Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Apple Politics

Apple Urges Arizona Governor To Veto Anti-Gay Legislation 917

Posted by Soulskill
from the getting-involved dept.
Hugh Pickens DOT Com writes "According to NBC, Apple has confirmed that it urged Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer to veto a bill that would allow business owners with strongly held religious beliefs to deny service to gays and lesbians. Last November Tim Cook announced that Apple was building a sapphire glass plant in Mesa, AZ, that would bring 2,000 new jobs to the state. 'Apple is indisputably one of the world's most innovative companies and I'm thrilled to welcome them to Arizona,' said Gov. Brewer at the time. '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.' According to Philip Elmer-DeWitt, it sounds like Tim Cook may be having second thoughts about how 'friendly' and 'pro-business' the climate in Arizona really is."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Apple Urges Arizona Governor To Veto Anti-Gay Legislation

Comments Filter:
  • First blacks, (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Threni (635302) on Tuesday February 25, 2014 @08:24PM (#46340587)

    now gays. Can't Americans just stop acting like utter fucking cunts for a few moments and work on their hatred? I'm guessing it's religious in nature; after all, religious texts are full of specious, homophobic nonsense. Thank fuck that shit is on the way out.

    • Re:First blacks, (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Psychopath (18031) on Tuesday February 25, 2014 @08:28PM (#46340609) Homepage

      I imagine a gay CEO isn't too enthused about doing business with a state that thinks it's ok to refuse to do business with someone because they're gay. It's a two-way street, Arizona.

      • Is Tim Cook gay? Or were you just being hypothetical?

        • Re:First blacks, (Score:5, Informative)

          by seebs (15766) on Tuesday February 25, 2014 @08:47PM (#46340789) Homepage

          Yes, he's one of the first openly gay major corporation CEOs, which has gotten some amount of commentary... But only some as it turns out to have very little impact on his ability to do his job.

          • Huh. I didn't know that (that he was gay, not that being gay had fuckall to do with job performance).

            • Re:First blacks, (Score:5, Insightful)

              by sribe (304414) on Wednesday February 26, 2014 @12:41AM (#46342549)

              Which is, in itself, a beautiful thing. Back when Steve Jobs first hired him, it was big news in the business rags, about the first openly gay CxO of a Fortune Whatever corporation. Nowadays, nobody talks about it, because almost nobody cares, and lots of younger folks don't even know it. Which is exactly as it should be.

          • Re:First blacks, (Score:5, Insightful)

            by rearden (304396) on Tuesday February 25, 2014 @09:21PM (#46341135) Homepage
            I would not call him "openly" gay. He is unmarried. He has been seen to be in romantic situations with men. He has coyly refused to respond to questions of his sexuality. He is openly supportive of gay rights, and gay groups. People have referred to him as gay and he does not deny it.

            Not sure that is openly gay, but it is certainly not actively not gay I guess.

            I don't go around telling people I am gay, but then again when I am asked I do say "I do have a Husband" and smile. So I take calling him "openly" gay with a grain of salt.

            That is unless he has said something that I am not familiar with, the closest was that discrimination statement at Auburn University.
            • by ynp7 (1786468)

              So kind of like a gay George Clooney?

      • Re:First blacks, (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Jane Q. Public (1010737) on Tuesday February 25, 2014 @08:56PM (#46340909)
        Different question: is it okay for the state to tell someone who they must do business with?

        Completely leaving aside sexual orientation. Or not. Take your pick of prejudices. Can the state tell someone they must not refuse to do business with brunettes? Or people with freckles?

        I did not oppose a Federal gay marriage law out of hate for gays. I opposed it because marriage is none of the Federal government's f*ing business.

        Granted, this is not Federal but State. But that other question still remains: is it okay for the State to tell someone they can't do business with someone they don't like?
        • Re:First blacks, (Score:5, Insightful)

          by geekoid (135745) <dadinportland@ya ... m minus math_god> on Tuesday February 25, 2014 @09:15PM (#46341097) Homepage Journal

          "I opposed it because marriage is none of the Federal government's f*ing business. "
          but it is. It shouldn't be, but it is.There are thousands of federal rules and laws with the word married in them. So denying gay marriage is denying those right.
          That's why I'm for it. Would I rather the government got rid of those laws? yes.

