130521141911-tim-cook-hero-tax-code-614xa

Apple CEO Tim Cook took to Twitter on Friday to voice his position on a potential new law currently being considering by the United States Congress. “The House should mark the 50th anniversary of the Civil Rights Act by passing ENDA,” Cook tweeted while mentioning members of Congress in leadership positions from both political parties. Cook also tweeted the quote “We shall overcome” and said “Much done but much left to do.” 

The law to which Tim referred, known as the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, would prohibit companies with 15 or more employees from discriminating based on sexual orientation or gender. The Apple CEO has previously expressed this position in a Wall Street Journal opinion editorial published last November. The bill has since been passed by the Senate, but has struggled to make it through the House of Representatives.

During his tenure at Apple and especially as CEO, the Alabama native has taken opportunity to express his interest in the movement of equality.

Cook cited both Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and Robert Kennedy as inspirational figures in a speech last December at Auburn University’s Lifetime Achievement event.

In his WSJ op-ed, Cook noted Apple’s policy as it relates to the proposed law:

Apple’s antidiscrimination policy goes beyond the legal protections U.S. workers currently enjoy under federal law, most notably because we prohibit discrimination against Apple’s gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender employees. A bill now before the U.S. Senate would update those employment laws, at long last, to protect workers against discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

Speaker of the House John Boehner, who leads the Republican-controlled House of Representatives, has previously stated his opposition to the bill becoming law:

I am opposed to discrimination of any kind — in the workplace and any place else. But I think this legislation — that I have dealt with as chairman of the Education Workforce Committee long before I was back in the leadership — is unnecessary and would provide a basis for frivolous lawsuits. People are already protected in the workplace. I am opposed to continuing this.

Tim Cook and Speaker Boehner previously shared a meeting at the US Capital in early 2012, but the topic was assumed to be regarding Apple’s tax practices at the time.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

66 Responses to “Tim Cook calls on Congress to pass Employment Non-Discrimination Act”

  1. Sure thing Tim, just pay up the $9B for conspiring with Google not to hire each others employees first.

    Like

  2. todd says:

    Apple going political is a huge mistake. Stick to technology, keep out of politics.

    Like

    • Brian Victor says:

      I wish that were possible. This is an ideological war and winner takes all. The moral center of this country has shifted from defining morality around a divinely ordained objective standard (as witnessed by the Declaration of Independence) to one of self-centered pragmatism. On the one side, there are those who believe the Creator exsits and has rendered his own opinion of how human sexuality should work and it is up to us to strive towards that exmaple. On the other hand, there are those who believe society should define the standard and they think the best thing for someone struggling with their sexual identity is to do what feels best for them. As though feelings were a reliable measure of right and wrong. Sadly, the conservative side of the argument has largely done a very poor job of ministering to the needs of those who don’t fit in: subjecting them to ridicule and violence. The liberal side, unfortunately, thinks it a good idea to encourage the normalacy of high-risk lifestyles. All of this is a terribly sad situation. Already, people like myself who advocate helping non-heterosexuals without encouraging their life-style practices are labeled as hate-mongers, narrow-minded, and find themselves subject to disciplinary action at work. How the pendulum has swung.

      Like

      • todd says:

        What does any of that have to do with selling computers?

        Like

      • By using terms such as “life-style practices” and “high-risk lifestyles” I get where you are coming from. “Helping non-heterosexuals”? Are you freaking kidding me? What are you helping them with? Jumping off of the next bridge? What you people don’t get is that it is not a choice. They don’t want to “define the standard” they basically just want to live their lives. That’s all.

        Like

      • aaaannnddd… cue the religious nut jobs. religion has no place in a sane, decent society IMO, but you won’t get anywhere arguing with guys like this so I will just comment on the OP’s remark about “politics.”

        It’s a “Human Rights” issue not “politics” in the traditional sense of the word. The basic support for human rights (should) span all political spectrums and groups. It’s not left versus right, or conservative versus liberal. It’s about every human having the same rights as every other human.

        Anyone who doesn’t believe that each human should have the same basic rights as every other human, doesn’t belong in this century at all.

