Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple CEO Tim Cook Publicly Comes Out as Gay in Letter Declaring Support for Equality
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
- Status
You've got a point. But, for instance, say there's a big fundraiser or something, and the CEO of a big company shows up with their partner. For heterosexual couples, nobody will think twice about mentioning, oh, Steve Jobs showed up at a fundraiser with his wife. But until Tim Cook's announcement, everyone was sort of unsure about what they should do if Tim Cook did show up at a fundraiser with a male date. Do you ask him if that's his date? Just pretend he's showed up with a "friend"? Or, I remember at one Apple product announcement, one of the Apple executives saying something like "So I can set up a reminder to call my wife when..." while demonstrating some function or other. Sure, I don't go out of my way to find out whether any of the CEOs of the various companies are married, have kids, or whatnot. But these things come up in a myriad ways. Who knows, maybe Tim Cook does have someone he'd like to bring to the next fundraiser, and now that he has made a separate announcement about his being gay, if he does show up with a date, it won't be the big news.
Yep, those are parts, and in the late 1980s I chose to no longer be a part of something. Less than a handful of individuals made much noise about the value of being inclusive, about getting more straights involved and so on. Then at a subsequent meeting, a member of the gay community attempted to discuss something that didn't fit the personal dictates of one of those supposedly inclusive individuals. The speaker was very rudely excluded. If I recall correctly, the same thing happened at the next meeting; the hypocrisy was quite jaw-dropping so I walked out. The few straight people there were visibly bewildered by the exclusive behaviour … those straights were evidently more gay-friendly than some of the GLBT people in that room.
Moving swiftly on …
… I really struggle with people who condemn homosexuality and feel it is a choice or a sin in front of whatever god they choose to believe in. It is no different to saying you dislike somebody because of their nationality or skin colour as far as I am concerned. We are who we are … Appalling
I did so, TechGod did so …
Worthwhile and inspiring. Click …
A happier click, of a camera –
– with or without a partner, may Tim Cook be as happy.
He was decrying radical democracy, as practised disastrously in Athens during the Peloponnesian War: one man, one vote - and everything becomes a referendum. If you have military strategies being decided by uninformed amateurs on a simple majority basis, you are in for a rocky ride.
Modern democracy is a very different animal.
Thank you for expaining.
Modern democracy is indeed a different animal. Majority vote should be the last resort if all other means are exhausted. This is simply because the majority of people are easily manipulated and traditionaly wrong. In regards to same sex partnerships I fail to see the reason for a majority vote/referendum, because it's a persons privat business who they choose as a life partner. This is why judges rightfully strike down those bans.
Since the problem is you and what you don't care to hear, I think you can just let it roll over you like water on a ducks back.
It's not something that you consider relevant, so just ignore it. It isn't Cook's job to act like an automaton. It's your responsibility to filter through what you know about Apple, including it's decades-long commitment to gay civil rights, and decide whether it is relevant.
I feel a distinction should be made here.
A church is a non-profit organization. I don't believe any state that has legalized same-sex marriage has forced any church to marry any couple that they don't see fit to be married.
A baker is a business that is open to the public.Just as they are not allowed to discriminate based on race, they should also not be allowed to discriminate based on sexual preference.
As for "just go to another baker," what happens when it's the only baker in the area? Or what happens when no bakers in the area are willing to provide their service for same-sex couples? If a baker wants to get around being hired by same-sex couples, then they can either form a private club or become a non-profit organization.
there's also the distinction to be made that the church doesn't actually marry people.. the state does.
the church provides the ritual if people want it.. not sure why a gay couple (or any type of couple) wants the emcee of their ceremony to be against what they're doing.. the priest is just some dude and not a necessary part of marriage.. if he's a jerk then move on.
Last edited:
Not allowed to discriminate?
Have you never seen the sign that clearly says "We reserve the Right to Refuse Service to Anyone for Any Reason" ? Because they can...
I'm not saying it's right or that I agree with it, but as a business owner they certainly have the right to refuse service....Just as they could tell a bachelor they aren't doing a cake shaped like a penis or breasts for his lewd party, they can tell a same sex couple they don't want to make their cake...
