Apple CEO Tim Cook Slams Indiana's 'Religious Freedom' Law

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,778
454
83
Apple CEO Tim Cook Slams Indiana's 'Religious Freedom' Law

UPDATE: Wilco announced that they are canceling their scheduled May 7th show at Murat Theatre, noting that the "Indiana Religious Freedom Restoration Act feels like thinly disguised legal discrimination."

Just days after Indiana passed a controversial new "religious freedom" law that critics say will allow business owners to discriminate against same-sex couples and the LGBT community, Apple's Tim Cook, the first openly gay CEO of a Fortune 500 company, penned an op-ed for the Washington Post condemning Indiana's "dangerous" new law and similar legislature in other U.S. states.

RELATED: The 5 Worst States for LGBT People

"There's something very dangerous happening in states across the country," Cook writes, citing the new Indiana law as well as "more transparent," more discriminatory legislation is being drafted in Arkansas and Texas. "These bills rationalize injustice by pretending to defend something many of us hold dear. They go against the very principles our nation was founded on, and they have the potential to undo decades of progress toward greater equality."

While Apple currently houses two retail stores in Indiana and another in Little Rock, Arkansas, Cook writes, "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."

Cook writes that while "faith has always been an important part of my life," he was taught that religion shouldn't "be used as an excuse to discriminate."

The CEO went on to note the damaging effects of discrimination on business and the economy. "I'm standing up to oppose this new wave of legislation — wherever it emerges," Cook writes. "I'm writing in the hopes that many more will join this movement. From North Carolina to Nevada, these bills under consideration truly will hurt jobs, growth and the economic vibrancy of parts of the country where a 21st century economy was once welcomed with open arms."

After Indiana Governor Mike Pence signed Senate Bill 101 into law, Miley Cyrus called the politician an "*******," and the heads of many tech companies, including Salesforce and Angie's List, reconsidered expanding their businesses to the Hoosier State after the "religious freedom" bill was passed.

Following the outrage from the bill and the economic backlash SB 101 could have on Indiana, Republicans in Indiana are attempting to pass an extension to the bill that would "make it crystal clear that [the "Religious Freedom" law] cannot be raised in a denial-of-services claim," Buzzfeed reports. However, the state's GOP rejected an appeal by Democrats to repeal SB 101 entirely as well as amendments to ban LGBT discrimination. Indiana Democrats are now drafting a companion bill that would expand the rights of the LGBT community, but there is no guarantee such measures would pass in the Republican-dominated State Senate.

"This isn't a political issue. It isn't a religious issue. This is about how we treat each other as human beings," Cook concluded. "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."

Apple CEO Tim Cook Slams Indiana's 'Religious Freedom' Law | Rolling Stone
 

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
55,639
7,099
113
Washington DC
Shall I assume that using one's wealth to spread one's opinion is unfair, but using one's fame to spread one's opinion is fair?

Or is it more a thing of spreading opinions you disagree with is unfair, and spreading ones you agree with is fair?
 

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,778
454
83
Both very good points.

Tecumseh, I would argue that the purpose and intent of his position is to avoid regulation that promotes discrimination within the state he occupies and I agree that there are circumstances whereby those in a position of authority can exercise influence if it is shown to be for a reasonable cause.

For Eaglesmack, your argument is a repercussion or side effect of business between states, and the question remains as to whether or not it is the primary responsibility of the business itself, the state that business resides in, or the state that corporation does business with, when looking at the issue of human rights.

By comparison, many American and Canadian companies do business with China.

Is it incumbent on these companies to stop doing business with China? Is it up to America or Canada to stop them, or is it up to China to get their act together?
 

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
55,639
7,099
113
Washington DC
Both very good points.

Tecumseh, I would argue that the purpose and intent of his position is to avoid regulation that promotes discrimination within the state he occupies and I agree that there are circumstances whereby those in a position of authority can exercise influence if it is shown to be for a reasonable cause.
And who is empowered to judge what cause is reasonable or not? Shall I give you a partial list of causes that were considered unreasonable when first espoused, such as racial equality before law, women's suffrage, First Nation rights, legalization/decriminalization of marijuana, and the notion smoking in public buildings should not be allowed?

