I am a strong believer of "With great power comes great responsibility" and many times have been pretty disappointed that celebrities, CEOs and the super rich have largely been silent.<p>Its great to see Tim Cook voicing his opinion on stuff that does not concern Apple.
I'm curious what Cook's position is on the Israel/Palestine conflict. Apple's making heavy investments in Israel and Cook has met with Netanyahu who's extremely right wing. Netanyahu's party wants no Palestinian state west of Jordan and for Israel to be an officially Jewish state. Gaza's essentially an open air prison. Of all the things Apple's involved with, that seems to be the most at odds with his expressed values of freedom, equality and human dignity.
I am not sure whether I should feel happy that someone higher in power took their time to talk about something important, or feel disappointed that someone actually has to talk about something that seems obvious. I guess we all live in very different worlds.
Previous discussion of the same article from 2 hrs prior that was flag killed (not sure why): <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9287287" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9287287</a>
I think in general, businesses should be free to decide with whom they do business, which many posters in this and the flag-killed earlier thread already stated. Being a heterosexual white male doing business this right comes to my mind first, because the right not to be discriminated mostly benefits me only secondarily. Nevertheless you have to acknowledge when other people's rights trump yours. I think it is undebatable that this should be the case here, even if you are concerned with religious beliefs, which I am not.<p>I also think, that religion should get no special treatment by law. In Germany we have § 166 StGB, which is highly in conflict with freedom of expression, because it says, that you can be put in prison for up to 3 years if you hurt somebody's religious feelings publicly. Courts mostly ignore the law anyway by valuing freedom of press/art/etc. above it.<p>On the other hand if you join any big German party, you have to confirm, that you are not a member of Scientology (what I totally support), arguing, that it is not a religion, but a sect trying to get traction here. So religious laws do not apply for everything you call your religion anyway, making them senseless in a way, because the small ones do need protection more than the big ones, but are effectively less protected.<p>I can rarely think of a religious rights law, that is not covered by a civil liberty law or should not exists anyway.<p>If I could mix the perfect religious legislation i would choose the French approach, Laïcité [0], and add the German right for children to get religious education in school to prevent extremism by giving up the interpretation to other groups.<p>[0]: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La%C3%AFcit%C3%A9" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La%C3%AFcit%C3%A9</a>
The text of the bill seems really.... non-offensive.<p>"A governmental entity may substantially burden a person's exercise of religion only if the governmental entity demonstrates that application of the burden to the person: (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest." [1]<p>That seems... pretty reasonable? The government can't limit exercise of religious freedom unless they have a reason and they do so in the least restrictive way possible?<p>Sexual orientation could be added as a protected class. That'd perhaps be the best of both worlds? There's seemingly not been a lot of traction on that. I'm not sure why exactly. Can anyone explain?<p>[1] <a href="http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/indianas-religious-freedom-restoration-act-explained_900641.html?page=2" rel="nofollow">http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/indianas-religious-freed...</a>
However odious the law is, businesses meddling in politics is even more scary and odious. Even if it's for the "good thing" (because of course everybody defines thet "good thing" to be what he stands for).
Here's a hefty legal analysis of Religious Freedom laws. There's some interesting history here that bears reading.<p><a href="http://volokh.com/2013/12/02/hobby-lobby-employer-mandate-religious-exemptions/" rel="nofollow">http://volokh.com/2013/12/02/hobby-lobby-employer-mandate-re...</a><p>(Note that I'm not a lawyer and can't vouch for this interpretation, but there are a lot of plain facts in the analysis that I hadn't known before.)
I wonder if this piece is enough for Apple to become the next target of boycotts from religious groups. There's many places of worship whom hold different views and are Apple customers.<p>Personally, I'm on Cook's side. Just pointing out the line that potentially may have been drawn.
> A wave of legislation, introduced in more than two dozen states, would allow people to discriminate against their neighbors.<p>I would hate to live in such a world where such thing would be considered illegal but ok.<p>> say individuals can cite their personal religious beliefs to refuse service to a customer or resist a state nondiscrimination law.<p>So? I don't see how this is a problem, as a business owner you are allowed to discriminate against who you do and do not want to be your customers. It happens all the time and to religious people themselves when they are boycotted by LGBT groups.<p>> Legislation being considered in Texas would strip the salaries and pensions of clerks who issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples<p>If we start with the premise that we need to be afraid of every considered bill then I don't know how you could ever not be afraid these days. Just simply a bill being considered doesn't mean anything.<p>> They go against the very principles our nation was founded on, and they have the potential to undo decades of progress toward greater equality.<p>The US was founded on principles of freedom of expression and association. The freedom to associate is also the freedom to not associate, only Tim skips over all that.<p>> America’s business community recognized a long time ago that discrimination, in all its forms, is bad for business.<p>Really Tim? All forms of discrimination? What world do you live in?<p>> 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.<p>Except it is political (legislation), it is about religion (Freedom of association for religious reasons) and NO, it doesn't take courage to say what apparently the whole business community believes according to you Tim.
<p><pre><code> > That’s why, on behalf of Apple, I’m standing up to oppose this new wave of
> legislation — wherever it emerges. 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.
</code></pre>
This is bizarre. In what way does a 21st-century economy depend on same-sex marriage?<p>Am I too cynical for thinking this probably has more to do with PR and/or company morale?
He seems to mainly be talking about discrimination against gays, though doesn't say it directly. I wonder if he really means it that Apple won't discriminate against pedophiles, incestuous couples or the grey areas on the boundaries of age of consent? Or is it like the old "universal suffrage" that turned out only to be universal to men, and not women?
What are Tim Cook's credentials here? Did he say anything that hasn't been said by others? Is his take novel or particularly developed?<p>This is an incredibly complex issue. As a left-leaning person who wants to see discrimination eradicated, but as a person who also wants to see it eradicated without it being the purview of some constellation of legal obligations, I recognize deep rooted conflicts.<p>Take for example the ACLU's (IMO correct) defense of Neo Nazi groups to march in solidarity. This is the type of freedom that our country is based on. It's not something I personally affirm, but I have to defend the right on principle.<p>Tom Cook talks up one side of the issue. His credentials have nothing to do with the topic. If we were in a critical thinking class we would recognize this as a cut and clear case of an appeal from authority.<p>Can we get something more substantive?