Apple is out in full force including CEO Tim Cook for the Pride Parade in San Francisco today. Apple’s CEO hasn’t ever been ambiguous about his support for LGBT issues and he was joined by Apple Environment Director Lisa Jackson and what looks like thousands of other Apple employees on Market St. in San Francisco today.  Update: Reuters reported that:

In an unusual step for the sometimes secretive Apple, the company has spoken out about its support for the Pride festival. To help attendees navigate the packed event, the company set up a dedicated LGBT station on iTunes Radio and featured several apps on its App Store, including the Find My Friends app. Company employees also handed out iTunes gift cards to bystanders.

“Apple believes equality and diversity make us stronger, and we’re proud to support our employees and their friends and families in this weekend’s celebration,” Apple spokeswoman Michaela Wilkinson said.

Employees are also handing out $1 iTunes gift cards in celebration.  A ton of Tweets and Instagrams are below and you can follow with hashtags #pride, #ApplePride and #SFPride:

 

 

 

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

70 Responses to “Tim Cook and Apple celebrate #ApplePride in San Francisco today”

  1. Incoming religious debates on why homosexuality is a sin? :p

  2. djmexi says:

    one more reason to choose Apple!

  3. Anyone who wants to argue that the Bible opposes modern gay relationships needs to learn to read. Or just buy one of the many books on the subject like Matthew Vine’s God and the Gay Christian. The Bible can condemn modern gay couples no more than it can condemn roller skates or rocket ships. The Biblical authors had no conception of a monogamous, non abusive same sex coupling, so why would they talk about it or ever discuss it. It’s like saying that Jesus condemned an iPad. If He did nobody would have put it into the Bible because nobody would have known what he was talking about.

    • Nick Pomes says:

      The Bible was written by many of the people who had direct contact with Jesus Christ when He was living as a human. I’m pretty sure it was written to stand the test of time, and 2000 years does not change the beliefs outlined. This is not to say that the church “hates” gays. They are accepted. You can read more about it here: http://www.americancatholic.org/News/Homosexuality/

      • actually, the bible is a collection of writings written and edited and added to over hundreds of years by numerous men, many of which who were not even alive during the time period of the Jesus fables. it was designed as a social code and moral teaching device. these authors were no more fit to govern modern vigil law than Osama bin laden was.

        take so,e “bible as lit” courses in university. here fascinating.

      • “vigil law” = “civil law”. thanks autocorrect!

      • I have to say you are completely wrong about your assessment of the Bible’s author’s. In fact, the author of the Gospel closest in time to Jesus was writing it between 80 and 100 years after Jesus’ supposed death. The other Gospels were written even later than that.

        There are no documents contemporaneous to the life of Jesus that have survived at all, and no proof that any of the Gospels were actually written by anyone who knew him. (Aall this bearing in mind that there is also no actual proof that Jesus even existed).

        All that aside … this is a fantastic development that Apple is now “out” relative to pride parades! :-)

      • Brian Victor says:

        @ Mr. Grey – Hi again. There is no definitive proof either way. But I’d wager that even if you did have compelling evidence that contemporaries of Jesus wrote the gospels it would make no difference. You don’t want to believe.

      • memeographs says:

        Accurately quoted or not Jesus’ words only have weight if one believe a mystical being endowed them with magic. Not everyone believes this.

      • @Brian Victor: There actually is “definitive proof” and it’s not in question at all. The Gospels are supposedly written by contemporaries of a guy called Jesus that supposedly lived back then, but the most recent documents we have are copies of copies of copies and all were written long after the man supposedly died. Many by hundreds of years. It doesn’t mean that we won’t find earlier copies some day if you want to hang your hat on that belief, but for the present, there simply are no contemporaneous documents.

        I also take offence that you interpret my remarks as “I don’t want to believe.” It’s not about belief, it’s about reason, facts and reality. I don’t believe in magic, karma, religion or any of that stuff, but it’s not because “I don’t want to,” it’s because there are no facts to support any of that, and mountains of evidence that argues against it.

        People believe in all kinds of stuff like Ghosts and Faries and Angels and so forth that similarly have no evidence at all to support them despite hundreds of years of people looking for this evidence. That’s their right of course. But as the saying goes, you have the right to believe what you want, but you don’t have the right to say that they are facts, when they are not.

      • Brian Victor says:

        @ Grey. – You said, “I don’t believe in magic”. Really? What else is, say, an electron but a mysterious force that just happens to follow certain mathematical principals (we say obey, but pretty much take it on faith that electrons will continue to follow the patterns they do). Now, according to popular theories, the universe just (ahem) magically happens to have existed forever. So if you can have faith enough to believe in *that* (I assume you do, so correct me if I am wrong please), why would you ridicule someone for believing in a God who “magically” happens to have created and ordered everything? And if you pull an Occam’s Razor out that it is simpler to assume the Universe always existed, I’ll hand you an Objective Morality paradox and your Razor will do you no good getting out of that one my fine sir.