          Then there are thousand of uses of the word married in insurance, contract, housing, and so on.

          Opposing the laws in this context is bigotry and depriving people of rights. You may not hate people who are gay, but you are acting just like people who do.

          "is it okay for the state to tell someone who they must do business with? "
          Yes. When a group is in a position they can't get services, and goods.
          There are many more specific and clear reason written by people smarter than me*.

          *I know , right?

          • Re:First blacks, (Score:4, Insightful)

            by Jane Q. Public (1010737) on Tuesday February 25, 2014 @09:41PM (#46341317)

            "but it is. It shouldn't be, but it is."

            No, it isn't. The Federal government has no Constitutional authority to tell you who you can marry and who you cannot. The "Defense of Marriage Act" was blatantly unconstitutional. It doesn't matter whether it's right or wrong. It was a law without lawful authority. The neighborhood kid has just as much lawful authority to decide who marries whom as the Federal government did. That is to say: none.

            "There are thousands of federal rules and laws with the word married in them."

            Means nothing. Even the Supreme Court would say (because they DID, on several occasions): the fact that laws were passed does not make them Constitutional.

            "Opposing the laws in this context is bigotry and depriving people of rights."

            NO, it isn't, and that's an extremely offensive thing to say. I oppose the laws because they are ILLEGAL. I don't have to be a bigot to oppose laws that aren't legal in the first place. Fuck you very much.

            • Re:First blacks, (Score:4, Insightful)

              by dryeo (100693) on Tuesday February 25, 2014 @11:15PM (#46342079)

              I thought the 14th amendment gave the federal government the power to stop the States from discriminating. Section one in particular,

              Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

              Are you saying gay people should not get equal protection of laws?

              U.S. Supreme Court Justice Joseph P. Bradley commented in the Civil Rights Cases that “individual invasion of individual rights is not the subject-matter of the [14th] Amendment. It has a deeper and broader scope. It nullifies and makes void all state legislation, and state action of every kind, which impairs the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, or which injures them in life, liberty or property without due process of law, or which denies to any of them the equal protection of the laws.”

              Seems the Supreme Court says the 14th allows the Federal government to override State laws that remove equal protection under the law. The rights that go with marriage should be available to all adults and if a State attempts to remove those rights then it seems it would be the Federal governments duty to override those State laws.

          • Re:First blacks, (Score:5, Insightful)

            by ChrisMaple (607946) on Wednesday February 26, 2014 @12:04AM (#46342355)
            When the government is telling you who you must do business with, the government is, by definition, fascist.
        • Re:First blacks, (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Opportunist (166417) on Tuesday February 25, 2014 @11:16PM (#46342085)

          The problem is that exactly by disallowing gays to marry the government does interfere: It's a service the government offers but refuses to offer to a subset of people. Yes, churches may or may not allow gays to marry, that's none of the state's business.

          But it's none of any churches business when two people want to get joined and have that join protected by the laws that protect such a union of two people. There is no sensible reason why these two people should be of different gender.

        • Re:First blacks, (Score:5, Insightful)

          by jd2112 (1535857) on Tuesday February 25, 2014 @11:42PM (#46342253)

          I did not oppose a Federal gay marriage law out of hate for gays. I opposed it because marriage is none of the Federal government's f*ing business.

          Since marriage is none of the government's business then why should they be able to tell you who you cannot marry?

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by UnknowingFool (672806)

          Different question: is it okay for the state to tell someone who they must do business with?

          Yes otherwise state may say it's okay not to business with African Americans, minorities, Catholic, Jews, Muslims, women, transgender, disabled or ANY other group a business wants to discriminate against?

          I did not oppose a Federal gay marriage law out of hate for gays. I opposed it because marriage is none of the Federal government's f*ing business.

          I see this as extremely hypocritical with the right where they are opposed to government intrusion into their lives except when they want the government to intrude into other peoples' lifestyles they personally disagree with.