        Like

      • Brian Victor says:

        Mr. Grey said, “cue the religious nut jobs. religion has no place in a sane, decent society”

        Sir, are you aware of where the decent values of our society originated? Have you visited any other countries and asked why, for exmaple, in many places in SE Asia it is okay to beat your wife? You enjoy the basic freedoms you have because a band of “religious nut jobs” whose values were based on the Bible wrote up a constitution that secured your rights and shaped what you believe. Now, please explain to me, why is it that their value system was right and others are wrong? How can you do this unless you point to a higher standard? What can that standard be other than God?

        You also said, “Anyone who doesn’t believe that each human should have the same basic rights as every other human, doesn’t belong in this century at all.

        Building on my comment above, where do you get the idea that each human should have the same basic rights as every other human? There are many societies around the world who would not merely disagree with you but kill you if they had the chance. If society determines what is right and wrong, to what authority do we then point to when criticizing another society’s way of doing something? Again, I reference you to what is written in our Declaration of Independence.

        Like

      • Actually… As a Black man I understand and can appreciate the passing of the law. As a Christian, I believe that Christian/Religious organizations must be excluded from this law. I believe that when openly gay people attempt to get a job with a religious organization that does not hide the fact that they believe homosexuality to be a sin that this becomes a direct attach upon this organization. When is the last time you walked into a Victoria Secrets and there was a man working there? They don’t hire men. Period. At least they don’t hire them to work in the stores.

        Yes… In every corporation / business there are people of all types of lifestyles. Thats fine. People should be hired up their merit, qualifications and the such. The Churches… No. They should be excluded.

        Like

      • thejuanald says:

        Then religious institutions don’t deserve to be tax exempt anymore. This is akin to religions not allowing nonwhite people or females.

        And as for Brian Vector, I would keep as far away from that delusional nutjob as I can if I were you.

        Like

      • thejuanald says:

        Brian, do you also believe that women and children are property to be bought and sold by their male master? How about rape? Is it okay to rape a woman if you pay her dad 50 shilling and then marry her? Do you believe slave trade is good?

        No? All those things are laws in the book of Leviticus. Thems some good morals!

        Like

      • Brian Victor says:

        @thejuanald – Are you an Old Testament scholar? Are you aware of the socio-economic realities of the Old Testament? Do you understand the context of the 50 shekel law? Are you prepared to deliver an accurate treatise on the laws found in the Pentateuch? Pardon my frankness, but you are making schoolboy arguments by saying that non-Jewish Christians should follow the Old Testament laws and you criticize a law in a way that does not indicate to me that you know what you are talking about. Please try again after you have done some basic research.

        Like

      • @thejuanald – You miss the point. This has nothing to do with the tax exempt status of Churches or other religious organizations. One of the main reasons that the tax exempt status is given is because these organizations provide services to the general community thus the government does not have to pay for those services / provide those services. So… let’s not be silly.

        Here is the fundamental issue here: Religious organizations believe that homosexuality is a sin. It’s a choice. People are not “born that way”. Some homosexuals believe that they were born that way. Others acknowledge that it is their own personal choice. Since you brought up the tax thing, let’s stick with that. Since our country has agreed to let religious organizations help the general public, then that is an affirmation of their belief system which comes from whichever holy book they adhere too. Our society has said, “We might… or might not… agree with your beliefs but since your taking a huge bill off our shoulders then we won’t interfere with your belief system.” Now, if religious organizations are forced to hire these openly homosexual people now your are interfering with their spiritual beliefs. It’s not to say that homosexuals can be a part of the church but it is to say that they can’t hold an office. It’s the same as if there was a man who had a problem with his hands, wondering eyes, chasing women… you wouldn’t put him over the youth ministry in the church.

        The actual issues is that religious organizations believe it to be a sin. Homosexuals don’t. That’s fine. But you can’t tell the churches they can no longer consider it a sin nor can they preach against it any more. Then you would be violating their rights… the church.

        Like

    • Dave Huntley says:

      Progressive companies enhance their image being seen to be progressive, Apple has been at this for years and I don’t think the business would be harmed in any way that matters. In fact, Cook may well agree if you’re bitter enough to stop buying my products because your hate of other humans is that strong, then I am proud to say you don’t soil my product by owning one.

      If Cyrus and Bieber can give their opinion and even the slow lane of Chick-fil-A, then Apple can too.

      Like

    • Yes!!! 100% correct. Technology and increasing the price of AAPL stock.

