that signed the law won't come out and make that claim with his team of experts, you should question your interpretation of the law and related laws.
    Addition: After thinking about it a little bit, I realized Cook didn't make the statement. Apple did. Cook could have spoken as a private citizen with Apple being in the background, but he didn't. He has a very powerful megaphone called Apple and he used it. Nothing wrong with that. but that brings all of Apple's dealings, partners, and markets into scrutiny.

    I was going to make a bunch of more points about how activist groups are willing to go after related companies (anything to do with Haliburton, Foxconn), govts (Sun City boycotting), and suppliers but it's too late and it isn't going to change any minds. End Addition.

    I don't think he should denounce "every single human rights offender" however there is a clear and obvious hypocritical stance when Cook brings the full force of Apple against a HYPOTHETICAL answer at a pizza shop while conveniently remaining silent when selling Apple devices in countries that routinely and legally push gays off buildings. Add in the fact that Apple just opened their Middle East HQ in a country that imprisons gays. So if he is going to draw a grand & public moral stance about homosexual rights, the fact he ignores the govt sanctioned murder of gays in countries Apple does business is relevant.

    Oh Pence did terrible. He was severely let down by his political advisors. You don't have to take my word on it. The bottom line is EVERYONE is framing this as "anti-gay" but that couldn't be further from the truth. As I mentioned earlier, but ignored by you and the entire mainstream media, Islamic owned bakeries are refusing to make same sex wedding cakes. THAT is being ignored. Other bakeries are refusing to make cake with pro-traditional saying on them. THAT is being ignored. And that's the crux of the matter. Under your interpretation of the law, the westboro "church" can go into ANY bakery and FORCE them to write anything on a cake and the govt has to compel to comply.

    I'm not quoting from different parts. Here is the piece https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJTtENk2dMk and the reporter is VERY clear that the flowers are for a gay couple and to appear at the commitment ceremony. Specifically at 16 seconds and 1:39. That is what the interview is about. That's how his questions started. So if he doesn't add "and show up at the commitment ceremony" that is implied because he never says "What if a gay person just shows up and wants to buy flowers as a "get well soon" or "Great job on the test" event."

    You also know that producing a product AT AN EVENT is the same as being there. Why do you think people ask for designers? Or businesses look for plugs at events. If that westboro group wanted you to do something at their event and they would tell people "Oh yeah, we asked so and so to do this and he was eager and did a great job." OR if some skinhead group wanted you do something? OR the black panthers or Farikahn? If you're name was going to be thrown around at the event as a producer, are you telling me you wouldn't care? Sorry, there is a difference.

    My interpretation of the law is solid. Again, the law doesn't allow for discrimination. If you run a restaurant in a state with a RFRA law and someone you walks in to order a meal, of course you have to serve them. If you don't, that's discrimination and that's illegal. However, if some person or group wants you to cater some even that you don't agree with morally, a RFRA law simply gives you a legal defense in court. Because catering that event actually puts your business there and if you don't want to be there FOR ANY MORAL reason, then you shouldn't be force to.

    The media is framing RFRA laws as a single edge sword. Those laws aren't. They are a double edge sword and the people who think those laws will never apply to them, such as yourself, are extremely short sighted.
    Last edited by JoeStorm; 2015-04-07 at 09:13 AM.

  17. #15
    I dont care if you are gay or not, happy or sad, good or bad. The right to refuse service for something you do not want to be a part of should be allowed. This is starting to get out of hand and states are starting to catch on to it. It is an extremely sensitive area and not many have the will or want to take the chance of putting their rep on the line for things like this.

    This case is one I have been following in Washington. The flower shop owner knew the customer for many years. Knew he was gay and sold him flowers for occasions on numerous visits. When we wanted them to do the flowers for his wedding they refused on grounds of religious beliefs. She didnt want to be part of the ceremony. Now he is asking for just over $7 in gas money for the trip to another shop? His lawyer charged $1 for fees? Yeah its a freeking attention getting ploy is all and is clogging up the legal system.

    Discrimination goes both ways. One shouldnt be forced to do something they are not in agreement with to appease someone else that feels they should agree with them. Sell them the flowers and ask them to have another florist set up the display, dont make them do it for you just because you feel its your right to make them.

Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •