It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Apple speaks out against new Mississippi religious freedom law

page: 4
18
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 12 2016 @ 11:20 PM
link   
a reply to: NthOther

The irony here is priceless.

The bigots won't do business with gays but they are now upset because Apple won't do business with Bigots. Shouldn't the Bigots be supporting Apple in their choice of who they want to do business with based on their personal beliefs too???

Apparently it's only ok when they want to discriminate against gays, but it's wrong if others do the same to them.




posted on Apr, 12 2016 @ 11:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Metallicus
a reply to: Annee

but you are perfectly fine with forcing people to act against their nature as long is it someone religious you can punish? Okay, got it religious slaves are okay.

No human being or Government should enforce their moral code on another human being unless in defense of property or person.


We are for freedom! Unless we don't like what you want to do with it.

Has anyone tried to by a gay wedding cake from a muslim bakery, in saudi arabia, iran, afghanistan?

Sorry, we were talking about MS.

I think people are jumping the gun over this.

Let's see who gets butthurt by no service before accusing christians of genocide. Oh wait...



posted on Apr, 12 2016 @ 11:28 PM
link   
a reply to: burgerbuddy

So let's follow those countries example.

Why do we think we're so much better than those countries when we seem to be reverting to their ways more and more?

Two wrongs don't make a right.



posted on Apr, 12 2016 @ 11:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Metallicus

Have you read the bill? Here's a link.


SECTION 2. The sincerely held religious beliefs or moral convictions protected by this act are the belief or conviction that:

(a) Marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman;
(b) Sexual relations are properly reserved to such a marriage; and
(c) Male (man) or female (woman) refer to an individual's immutable biological sex as objectively determined by anatomy and genetics at time of birth.


Does that sound like protecting religious freedom? Serious question.



posted on Apr, 12 2016 @ 11:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: SomeDumbBroad

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: SomeDumbBroad
At the same time, if a business that is privately owned chooses to discriminate, I think that should be on them. They should be allowed to refuse people and the people they offend should be allowed to protest and refuse to shop there.



They are the only grocery store in a small town - - the next town being 20 miles away.

They think the physically disabled will break something or scare away customers.

Military vets not welcomed.

Single mom trying to buy food for her kid. Oh, sorry - - my religion won't let me serve an unmarried mother. But, there's another store 20 miles away.

Great plan.





Well that changes my perspective a bit. I was speaking more about cake shops that don't want to make cakes and stupid things like that. I don't think essential things like that should be restricted at all.


See? It starts with the little things that don't mean much outside of a small circle of friends and the next thing ya know,
christians are refusing to cover abortions for nuns!

Imagine a world like that!

Oh wait!



posted on Apr, 12 2016 @ 11:38 PM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm

Apple can do business with whoever it wants to do business with.

Or, at least, they should be able to do that.



My beef is that I'm really getting tired of corporations telling us what we're supposed to think and feel.

All they want is your money. Don't ever forget that. They're not interested in anything else, least of all "social justice".

Monsanto could "come out" in favor of gay rights and all the sudden they'd be the humanists' new darling corporation.




posted on Apr, 12 2016 @ 11:42 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian


Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.


This law spits on the Constitution then uses it as toilet paper. It's a law that has been passed to respect an establishment of religion, that of marriage being only between a man and woman.

It's so obviously unconstitutional that I have a hard time believing people actually support it.



posted on Apr, 12 2016 @ 11:44 PM
link   
a reply to: NthOther



Monsanto could "come out" in favor of gay rights and all the sudden they'd be the humanists' new darling corporation.


That's bull# and you know it. Pure hyperbole.

People can agree with something someone says but still think they're a bad person. Charles Manson has said some stuff I agree with, does that mean I believe he should be a free man? Of course not.
edit on 4/12/2016 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 12 2016 @ 11:47 PM
link   
a reply to: NthOther

On that point I'll agree with you. Apple, the Corp. will of course stand on whatever principles are best for business. This I have no doubt.

But I also don't personally give a damn what Apple thinks about the situation either. Corporations don't have principles, but they often do fake having them for a better image. Sometimes they fake bad principles too that doesn't help their image at all. Regardless of which it is they choose, has nothing to do with why I'm choosing the principles I choose anyway.

In fact, if they never got involved at all in this discussion nobody would have noticed. But they have now and they've chosen a side so now they must defend that side. That's their choice.



posted on Apr, 12 2016 @ 11:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Klassified

originally posted by: Metallicus

originally posted by: Klassified

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: Metallicus

You're ok with people telling others they are not worthy of service though. This law basically tells businesses that it's ok to tell gay people that they can't spend their money however they choose.