      Like

      • It’s actually not correct. If we remove any fiber of morals, and just talk about money, the company should follow the majority opinion among shareholders, potential market and potential employees. Great company would account for the trends and lead. Between those three they doing the right thing.

        If we take morals into account, while by its nature it is subjective, I’ve yet had to hear a good argument for job discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender. Please educate us how is that a good policy!

        Like

  3. Brian Victor says:

    I wonder if the act will protect people from being discriminated against based on their beliefs regarding sexual orientation or gender? I’m guessing only if they are for allowing any and all practices. I wonder how long it will be before the line of reasoning opens the door for pedophilia and bestiality?

    Like

    • herb02135go says:

      Grow up!
      Considering people under 18 and animals cannot give consent yours is a stupid question.

      Apple speaking out on this won’t hurt its business. A majority of Americans favor equality and same-sex marriage.

      I doubt this would help Apple’s sales since I don’t think many homophobes buy their products.

      Like

    • You are not seriously comparing being gay or a woman to being a pedophile, are you? Since that would be an unbelievably stupid argument to make I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt. Maybe you just have no idea what you’re talking about…

      Like

      • You’re being far too kind Criss, he was totally serious. Bigots frequently make non sequitur, illogical leaps like this. They also frequently say “stay out of politics” when they disagree, even though every medium and large company is inherently involved in politics on many levels. They also sometimes claim they are the victim, because their “right” to discriminate against someone may be infringed upon.

        By the way, the people affected by this bill are already protected in California and there haven’t been any frivolous lawsuits. Check with the state agency that receives these claims (the DFEH) if you won’t take my word for it. If Boehner really opposed any kind of discrimination, so-called frivolous lawsuits wouldn’t be his primary concern.

        Like

      • Brian Victor says:

        I was not comapring being gay or a woman to being a pedophile. I meant that the same decision making process that has led us to validate the LBGT lifestyles (i.e. the argument that they are not inherently harmful) can and will probably be used to justify other sexual behaviors.

        Like

      • Brian Victor says:

        I’m just stating what is already on the books and is actually happening in this case.

        Like

    • No one is “being discriminated against based on their beliefs” (which is code for “I’m religious and don’t want to be forced to behave decently to my fellow human beings”).

      The freedom to believe in sky people and sub-terrainian devil monsters is still yours. The fact that you don’t have the freedom to discriminate against others, is not the same thing as you losing your freedom.

      It’s a human rights issue. Your right to believe whatever you want is still intact, you just don’t have the right to preach to anyone else about what they should or shouldn’t do. Everyones human rights stop at the point where they under someone else’s rights. Right?

      I have the right to be an Atheist, but I don’t have the right to force you to stop believing in whatever crazy thing you believe or stop you from organising a group like a church etc. Conversely, you have a right to sit in your church and worship whatever weird things you worship, but you don’t have a right to force everyone else to believe that stuff.

      It’s all give and take, based on the idea that we all have the same basic rights and that we should all try to get along.

      Like

      • Amen! Why is it that in America this is a political issue rather than a human rights issue? The whole country seems to be so divided these days. Either you are a left, liberal kinda guy (and want human rights for EVERYBODY) or you are a right wing conservative who just grants those rights to those who live like they want them to. Religious nuts have far to much power these days…

        Like

      • Gray… do you believe that this law should include or exclude churches / religious organizations?

        Like

    • Dave Huntley says:

      Comparing gay men or women to paedophiles or bestialists is simply stupid. Not even worth the electricity to light up the pixels. You obviously know nothing about what you’re talking about and what you say is ignorant.

      Like

      • You’re probably right. But I can’t help it. There’s no way that we as a society will get over this if we let people spread hate. I just had to say something…As useless as it may be.

        Like

      • Brian Victor says:

        I was not comapring being gay or a woman to being a pedophile. I meant that the same decision making process that has led us to validate the LBGT lifestyles (i.e. the argument that they are not inherently harmful) can and will probably be used to justify other sexual behaviors.

        Like

    • thejuanald says:

      Ah, the old slippery slope line of bullshit comes running down out of another bigoted mouth.

      Like

      • Brian Victor says:

        The whole LBGT argument, and indeed any sexually behavior outside of strictly life-monogamous, heterosexual relationship, seem to me to be based on at least two ideas. 1) such lifestyles are harmless and 2) since the urges towards such practices are naturally occurring, they are therefore good.