        But really, what is the point in believing that everything will ultimately come to nothing: the definition of pointlessness?

      • peterpayne says:

        I’ve studied the Bible, both as a person if faith then as someone who’s moved beyond that to view it as a useful piece of literature that’s enjoyable to read. Definitely, the Bible is a collection of books that have been written, rewritten and edited, and which reflect ridiculously small worldview of a bunch of sheep herders (at first) then a tiny and quite unimportant pair of kingdoms in the region. They didn’t even know that God was the “one true God” until they thought of that, and you can see how concepts of heaven slowly evolved. The thoughtful Biblical scholar will actually think about what he reads rather than just saying that it’s all the Word of God.

        Jesus knew the Bible (then Old Testament) better than modern Christians did, and he knew of its many faults, and talked about them all the time.

    • i agree with you but lets not argue what hasn’t been brought up yet.

    • Wil Cee says:

      Since you started it…

      Nothing Matthew Vines has written is new or accurate. He’s just rehashed old revisionist arguments from the Gay Power 70s to the gay rights movement of the 90s. He’s just a new face on tired, old approaches that have already soundly repudiated. The writings of the Bible span at least 1600 years of history, various civilzations and empires and languages. The issue was never same-sex monogamy, or same-sex domestic abuse, the issue has consistently been sexual activity between same genders. Those other qualifiers don’t excuse the main issue. It’s too bad Matthew Vines doesn’t have the courage of his convictions and debate an actual scholar, such as Dr. Robert Gagnon.

    • borntofeel says:

      Christians are changing their minds not because of the Bible, but because of how society is changing and pushing them to interpret things differently in that book, as it has happened thousand of times. It’s really convenient to constantly adapt your views and then say it was always written in the bible in the first place.

  4. Being associated with homosexuality is a big reason why a lot of people avoid Apple’s products.

    • i’m sure Apple is so disappointed about that. i mean, i know i’d be upset if i didn’t have hate and bigotry representing my brand.

    • Generally the sort of people who use terms like, “Being associated with homosexuality” are also associated with climate change denial, lack of family planning, rape victim blaming, cross burning on lawns etc. Also most of those customers can’t afford Macs. I’m betting Apple doesn’t mind losing them as customers.

      • Agreed. I have never met anyone against homosexuality who wasn’t doing so based on a religious objection, and people who believe in that sort of nonsense will believe all the other rot as well.

        The biggest (and possibly only) “intellectual” argument against homosexuality is, “It ain’t right!” (with the always implied but rarely said out loud “… because God says so.” chaser).

      • Brian Victor says:

        @ David Malcolm Puranen – Strange. I know that I don’t like being associated with homosexuality (since the Bible defines it as a form of immorality), yet I believe climate change is happening (to some extent anyway), strongly advocate family planning, have served as a rape victim advocate in the military and currently support an organization that helps sex trafficked women and children, have never approved of burning crosses in any political context, and yet I am able to afford the MacBook on which I am now typing. Perhaps I’m in a minority.

      • Brian Victor says:

        @ Mr. Grey – Homosexual behavior is part of a spectrum of socially harmful sexual behaviors. But let’s leave aside its contribution to the AIDS epidemic, the proclivity of its community members to be promiscuous, and cut right to the heart of your problem: you don’t want to do what God says because he says there are some passions that it is bad for you to follow in the manner you want to follow them. Fine then. Call the man upstairs crazy because he says the moral bridge ahead is out.

        Consider this though: every major STD would be virtually gone in a hundred years if we just slept with who God said we should sleep with. Think of it: Apple wouldn’t need a Product Red and it could go on to solving other problems. But I guess saying that it is a good idea for people to have sex only with their marriage partner is just plain hick crazy talk.

      • @Brian Victor — Every STD would also be gone if we just did what scientists recommend and use condoms. Plus all the other reasons why that’s a silly and fallacious argument, e.g.: gay couples can also be married and monogamous, and HIV is a huge problem for straight people too, such as those in parts of Africa. And of course, there’s lesbians who have lower rates of STDs that straight people. So if you *really* want to use that as some measure of God’s will, then be consistent and accept that he likes lesbians more than any other sexuality group. (which is of course silly, but it’s the logical extension of your own silly reasoning…)

      • Brian Victor says:

        @ Richard Martin – You said, “Every STD would also be gone if we just did what scientists recommend and use condoms.” Really? Last I checked condoms had a failure rate of 18% at preventing pregnancy (http://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/unintendedpregnancy/contraception.htm) which means the prevention rate against STDs is certainly not zero.

