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: 5
18
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 13 2016 @ 01:32 AM
link   
a reply to: MystikMushroom

I have never supported corporations in politics.

Unfortunately as much as I like Sanders stance against corporations it is his other socialist baggage that keeps me from voting for him. There are no good candidates this election cycle and really haven't been for decades.




posted on Apr, 13 2016 @ 01:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
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...



I agree with you.

Instead of forcing YOUR beliefs on these religious people why not vote with your dollars. I like your plan way better than forcing people to do things against their will. I will never get behind Government forcing people to comply, but hey, I am an anarchist anyway so I don't like anything Government does.



posted on Apr, 13 2016 @ 01:37 AM
link   
Meanwhile Apple has stores in Saudi Arabia and Dubai that required partnering with the disgusting "royals".

The same intolerant dictators that outlaw homosexuality and punish gays are good buddies with Apple execs.



posted on Apr, 13 2016 @ 01:53 AM
link   
a reply to: Metallicus

And ya know -- I'll respect that.

I'd vote for any candidate that made corruption and getting big money out of politics a priority.

The other stuff? Meh -- that all STEMS and is derived from the corruption!

If we strike at the root of the tree, the branches and leaves will die. Why not strike at the very heart, the source of all the OTHER problems?

I honestly don't think Trump would build a wall or do anything horrible, the people of the USA won't let him. I don't think Cruz will be able to turn America into a theocracy.

At the same time, I'm not so sure either of them are serious about rooting out big money and corruption.

Sanders -- on the other side of the map is like Trump and Cruz. He probably has ZERO chance of medicare for all, or any of his other "socialist" ideas. There's no way it'll get through a GOP-controlled congress. Nope, not happening.

The thing is, there are enough people on BOTH sides of the fence...people like you and me that can force the GOP-controlled congress to work with Sanders to get citizen's united overturned and begin the dismantling of big money in politics.

If Sanders can do only ONE thing, and that thing is start the ball rolling...then I think it's worth 4 years of him. It would be insanely stupid for the Republicans in congress to block him on those fronts. It's career suicide for congressmen and senators to block Sander's wanting to repeal citizen's united and rework lobbying and campaign finance.

Now, if Trump or Cruz were serious about doing it and I actually believed they were -- I'd vote for them.

See, you and I may quabble over a bunch of issues, but on the biggest (and arguably most important/source of all other problems) we agree.

And you know...I really wish it was easier for everyone to set all the other crap aside for four years (one POTUS term) to try and hammer out a solution to that one problem.

Just imagine how awesome it would be if we could unite as a nation to solve just one thing?



posted on Apr, 13 2016 @ 01:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
Apple is against bigotry which is a good thing.


No, Apple is a business. Hypocritical and a trend into areas of politics, which is a worry.

If Apple want to take a moral line, then they need to pay taxes AND (more important to me) stop exploiting their workers where they manufacture their products - on the cheap.



posted on Apr, 13 2016 @ 02:02 AM
link   
a reply to: MystikMushroom

I appreciate your response.

I don't have to agree with you to respect you.




edit on 2016/4/13 by Metallicus because: Too tired, can't spell



posted on Apr, 13 2016 @ 02:04 AM
link   
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Apple is obviously fine with Islamic bigotry against homosexuals. They are partners with Saudi royals and have Apple stores in Saudi Arabia and Dubai where homosexuality is strictly forbidden and punished. Not to mention the other countless human rights abuses practiced by Islamic fascists that Apple execs have not spoken out against.
edit on 13-4-2016 by Deny Arrogance because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 13 2016 @ 02:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: Metallicus
a reply to: MystikMushroom

I appreciate your response.

I don't have to agree with you to respect you.





I'll raise a glass to that!

Despite differences, perhaps folks being able to agree on the largest problems is a ray of hope for America!
edit on 13-4-2016 by MystikMushroom because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 13 2016 @ 02:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: Metallicus
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Apple is just another huge corporation trying to unduly influence laws in our country. I am tired of corporations using their money to control our population. Apple is against religious freedom and frankly I am sick and tired of their crap.


Apple is not against religious freedom, they are against this asinine law though.



posted on Apr, 13 2016 @ 05:47 AM
link   
a reply to: Deny Arrogance

Pretty hypocritical isn't it? I think so. That doesn't take away the fact that their statement here in this situation is right.

If Hitler said gay people were deserving of the same rights as other people I would agree with his statement despite the other things he did, doesn't mean I agree with those other things though.



posted on Apr, 13 2016 @ 06:29 AM
link   
All this started because christian bakers didn't want to bake a gay wedding cake. So instead of finding a baker who will, the left jumped in them. There is a link here showing Muslim backers doing the same thing, but the left didn't say a thing.