        Both assertions are demonstrably false.

        1) Are they really harmless? Well where would sex trafficking, STDs, unwed pregnancies, and the AIDS epidemic be if people would just sleep only with their life-long spouses? The fact that this argument is about LBGT rights and not all sexually immoral behavior just shows how far we have slid on the moral sensitivity spectrum.

        2) Are natural sexual impulses good? I fully acknowledge that many people are born with a predisposition towards the same sex. People are also born with tendencies to be violent, sociopathic, alcoholic, polygamist, adulterous, dishonest, greedy, proud, pedophiles, on and on. Who is going to define for us which impulses are good and what is their proper expression? To what standard shall we point?

        Like

      • thejuanald says:

        Um, the standard of lawful behavior. Not killing or harming others. Allowing two consenting adults to do what they want with each other so long as it doesn’t harm others. And no, gays getting married does not harm anyone.

        Like

      • Brian Victor says:

        Did you read point 1? What is your answer?

        Like

      • Brian Victor says:

        @thejuanald – To be more specific, what is your answer to “where would sex trafficking, STDs, unwed pregnancies, and the AIDS epidemic be if people would just sleep only with their life-long spouses?”

        Like

  4. bobe01 says:

    I am a longtime customer and stockholder of Apple, 1978 Apple II
    I find it disappointing when a CEO uses his position to push his own personal agenda

    Like

    • thejuanald says:

      Treating all people as equals is an agenda now?

      Like

      • Dave Huntley says:

        Well said. This guy can sell his stock, others will buy it quite happily. But I suspect the $$ wil outweigh the principle for bobe, as it does for most.
        So it’s refreshing to see someone, and a company standing by its values, despite any threat to the $$$.

        I am more likely to buy AAPL product because of this. Think most of their market niche would have zero problem. The haters I can g’tee you are all in the windows camp… The stock rose today despite the religious warnings BTW.

        Like

      • This isn’t about treating folks as equals, it’s about government infringements on the right of individual associations. What RIGHT does anyone have to anyone’s employment? What right does anyone have to anyone else’s service. The fact is there IS no such right. These laws are vastly overreaching and destructive to everyone’s liberty, no matter how well intentioned they are.

        Like

      • thejuanald says:

        Really? People are allowed to deny service to black people? Really?

        Like

    • Are you gonna sell your stock? Or is it just hypocritical musings?

      Like

  5. @ Brian Victor: This is probably the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever read in my entire life. Believe in whatever you want to believe in. Worship whatever God you want to worship. But for goodness’ sake just let people who are not “inherently harmful” live their lives…

    Like

  6. By the way: its astounding to me how an innocent post like this all of a sudden turns into this debate. Why is this even an issue? It’s 2014 guys! I don’t mean to be disrespectful or anything. I love America and I have a ton of friend over there but I simply don’t understand this brouhaha when it comes to LGBT people. Why is this such a big thing?

    Like

    • Brian Victor says:

      The whole LBGT argument, and indeed any sexually behavior outside of strictly life-monogamous, heterosexual relationship, seem to me to be based on at least two ideas. 1) such lifestyles are harmless and 2) since the urges towards such practices are naturally occurring, they are therefore good.

      Both assertions are demonstrably false.

      1) Are they really harmless? Well where would sex trafficking, STDs, unwed pregnancies, and the AIDS epidemic be if people would just sleep only with their life-long spouses? The fact that this argument is about LBGT rights just shows how far we have slid on the moral sensitivity spectrum.

      2) Are natural sexual impulses good? I fully acknowledge that many people are born with a predisposition towards the same sex. People are also born with tendencies to be violent, sociopathic, alcoholic, polygamist, adulterous, dishonest, greedy, proud, pedophiles, on and on. Who is going to define for us which impulses are good and what is their proper expression? To what standard shall we point?

      Like

      • If only you would advocate with the same passion that people who divorce, or have children out of wedlock should be discriminated against I would not call you a hypocrite.

        To re-battle your responses to your own questions:
        1) Unhappy marriages that torture both parties and add create significant damage to the children in those marriages are not good, kind or tolerable.

        2) People who are born blind, disabled, left-handed, too shorter, too tall. They are also born with “predisposition” to require the whole world around them adjusted for proper expression. Is your statement that they should be denied that?