        • by ultranova (717540)

          Different question: is it okay for the state to tell someone who they must do business with?

          Of course not, that would be slavery. Now making doing business with any comer a condition of getting some legal benefit, such as incorporation, on the other hand... Also, in a multi-owner company, it's very questionable whether turning down customers because of their sexuality is legal simply because it's losing shareholders money.

        • Re:First blacks, (Score:5, Insightful)

          by sycodon (149926) on Wednesday February 26, 2014 @12:26AM (#46342471)

          Should a Black Photographer be forced to take pictures at a wedding of two outspoken White Supremacists? At a Klan rally?

          Should a Jewish deli owner be forced to cater an openly anti-Semitic Muslim...or an avowed Nazi?

          Should a Muslim waiter be forced to server pork ribs? Or, Jewish for that matter. How about a vegan?

          You have to be careful with all this stuff about people being forced to provide services to others. Everyone can support the public accommodations thing when it's applied to race or religion. But when you start in on all these other things, you are opening a can of worms that you may not want to be opened. It cuts both ways.

          • by N1AK (864906)

            Should a Muslim waiter be forced to server pork ribs? Or, Jewish for that matter. How about a vegan?

            Firstly, if he was a waiter on staff at a restaurant then he should be expected to serve the product produced (or expressly agree otherwise with the owner when taking the job). Secondly, refusing to serve ribs isn't the same as refusing to serve ribs to a homosexual when you would to anyone else. It is the latter that is covered by discrimination laws not the former.

            Yes to both other examples. If the custo

        • Different question: is it okay for the state to tell someone who they must do business with? ... Granted, this is not Federal but State. But that other question still remains: is it okay for the State to tell someone they can't do business with someone they don't like?

          This, so many times over.

          For some businesses it does make sense. Refusing to serve a lunch or to sell a suit or to sell a home, those are one thing. Many types of businesses have no intersection with sexual lives. However, everything related to marriage is deeply entwined with sexual relationships. For those businesses that have nothing to do with sex: wonderful! No need to discriminate, serve everyone the same.

          Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on your viewpoint) things are pushing beyond that.

          Loo

          • by N1AK (864906)

            Compelling photographers, because at one point in their career they photographed a wedding they must now photograph all such events (not just gay, but open-relationship unions, Dom/Sub 'bondings', and more), even if it is against their beliefs, even if they dislike the couple, they must comply or face discrimination charges.

            Stop imagining up fringe cases to try and make discrimination seem less toxic. The only thing that is under attack is peoples ability to discriminate against others, as it should be. Unl

    • Some American all they can is Hate, it been that way for along time. Sometimes it takes a long time for thing to change, some want to Hate everything that is different then them, be it Gays. Women, Latinos, or whoever or whatever the the person. If the law goes through, I hope Apple move their plans to another State.
    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Most of the religions around here are against this sort of discrimination.

      Me, I'm sick and tired of the piecemeal approach. You can only be legally protected from discrimination if your identity group gets enough political clout to get on the "race, religion, national origin,..." list.
      It's still legal to discriminate against people for being fat, supporting the Green Party, or any other thing that's not on the list.
      Why isn't it just illegal for employers and service providers to discriminate against people

    • "now gays. Can't Americans just stop acting like utter fucking cunts for a few moments and work on their hatred? I'm guessing it's religious in nature; after all, religious texts are full of specious, homophobic nonsense. Thank fuck that shit is on the way out."

      To many people, it's not about gays at all. It's about whether the government can tell them who they can like or do business with and who they can't.

      • The bigots lost this argument fifty years ago. Why do some continue to try to fight that which law and jurisprudence forbids them?

        You're rights as a business are not an absolute on a number of fronts.

    • Re:First blacks, (Score:5, Insightful)

      by stonecypher (118140) <stonecypher AT gmail DOT com> on Tuesday February 25, 2014 @09:14PM (#46341087) Homepage Journal

      Did it ever occur to you that this might be more complicated than it seems from the outside, and that the politics going on here might not actually reflect the bulk of the population?

      Would you like to tell us what country you're in, so that we can share with you how we feel about your country's choices?