If the left didn't want to make Christian bakers use their skill against their will, most of these laws would never have happened. You can see the liberal bias. If Springsteen doesn't like a law, and doesn't want to use his skill, he's a hero. If your a Christian baker and don't want to use your skill, your hateful.

chick fil a is a bully for believing in evolutionary marriage, Apple suppirts their believes, they are heros.



posted on Apr, 13 2016 @ 06:44 AM
link   
a reply to: Klassified

I'll take it seriously when Apple boycotts China, you know, the country they are neck deep in business with that is tons more restrictive and anti-freedom on many more levels than North Carolina ever was.

Same with Disney.

But you lefties should be in support of this for a more practical reason. Companies like Disney and Apple who were thinking about doing business in places like North Carolina were doing so to dodge higher taxes in other states like California. If these companies stick to their pledge, they'll be paying "their fair share" again (or they'll just leave the country and quietly do business in a less human rights friendly place like China, but I'm sure none of you will bat an eye over that ...).
edit on 13-4-2016 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 13 2016 @ 06:54 AM
link   
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

No, it makes their statement in this situation a cynical play to political correctness and not founded on any real moral principle.

If they truly actually felt this way, they wouldn't be doing business in those other countries for the same reasons, but since they do, the conclusion is that they will go whichever way they feel the political wind is blowing.

If America suddenly underwent a sea change tomorrow and became a Muslim state like Saudi Arabia and Dubai and started treating our gays and women like those countries did, you could fully expect Apple to suddenly adopt those rules happily to keep doing business no matter what "brave" stance they are making over this today.



posted on Apr, 13 2016 @ 07:19 AM
link   
a reply to: Klassified

It's desperation.
These Conservatives are seeing the country slipping away from their previous control and they are now in a corner lashing out in any way they can in an attempt to maintain their imagined "authority".

The best thing is, this is only eroding their control even more. With every attempt they make to pass laws like this they are doing nothing but force another generation away from their irrational regressive politics of hate.

These laws will all be repealed, LGBT equality is spreading across the nation, these conservatives cannot win no matter how desperately they try to claw back some control. They have already lost, and every attempt they make to take back that control only results in them loosing more influence in both society and government.

The law in North Carolina is currently being reversed. It's been announced that they're "watering down" the impact it has, but that's unlikely to do much to stem the damage already done. The only thing NC can do is repeal the law entirely, and replace it with a new law mandating equality for all in all aspects of life. Nothing short of full government mandated equality laws will satisfy the public in this case.

They tried to pass something hateful and ignorant, now they need to go further than they were before the law was passed to dispel the reaction they rightly had for passing that hateful law.

Mark my words, all of these laws will be reversed, these states will be forced to enshrine equal protections for all under the law, regardless of religion, gender, sexuality, race etc, and the Tea Bagger movement will be entirely crushed within a year.



posted on Apr, 13 2016 @ 07:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: thinline
All this started because christian bakers didn't want to bake a gay wedding cake.


Wrong.
Entirely different issues.
This came about because a right-wing government chose to use force to inflict their imagined "moral authority" onto free people. You know, like the Taliban creating laws making the education of girls illegal. They deem that to be their "moral authority" in the same way the American Christian believes it's "moral" to deny freedoms and rights to others.

On the issue of the cake... If you provide a business to the public, you provide that service regardless of the religious beliefs you have.
If you want to claim that because you're "Christian" you get to say no to serving LGBT people, you then have to accept that a racist can refuse to serve a black person - no decent society would accept that.

Your religious ideas have no place in providing services as a business, if they do then you should not be providing any services to anyone.


originally posted by: thinline
So instead of finding a baker who will, the left jumped in them. There is a link here showing Muslim backers doing the same thing, but the left didn't say a thing.


Not just "the left", every decent and sane person realized that this was not acceptable, because every decent and sane person realizes that what two other people do as free citizens is none of your business as a self-professed beacon of "moral authority".


originally posted by: thinline
If the left didn't want to make Christian bakers use their skill against their will, most of these laws would never have happened. You can see the liberal bias. If Springsteen doesn't like a law, and doesn't want to use his skill, he's a hero. If your a Christian baker and don't want to use your skill, your hateful.


Springsteen is not denying free citizens their rights and respect as free citizens.
Please tell me you can see the difference here.
One is a government attacking the rights of free citizens, the other is a performer refusing to perform in a state attacking members of its own community.