        Like

      • Brian Victor says:

        @XabuXabu – you said, “If only you would advocate with the same passion that people who divorce, or have children out of wedlock should be discriminated against I would not call you a hypocrite.”
        The LBGT issue is merely where the current battle line is. And as you can see from my comments I am raising those issues as well.

        You stated “1) Unhappy marriages that torture both parties and add create significant damage to the children in those marriages are not good, kind or tolerable.”
        That situation is *somewhat* analogous to living with cancer vs having surgery to “cure” it. Of course, the best solution would be for people to set aside their selfishness and work through their problems.

        You stated “2) People who are born blind, disabled, left-handed, too shorter, too tall. They are also born with “predisposition” to require the whole world around them adjusted for proper expression. Is your statement that they should be denied that?”
        I’m am offended that you would make this deliberate distortion of my argument. You show tremendous disrespect to people with handicaps. I won’t even dignify you with a counter-argument.

        Like

  7. @Brian Victor (impossible to reply on this forum once you are two levels in) …

    You are quite incorrect about where the “decent values of our society” (actually not mine as I’m not a Yank), originated from but it’s a book length essay (or quite a long journey of discovery for you), to prove it to you. Religion is the source of a lot of good moral values and an almost equal amount of horrible ones. The beating of wives in the Middle East (and it used to happen in the USA not that long ago in equal amounts) is also sourced from religion.

    It’s a logical fallacy to think that just because Islam is a *more* misogynistic, *more* bigoted, and *more* intolerant version of Christianity, that this somehow excuses the failings of Christianity.

    Another logical fallacy you engage in is the idea that Christianity is only about God and Jesus. there is another Christian god, whose name is Satan. Satan, (in this pantheon, not saying I believe in it), is the source of all evil. Those values are also at the heart of your so-called Christian nation.

    Morality has never been dependant on religion and it’s perfectly easy to be moral and not believe in God. I can say quite truthfully that I am the most moral, decent, honest person I know and I have never believed in God or any religion for as far back as I can remember. I never lie, gamble, cheat etc. I have never hit anyone in anger in my entire life and spend most of my time helping others.

    Clearly (by your own statement in fact) you do not believe that all humans should have the same basic rights as everyone else. I’m not sure why you even referenced my “your in the wrong century” quote since you haven’t actually refuted it. For that reason I’m going to stick with it. If you truly believe these silly, outdated, and easily disproven notions, then you are either a bigot or simply misled, and truly belong in perhaps the 17th or 18th century.

    A lot of people still believe in God because of sheer ignorance about the cosmos or how life works, perhaps you are one of them. But for an intelligent, reasonable person who believes in science, to also believe in God? … that person is undeniably a fool.

    You can’t have it both ways. Either the world is ruled by invisible beings and monsters abound or none of that is true at all

    Like

    • Brian Victor says:

      There is simply not enough time to answer all of your points. I believe you are factually in error on many of your assertions as well as conflating terms (for example, only a non-Christian would even call Satan a “god” for example and as for him being the source of evil, people are plenty evil without his help … IMO he just makes things worse).

      You reference, “failings of Christianity”. Be careful of equating the abuse of a belief system with the system’s merits. Functional atheists like Mao, Stalin, and Hitler have a more impressive body count, for example. And if you wish to extol the virtues of Atheism, I’ll reference you to Nietzsche who took the Atheistic worldview to its logical conclusion (it wasn’t pretty).

      You state “Morality has never been dependant on religion and it’s perfectly easy to be moral and not believe in God”. You have missed my earlier point: what makes something moral or not? Who decides? To what standard do you point?

      You say “all humans should have the same basic rights as everyone else”. Do you really believe that or are you championing what you just happen to like? How are you defining human rights? Why are you (presumably) excluding from protection the sex tourist who wants to bed young consenting girls in SE Asia? What makes his (IMO horrific!!!) behavior wrong?

      You stated, “for an intelligent, reasonable person who believes in science, to also believe in God? … that person is undeniably a fool.” Why? From a survival standpoint alone, does it make any sense to believe we’re destined for oblivion and give up or does it make more sense to seek an afterlife: to strive for it? I happen to be a theistic evolutionist. I’ll admit that I don’t understand how all of the Scripture and science can be harmonized, but if we threw out every incomplete theory we wouldn’t get very far would we. Also, remember Pascal’s Wager. If you’re right, this discussion is quite pointless from the standpoint of eternity. If I’m right, I win and you have missed out on the chance at eternal fulfillment.