You are the one who recently brought up the idea of "unfair" influence. I'm just testing that idea.

For Eaglesmack, your argument is a repercussion or side effect of business between states, and the question remains as to whether or not it is the primary responsibility of the business itself, the state that business resides in, or the state that corporation does business with, when looking at the issue of human rights.

By comparison, many American and Canadian companies do business with China.

Is it incumbent on these companies to stop doing business with China? Is it up to America or Canada to stop them, or is it up to China to get their act together?
It's also a standard criticism, along the lines of "if you don't do exactly the same thing everywhere, you shouldn't do anything at all." Usually raised by those defending something. In this case, Eagle is defending discrimination.
 

gerryh

Time Out
Nov 21, 2004
25,756
295
83
It's also a standard criticism, along the lines of "if you don't do exactly the same thing everywhere, you shouldn't do anything at all." Usually raised by those defending something. In this case, Eagle is defending discrimination.






Actually, he's pointing out Cooks hypocrisy. I can see how you would miss that though.
 

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
55,639
7,099
113
Washington DC
Actually, he's pointing out Cooks hypocrisy. I can see how you would miss that though.
Yes, of course. Just like it's hypocritical insist on religious equality in your own country while having an embassy in Saudi Arabia, which does not have religious equality.
 

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
95
48
USA
Actually, he's pointing out Cooks hypocrisy. I can see how you would miss that though.

BaddaBING!

It's also a standard criticism, along the lines of "if you don't do exactly the same thing everywhere, you shouldn't do anything at all." Usually raised by those defending something. In this case, Eagle is defending discrimination.

I won't deal with a state where a handful of bakers don't want to bake a cake for a gay wedding....... but I will certainly do business with a nation that kills people for being gay.
 

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
55,639
7,099
113
Washington DC
BaddaBING!



I won't deal with a state where a handful of bakers don't want to bake a cake for a gay wedding....... but I will certainly do business with a nation that kills people for being gay.
I missed where he said he wouldn't deal with Indiana. Could you point it out for me?
 

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,778
454
83
Actually, he's pointing out Cooks hypocrisy. I can see how you would miss that though.

It's not that simple though.

As I said before you have to take into account the fact that businesses are currently not wholly responsible for the other states they currently do business with.

If they were, then you would need to look at all business doing that with the same level of scrutiny.

This would mean we would have to get rid of our oil deals with China, for example.

And who is empowered to judge what cause is reasonable or not? Shall I give you a partial list of causes that were considered unreasonable when first espoused, such as racial equality before law, women's suffrage, First Nation rights, legalization/decriminalization of marijuana, and the notion smoking in public buildings should not be allowed?

You are the one who recently brought up the idea of "unfair" influence. I'm just testing that idea.


In a court of law, a judge exercises that authority.

In public policy, government and the judicial system can exercise authority.

Outside of those, one can see that lobbyists of all types can exercise that authority.


What deems it fair depends on public opinion or a test of reasonableness, which is based on the decision a prudent or good natured person might make.
 

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
55,639
7,099
113
Washington DC
It's not that simple though.

As I said before you have to take into account the fact that businesses are currently not wholly responsible for the other states they currently do business with.

If they were, then you would need to look at all business doing that with the same level of scrutiny.

This would mean we would have to get rid of our oil deals with China, for example.




In a court of law, a judge exercises that authority.

In public policy, government and the judicial system can exercise authority.

Outside of those, one can see that lobbyists of all types can exercise that authority.
Maybe in Canada. Down hereabouts we have this thing called the First Amendment. The basic notion is that nobody has the right to take action against you for espousing or promoting a cause, regardless of whether they consider it reasonable or unreasonable.


What deems it fair depends on public opinion or a test of reasonableness, which is based on the decision a prudent or good natured person might make.
So, when you talk about "unfair influence," are you relying on public opinion or a court test of reasonableness, or are you basically being a majority of one?