It goes even further. This law tells LGBT people they aren't worthy to be a part of society. They cannot and do not have equal protection under the constitution. Sounds familiar doesn't it. Black people lived with this kind of legislated and religious bigotry for a very long time. I guess we're going back to segregation.


It doesn't do that at all...that is complete hyperbole.

It says, this person doesn't want to do business with me. If someone didn't want to do business with me I wouldn't want to do business with them. I mean they are going to spit in my food or something anyway so why do I care?

It does exactly that, sir.

Lets use an extreme example. A well known local gay man gets in a life threatening car accident. The local hospital doesn't treat gays, and the closest town that does is 50 miles away. He dies before getting treatment. Is this the kind of country you want to live in? Choose any scenario you want. You're saying it's ok to do now to LGBT's, what was done to black people until the 60's and beyond. Remember these?



Same thing happening here, Metallicus.



That sucks.

I remember the day all the gay people turned blue with pink polka dots.

Maybe there will be gay hospitals in the future?



posted on Apr, 13 2016 @ 12:16 AM
link   
Im so sick of sharing this planet with the rest of humanity. Really. The only thing I know for sure is the insanity starts where my threshold ends.



posted on Apr, 13 2016 @ 12:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: burgerbuddy

So let's follow those countries example.

Why do we think we're so much better than those countries when we seem to be reverting to their ways more and more?

Two wrongs don't make a right.



no, but 3 do!

I think we won't be hanging gays according to law, anytime soon.



posted on Apr, 13 2016 @ 12:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

That's bulls# and you know it. Pure hyperbole.

Are you kidding? They'd be putting Roundup in their cock-tails.

I'm being silly to make a point, of course. I find it fascinating that many of the most fervent critics of the corporate state will throw their entire socioeconomic belief system out the window when that which they criticize takes an agreeable (and vocal) political position and assumes "social justice footing".

They jump in the same trench as their enemy and start polishing their boots.



posted on Apr, 13 2016 @ 12:32 AM
link   
a reply to: NthOther

I think it's more Apple jumping onto the side people have already chosen than them jumping on a side because apple has.

The people were in that trench already I think and it's Apple joining them now. I don't know too many people who like Apple so much as to jump in the trenches because they have. The people have been there for a long time already. Which is why Apple is now joining suit.



posted on Apr, 13 2016 @ 12:42 AM
link   
Corporations need to stop having political opinions.

"Corporations are people too"



posted on Apr, 13 2016 @ 12:43 AM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm

Snowden holding up Apple and exalting it as a champion of human rights where our government has failed us isn't "jumping in the trench"?



posted on Apr, 13 2016 @ 01:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: NthOther

The irony here is priceless.

The bigots won't do business with gays but they are now upset because Apple won't do business with Bigots. Shouldn't the Bigots be supporting Apple in their choice of who they want to do business with based on their personal beliefs too???

Apparently it's only ok when they want to discriminate against gays, but it's wrong if others do the same to them.



I don't agree with the position of people that don't want to transact business with gays. What I object to is a) Corporations trying to legislate and b) People being forced against their will to comply.

I would never expect to enforce my moral code on another and I want the same respect back. We can't FORCE people to do things against their will without it being an infringement on personal liberty.

Your argument is simply...I don't like what they are doing so lets force them to do what I think is right. With your attitude you are essentially inviting the Christians and other religions to force their morality on YOU.

Think about it...YOU are doing exactly what you are fighting against by forcing your opinions on other people and forcing them to comply with YOUR morality.

It is ironic, moronic and sad.



posted on Apr, 13 2016 @ 01:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: Klassified
Apple speaks out against new Mississippi religious freedom law

Good!
As well as all decent healthy people should!
The disease of ignorant hate should NOT be tolerated!
It is a toxin in society and should be shunned and halted and stamped-out by all healthy people!



posted on Apr, 13 2016 @ 01:22 AM
link   
Don't want to do business with gay people?

Don't be mad when people who support gay and LGBT folks don't want to do business with you.

Don't be pissed when the same thing you pull happens to you...



posted on Apr, 13 2016 @ 01:24 AM
link   
a reply to: Metallicus

If you don't want corporations to legislate, then elect Sanders and support him in trying to get money out of politics and overturn Citizen's United ... which if I recall was supported by right-wing, pro-corporate GOP types (Koch Brothers, who fund just about every conservative movement they can).




top topics



 
18
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join