      Like

      • thejuanald says:

        “From a survival standpoint alone, does it make any sense to believe we’re destined for oblivion and give up or does it make more sense to seek an afterlife: to strive for it?”

        Please tell me you’re an elaborate troll. If this is real, I’m shocked a person like you could operate a computer. So if I don’t believe in an after life, I must give up? Nah, I’d rather lead a good life and enjoy myself, rather than be fearful of a giant man wearing a dress in the clouds who will be very angered if I don’t make sacrament to him every weekend.

        Like

      • I don’t want to go much further off track from the article and it seems we are worlds apart (living in two different universes in fact), so I will just point out that you conflate a lot of things yourself, when you assume that all Atheists are marching under the same banner.

        Atheism isn’t a “belief system” in the same way as Christianity or Islam is. It’s the absence of one, and the use of logic and reason instead. So you can’t just say “this atheist (Stalin, Nietsche, etc. ) was an jerk, so all atheists are.” That is actually the same error that you (incorrectly I note) accuse me of.

        I would also argue that the Communists at least, are merely substituting one crazy belief system for another and thus more like you, than I.

        Like all religions, those guys you mention basically sat on the top seat of a pyramid of patriarchal worship. They just put themselves at the top instead of a “heavenly father” (ironically, several of them used the same term to refer to themselves.)

        Anyway, thanks for the debate. This will be my last word on the subject. :-)

        Like

      • Brian Victor says:

        @ Mr. Grey – you stated, “you assume that all Atheists are marching under the same banner.”

        I do not. I am well aware of the diversity and that most are living very inconsistently morally with their Atheism given what it assumes about the universe.

        Atheism’s basic belief that there is no God. It manifestly is a belief system with many, many branches that go by various names: existentialism, nihilism, Soviet-style communism, and so on. But if it pleases you, I can live with calling it a non-belief system (the un-cola) of religions.

        I am not aware of accusing you of being a jerk. My apologies if I did. I have been called many things in this forum (delusional, religious nut job, and foolish). I would not wish to be so abusive of others. It hurts emotionally and does not contribute to the conversation so far as I can see.

        you stated – “the Communists at least, are merely substituting one crazy belief system for another and thus more like you, than I.”
        You know, no one here seems interested in tackling the real question, “Who gets to define what is crazy/moral/etc and why should we listen to them?” It is as if everyone picked their side and is not willing to examine what the other side has to say. I’m asking questions and no one is even trying to answer them. Instead I hear a lot of name calling and statements that my side is simply invalid. You at least have attempted something of a dialogue and I thank you for that. Blessings to you. :)

        Like

      • Brian Victor says:

        @thejuanald – You stated, “Please tell me you’re an elaborate troll.”
        Sorry, I am not. And there are many more people who believe what I do.

        @thejuanald – You stated, “If this is real, I’m shocked a person like you could operate a computer.
        Maybe that is why I own a mac? :) Seriously though, I hold a BS in Biochemistry, an MBA, and am an officer in the US military. Also, I’m a top performer in my civilian job at a large company.

        @thejuanald – You stated, “So if I don’t believe in an after life, I must give up?”
        Who is advising you to give? Certainly not me. I’m recommending you to believe in the God of the Universe, follow His ways and receive the unmerited gift of eternal life.

        @thejuanald – You stated, “Nah, I’d rather lead a good life and enjoy myself

        So your life’s plan is to live how you like (within the law of the land and your personal moral code), die, and hope that nothing comes afterward?

        My plan is to enjoy a good life (God willing), do all the good I can, die and live forever with a loving God and fellow believers.

        Which option do you think sounds better?

        @thejuanald – You stated, “rather than be fearful of a giant man wearing a dress in the clouds who will be very angered if I don’t make sacrament to him every weekend.”
        Again, these are simplistic (largely inaccurate) schoolboy arguments. I believe you are capable of doing better than this. First, I’m not aware of any Scripture teaching that God wears a dress and makes a habit of hanging around the clouds in the manner you are picturing. Second, my take on the Scripture is that God is much less concerned about us making weekly Sacraments and more concerned about us living uprightly, standing up for what is good, being forgiving, selfless, and looking for ways to build one another up.