A court forcing them to do so isn't doing anything to help the gay cause...Those people are still going to be against gay marriage, and now all you've succeeded in doing is having a cake that was made by people that don't believe in your lifestyle...Is that really what you want at your wedding?
I'm just pointing out it's not worth it in the end...Find a cake somewhere else...Anywhere else....
Cakes are small potatoes. If we're skirmishing over cakes, then the war is over.
I agree that there is no need to force a baker to bake a cake. Most wedding cakes I have ever eaten a slice of tasted about the same. If one baker refuses to do it because he doesn't like your race, your religion or your presumed sexuality, or just the way you look, you can probably easily find another who does.
The best places to fight discrimination are at the corporate/institutional level.
Those signs are usually to support businesses against threatening behaviour or when people are repeatedly thieving from a business. The company has the right to refuse service on reasonable grounds. It's very rare a company would refuse to serve somebody because they were for example black or gay. In the UK we've had cases like this and the people discriminated against are often favoured by the court because refusing to serve somebody based on sexual orientation is not generally deemed reasonable. The right to refuse service is a bit of a grey area here.
Indeed cakes are small potatoes, and as I've said before, I wouldn't want people who didn't wish me well involved in my wedding, either.
However, it is also a matter of principle. If a baker can refuse to bake a cake because they are against gay marriage, who else can refuse what services to gay couples? Can an airline refuse to seat them together? Can insurance companies refuse to sell them insurance? Can a day care center refuse to take kids adopted by gay couples? What about a prestigious college preparatory school? A win against a cake baker could very well apply to bigger corporations / institutions also.
The best reason not to sic lawyers on a mom and pop bakery is that you risk making the issue about them and their rights rather than you and your rights. This leads to a risk that the legal outcome may not put your rights above theirs, or that it leads lawmakers to enact legislation that makes it easier (or required) for the airline, insurance company, or daycare center to discriminate.
You're more likely to win a change in policy by a large organization than a very small one. This is because large organizations have more people involved in the decision-making. Some of them are likely on your side and will help you make your case from the inside.
For the small potatoes cases, exercise the rights you do have. Don't spend your money with them, and tell those who would agree with you, so they can decide if they want to take their money elsewhere also.
Same goes for insurance companies. A day care center could theoretically refuse, but I doubt many will. I think you are ignoring the fundamental rights of that small bakery. For them the issue is of existential importance. It's about the liberation of their soul and their personal relationship with god. You might not respect theistic religions (like many others in this forum), but then don't be surprised if they do not respect you either and get militant.
Last edited:
The original subject being Tim Cook, you are ignoring the fact that he was pretty much pushed into saying something. So, he said that he refused to be ashamed of who he was. OK by me. As for those who feel that their personal relationship with god compels them to participate in a world-wide anti-LGBT witchhunt-- if they are not willing to do business with the public, then, they should not be running a public business. They should open a private club that bakes only for bigots.
Yeah this thread is straying a bit. I actually agree with Tim Cook that gays should not be ashamed. That makes their situation worse.
Also there is a difference between simply refusing service under certain circumstances and a witchhunt.
Good points. And while I think that in principle, the small bakery shouldn't really be agreed to discriminate either, now that I've read your points, I do see how suing small bakers probably isn't the best way to proceed.
Airline, you've got a point. Insurance, I was thinking of stuff like married couples get special packages, get to put their spouses on each others' insurance package, etc.
And I do respect religions. I don't actively practice one at the moment, but I grew up around religious people. I'm just asking where we should draw the line between people being allowed to object to homosexuality on religious grounds, vs where they aren't. Is it the size of the organization? Whether it is privately owned? The type of organization/business?
As I've said before, I have a physical disability. If someone were to tell me their religion saw physical disability as a sign of divine disfavor, and therefore they couldn't serve me because it would be against their religion, then I'd be inclined to think that such a religion isn't really a religion. And I kind of think the same for "religions" that refuse to serve homosexuals. Like, the Catholic church is against divorce. So if a divorcee is getting remarried, would a Catholic baker refuse to bake a cake for that wedding?