If you cannot see the difference here, no wonder you support this kind of ignorance. I do believe people like you are a perfect example of the low IQ needed to pass such laws.


originally posted by: thinline
chick fil a is a bully for believing in evolutionary marriage, Apple suppirts their believes, they are heros.


There is no such thing as "evolutionary marriage".
Christians do not own marriage and they never have.
Even the term "traditional marriage" is moronic. Marriage existed in various societies long before Christianity came along, and it's existed in various societies in various forms throughout that time too.
Your religion does not have any claim to the term marriage, the form it takes, the legality of any union or the imagined "morality" of such a union.

In short, Christians might want to believe marriage is theirs, but it's not and never has been - and it most certainly isn't now


To finish, I hope you fully realize that you've lost already. America is becoming increasingly liberal, churches are closing, the Republicans are about to lose massively in November.

LOVE WINS.



posted on Apr, 13 2016 @ 08:11 AM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko


I'll take it seriously when Apple boycotts China, you know, the country they are neck deep in business with that is tons more restrictive and anti-freedom on many more levels than North Carolina ever was.

Apple, and other companies that do business with China, are the best Trojan Horse the West has to gradually Westernize countries like China. Pulling out would not only be financially foolish, since China keeps buying our debt, but also giving up the ear of China's leadership. Not gonna happen, and for good reason. I think we all know Apple has its own best interests at heart, but at the same time, I think their stance is less pro-LGBT, and more anti-bigotry, considering how diverse their employees and clients are. They would be fools not to take this stance.


But you lefties should be in support of this for a more practical reason. Companies like Disney and Apple who were thinking about doing business in places like North Carolina were doing so to dodge higher taxes in other states like California. If these companies stick to their pledge, they'll be paying "their fair share" again (or they'll just leave the country and quietly do business in a less human rights friendly place like China, but I'm sure none of you will bat an eye over that ...).

I think we both know none of these corporations have ever paid their fair share of taxes, and it won't be any different now. American's will continue to support them not only by paying the taxes they aren't, but buying their products as well.

But honestly, this whole mess isn't about forcing people to do anything. It's about applying the law of the land equally to all citizens of this country, whatever their persuasion. Granted, this has not always been done, or we wouldn't have priviliged classes in this country.

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.


edit on 4/13/2016 by Klassified because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 13 2016 @ 08:26 AM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

I never said they wouldn't, in fact I'm pretty sure they would do exactly that. Doesn't take away the fact that what they said right now is 100% right.

I know you don't want to see it but this law is clearly unconstitutional, it should NOT be on the books and it's embarrassing that it has even gotten this far.



posted on Apr, 13 2016 @ 08:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
If they truly actually felt this way, they wouldn't be doing business in those other countries for the same reasons, but since they do, the conclusion is that they will go whichever way they feel the political wind is blowing.


Even if one is cynical enough to believe that corporations are only taking such decisions for their own public image and benefit, you then have to concede defeat and recognize that this therefore means the public is not in agreement with your politics.

You can't have it both ways here. You can't claim on the one hand that these political decisions are right, while also recognizing that public opinion is against these decisions.

The only thing you can claim here, if you're honest, is that these decisions are being made based on nothing more than the ideology of a minority who crave control, at the cost of their electorate.

You cannot claim on the one hand that corporations are doing this because it's popular, while ignoring that the laws are entirely unpopular and not reflecting the will of the people.

I'm willing to be that cynical about these corporations, I know that they probably wouldn't be making these statements if this were the mid 90's. But, at the same time, I recognize that even if they are being wholly cynical in their opposition to the hateful laws, they are doing so because the public at large are also against these laws.

When you have a government being run on ideology rather than what's best for the citizens, you have a failed state.
edit on 13-4-2016 by Rocker2013 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 13 2016 @ 08:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: Metallicus

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.


What you don't get is that by opening up a business which provides goods or services to the general public means making good on that offer. Nobody is forced into doing business with anyone. The business is making the offer to which the customer then replies not the other way around.

You're trying to turn it around as if the customer is forcing the business to open it's doors to people. That isn't how it works. The business is saying "Hey, come buy from me." Then the customer either does or doesn't go there.

The fact you don't seem to be able to comprehend that is what is moronic and sad. That you go as far as to keep arguing it is just foolish.



posted on Apr, 13 2016 @ 08:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian
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.


Reposted, because well, it needed to be reposted.
edit on 4/13/2016 by Klassified because: gah!

edit on 4/13/2016 by Klassified because: Sheesh!







 
18
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join