        Like

  8. well make sure that act includes eliminating the discrimination against Christians because of the liberal attitude that all Christians are anti gay!! Go ahead, start with the liberal crap about “having a stance against gay marriage=putting gays in gas showers, bullshit” it only shows the hypocrites that you are!

    Like

  9. “The law to which Tim referred, known as the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, would prohibit companies with 15 or more employees from discriminating based on sexual orientation or gender.”

    So if I apply for a job with Apple and am not hired, can I then sue Apple claiming discrimination on sexual orientation? It’s pretty subjective and open to interpretation.

    Like

    • Billy Devine says:

      Well thankfully people with a bit more common sense than you have wrote the act. If you apply at Apple and are not hired with proof that the reason why you where not hired was because you’re gay then you would have a case under this act. Just because you feel you being a boy/boy type boy is the reason why you didn’t get hired without no actual proof (as in a fact to back that feeling up) it was because you’re gay then no…you have no case.

      Like

  10. Dave Huntley says:

    I am sorry to see the self declared black guy on here saying he understands discrimination, but as a christian he things the law is not warranted.
    If I starta religion that persecutes blacks, would that be any less oppressive to you ?

    Like

  11. Jerry Donel says:

    Cook’s blatant endorsement of ENDA makes a mockery of real civil rights. Why doesn’t he simply call for affirmative action for gays? And when is Apple going to show any evidence that it does NOT discriminate against people of color? I doubt that it could!

    Like

  12. Come on Cook. Focus on new & improved products, and increasing the share price of AAPL, not this social stuff.

    Like

  13. As a member of the LGBT community, reading how some Christians here lump being gay with criminal behavior, and further use AIDS to somehow further justify their bigotry disgusts me to no end; and leaves me no choice but to reject Christianity as a barbaric Iron Age cult promoting bigotry and ignorance. Outside the bubble of Christian indoctrination, being gay is well understood – medically, biologically, scientifically, and morally – as being something someone is born with. It is not a choice. Christian attempts to ‘convert’ gay people to straight are, as a matter of exhaustively proven fact, entirely unsuccessful, and only lead to depression and the suicide of their victims. Of course Tim Cook is known within the community to be a gay man. So to those Apple fans here who are homophobes, I suggest you sell your iDevices and buy Samsung/HTC/Google/Microsoft. Apple users are on the whole do not want to be associated with bigots.

    Like

    • Brian Victor says:

      Aristomenis Tsirbas, I sympathize with your difficult position. I have this question for you. Where would sex trafficking, STDs, unwed pregnancies, and the AIDS epidemic be if people would just sleep only with their life-long spouses? The fact that a “barbaric Iron Age cult” has the behavioral solution to all those problems should give you pause. What stops you from reconsidering your position? That it is merely *hard* to behave decently? Is that not the definition of childish and irresponsible behavior?

      I personally think this issue is much larger than LBGT rights. Being alcoholic, violent, dishonest, adulterous, prideful, etc are also well understood – medically, biologically, scientifically, and morally. Hiding behind the excuse of “I was born this way” is moral cowardice. You are capable of self restraint. The fact that this argument is about LBGT rights at all just shows how far we have slid on the moral sensitivity spectrum. The Christian call is to behave how we *should* despite our fallen natural tendencies. The damage that all these behaviors contribute to is demonstrable. LGBT practices are merely another line of decency being crossed. It will not be the last either. As someone who fights against human trafficking, I fear I will live to see pedophilia being pushed as acceptable and normal as well.

      Like

  14. herb02135go says:

    As a Samsung user, please don’t send bigots this way!

    Like

  15. Are there laws FORBIDDING the hiring of LGBT? No? Then what on earth is an idiotic law like this designed to do? The Civil Rights Act made it illegal for the STATE to discriminate based on race, etc. THAT was correcting an injustice. The problem with the Civil Rights Act, like this law, is that they didn’t stop there but went on to regulate the associations of private individuals as well. It was a bad precedent and a major expansion of government authority.

    Nobody has the RIGHT to be hired or served by anyone. Government cannot discriminate, but private persons can, whether one agrees with their reasons or not. Does Apple hire or fire based on race, religion, sexual orientation? No. Neither does Google, and thousands of other companies. A new law doesn’t do anything but open up lawsuits and expand State authority over private lives.

    Like