And of the truly religious people I have known, I don't think any of them will think their religious beliefs to be so important it is worth hurting a couple by marring their wedding plans. I think most of them will just go ahead and bake that cake.
Last edited by a moderator:
I see we are discussing businesses and their right to refuse service to people they feel offend their religion, but where could the line be drawn? Could they refuse to serve people who are not if the same religion for example? It gets murky when a more levelled perspective is introduced because it highlights bigotry a bit too much.
This whole discussion reminds me why I chose to drop religion as a child and adopt a more rational and understanding outlook on life. It's too short to be judgemental of people who don't fit into an unproven ideal. I respect people who are religious because it's their belief but I object to it dictating rules and ways that impact on my society. Tim Cook obviously gets comfort from his beliefs which is great, I just hope he is further accepted now he has admitted his sexuality. I doubt many churches would refuse someone of his standing though.
This whole discussion reminds me why I chose to drop religion as a child and adopt a more rational and understanding outlook on life. It's too short to be judgemental of people who don't fit into an unproven ideal. I respect people who are religious because it's their belief but I object to it dictating rules and ways that impact on my society. Tim Cook obviously gets comfort from his beliefs which is great, I just hope he is further accepted now he has admitted his sexuality. I doubt many churches would refuse someone of his standing though.
Just a bit.
For some reason this topic came to mind when, whilst I was reading about iOS market shares, Business Insider thought it timely to educate me: Scientists Have Figured Out What Makes Women Attractive. Blah blah "two german scientists said" blah blah, that type of thing, and following the link to "a slew of studies on sex and attraction" … within about ten seconds there's ridiculous contradiction with what was in the video, and nothing about the german science on lustrous hair. I only followed the link to have a laugh at some off-mark advertising. I guess, my feelings (as a gay man) about being stereotyped are broadly the same as those of any woman who feels stereotyped by the type of 'scientific discovery' in that video. I just want to be treated as a person.
Elsewhere online, sometimes I can get gay-targeted advertising but it's never – I mean never – anything of interest to me. Stumbling through the world of things less targeted, I'm far more likely to find something more entertainingly interesting. Amongst my favourites from the 1990s, this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQUjOUeQ68U
– "… banned due to 120 complaints about how suggestive the woman's cleavage was …".
Call me old fashioned, but to me the slightly more suggestive aspect was the bloke tearing off nearly all his clothes in one swipe for the camera to focus on the front of his rippling red boxer shorts (aimed at the lady (she's busy reading a book)) whilst the stereotypically British narrator describes the bloke as having "exploded …". http://www.blinkprods.com/evolution/ for some interesting tidbits on that advert and others.
I'll make the most tenuous of links to MacRumors by imagining that the video was shot in Yosemite.
A Russian politician, then church ministers
Around a week before Tim Cook wrote his letter:
Liberia gays attacked over Ebola | Gay Star News
that, for example, is part of why I have little time for people who carelessly, or wilfully, associate HIV/AIDS with homosexuality whilst apparently ignoring the association with more significant factors.
Around a week before Tim Cook wrote his letter:
Liberia gays attacked over Ebola | Gay Star News
that, for example, is part of why I have little time for people who carelessly, or wilfully, associate HIV/AIDS with homosexuality whilst apparently ignoring the association with more significant factors.
Well, yeah, the church doesn't count, because.. religion... and they don't all think all that bad.. and stuff...
I hope technology will reach those people at some point and open their eyes, a delusional idiot dressed in white blabbering on about a "god" is not the solution.
Can you supply me proof? I mean real world unequivocal proof that anyone would believe. Didn't think so.
Science is providing most of the answers nowadays.
Now that said, religious teachings do provide lessons in life on morality and humanity. Some of it is how not to do it. The attitudes on people who are different in the old testament for example. The attitude towards homosexuality is another example of how not to do things.
We need to live and let live. At the end of the day, we're all human beings.
- Status