      The modern homosexual rights movement started in the United States, and has derived the vast bulk of its force from the United States. The United States has the first gay rights group, the first gay bookstore, the first gay bar, the first gay political group, the first gay autobiography in modern times, the first magazine openly for gays and about gay culture; we invented and performed the first sex reassignment (Sweden was the first to make that legal, but that's because it was never illegal here; we performed the first one seven years before anyone else made it legal;) we were the first to successfully fight discharge over orientation, though far from the first to allow gays in the military directly; we were the first modern Western country to have a gay leader at the senator level, though we have not yet hit the presidential level and Iceland has; if you remove France, who got it in the late 1700s, we were the first Western country to eliminate sodomy laws; we had the first gay kiss on a major magazine cover (probably first at all, but who can exhaustively search minor magazines?,) we started the transsexual rights movement, the first officially sanctioned university group for gay advocacy, we invented pride parades and hold them everywhere; we created gay as a protected class for discrimination, also trans, and we'll probably be the first to poly; we had the first gay ordained minister; we invented the rainbow flag (sorry, I wish it was less ugly) and thereby probably the first major pride symbol (but I can't exclude so maybe there's something earlier?,) we started the Gay Games, we missed the first statuory discrimination ban by months, we had the first city and first territory (state, thank you) to extend marriage benefits to gay partners, we came to terms with AIDS way ahead of the pack, we did gay adoption first, etc.

      Are you sure Americans are anti-gay, and not just a country of a third of a billion people who have a handful of bad apples, a media system faking controversy to generate viewership, a slashdot reader who's forgotten what percentage of the internet is trolling, and a parochial political system pandering to margins to get voted in?

      The phrase "utter fucking cunts" suggests the UK, and to look at Wikipedia's gay rights map, it looks like the US and the UK are world leaders, and that the US is ahead of the UK.

      Looks like England is ahead of the US, but hey, California's ahead of England, and California is both larger than and nearly as populous as Britain, so I think that's the actual natural comparison. You guys don't have national gay marriage observation yet. We *do*. (We don't have national performance yet, but that's no big deal; just take a $200 trip to California. It's still binding in every hateful corner of the South. The UK has no such privilege.) North America is the only continent where this is wall to wall legally supported; Eastern Europe misses it by four countries (no illegal but four no recognition,) and South America by six (five no recognition, one illegal.)

      Africa has only one country where gay marriage is legal, and Asia has only one (and shockingly it's not Japan) plus six more where it's not recognized.

      Uganda just recently worsened their practice to making homosexuality a capital offense. Cameroon, Iran, Nigeria, and Ethiopia all carry the death penalty (these are all nations in the Britain population range.)

      The United States is vascillating over whether it's legal for a private business to choose to ask someone to leave over their preference. And we're so shocked by this that there's a national uproar.

      We've had several states where this has been legal for decades, and our states are often the size of what you think of as small countries.

      So slice it and dice it however you want, but I think the US is actually doing quite well with regards to homosexuality law, thanks.

      Please don't blame me and my countryfolk for the things that happen on TV.

    • Re:First blacks, (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Kohath (38547) on Tuesday February 25, 2014 @10:12PM (#46341565)

      Not forcing people to make wedding cakes against their will is "hatred" now?

  • by Jharish (101858) on Tuesday February 25, 2014 @08:33PM (#46340659)

    I'm all for religious freedom, but institutionalizing the hatred of religious zealots who tend to ruin religion for everyone else seems a very inhuman thing to do.

    Next they can pass laws saying that religious freedom can also include suicide bombing.

    • by rts008 (812749) on Tuesday February 25, 2014 @11:03PM (#46342003) Journal

      Yeah, that's the problem with these 'religious freedom' discussions.

      All to often what they really want is the religious freedom for their religion only.

      What they fail to understand is in order to have religious freedom, you also have to have equal freedom from religion, or it is nothing more than outright discrimination by the majority religion; a theocracy in other words.

  • ...Or will the Genesis of Arizona end in Eden.

    It sure as Hell doesn't sound like Paradise over there.

Whoever dies with the most toys wins.

Working...