        You said my argument was silly and fallacious. Which part? That typical (male) homosexual behavior helps spread STDs? How is that assertion not true? I did not endeavor to give you a treatise on the whole subject, but since you are tossing accusations at me, allow me to direct you to my other comments which indict, as part of the global STD and Sex Trafficking problem, anyone who does not advocate a strict life-long monogamous heterosexual relationship. Yes, this includes an indictment against lesbians, who while they have a much lower disease rate, are as a group egging on the whole myth that people can follow their passions with whom they want when they want in the way they want (so long as it is consensual).

      • peterpayne says:

        To Mr. Grey, FWIW my mother was against homosexuality, not due to religious issues, but because she always liked rainbow colors, and “they” stole her beloved rainbow colors so that she couldn’t display them without suddenly making a political statement that didn’t apply to her. Just throwing that out there.

    • Dave Huntley says:

      You know I think they gain for more in producing a good product – and look at how they supported their HUNDREDS of gay and gay friendly staff today – isn’t it just great to support a company that not only makes good, but looks after those who make it good, and helps the community they reside in too?
      Pretty wonderful for the enlightened. More companies should be supporting their people and their communities. A great role model.

    • I’ve never heard in my life that people don’t like apple products because, gay. that’s absurd.

      stop making things up.

    • Brian Victor says:

      I think it prudent to remember this passage in light of such an observation as one should avoid Apple because of its anti-Christian stances.
      1 Corinthians 5:9-11 (NIV) 9I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— 10not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. 11But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sisterc but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people.

    • Here is my take on it. I don’t Homosexuality and I don’t support it. But I am not going to discriminate against a person because of that. I even have friends who are gay. Or to put it simpler I hate the lifestyle not the person. I treat then the same as I treat other people and a company supporting of not supporting it doesn’t influence what I buy. You do what you want by your on free will. Just treat others like you want to be treated because if I take away your rights you could just as easily take away mine.

      • I meant to type “I don’t like homosexuality”, if I type to fast my autocorrect starts deleting incomplete words for some reason.

      • Brian Victor says:

        This is the conundrum of Romans 13:4 “4For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.”

        To what extent shall the one in authority punish the wrongdoer? Certainly Christians would (in general) like to see God’s laws affirmed by the State. While this may be a desirably state of affairs in theory, it is subject to great abuse. Also, there is no Biblical mandate for it that I am aware of. For all truth of Proverbs 14:24 which says “Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin condemns any people.” there is also John 18:36 “36Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders. But now my kingdom is from another place.”

      • borntofeel says:

        My lifestyle is to be in a stable gay relationship for years…

    • memeographs says:

      Yes. They are suffering so greatly having just been displaced from the largest corporation in the world by the equally gay friendly Google.

  5. lkernan says:

    Apparently Samsung was last seen trying to rally some of it’s workers for a walk in Seoul.

  6. raist3001 says:

    Sorry David, while I am sure you can read, you certainly can not comprehend. Anyone who says Gods Word does not condemn homosexuality has an agenda. Gods Word is clear on this point, and no amount of twisting, or re-writing, or trying to push the gay Christian agenda is going to change that. If you want to know what the Bible actually says on this topic, then read any writing by the church fathers.

    • Gods Word is also unequivocally against Shrimp. How do you determine to ignore the Bible when it comes to shrimp, but follow it when it comes to homosexuality? Please explain.

      • Brian Victor says:

        First of all, why would God hate something he created? I’m not aware of any Scripture that proves God hates his creation, but he certainly hates the wrong things people do when they should know better. Secondly, the context of holding Shrimp as an abomination (see Leviticus 11:9-12) is best understood as holding them ceremonially unclean–this is not the same thing as hating them as any serious Bible scholar could tell you. Thirdly, not all of the Old Testament applies any more. There were civil, ceremonial, and moral laws in the Old Testament. Only the moral laws continue to apply. If you’d like to learn more, this article is an excellent resource: http://carm.org/leviticus-homosexuality-old-testament-law

      • telecastle says:

        At Brian Victor: Jesus claimed that the laws that had been kept for over a thousand years before his birth no longer applied – such as eating shellfish or pork. However, Jesus also never condemned homosexuality. The condemnation of homosexuality only exists in what you call “The Old Testament”. How can you choose some laws of “The Old Testament” to apply and others not to apply? By the way, do you wash hands before eating? Why? Jesus canceled that law as well.

      • Brian Victor says:

        @telecastle – You claim that “Jesus … never condemned homosexuality.” Answer: Not specifically. He did say in Matthew 5:17-18: “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.” What part of the law did Jesus fulfill if not the parts which pointed to his coming? Those were the civil and ceremonial parts of the law. Once fulfilled, they were no longer needed. But the moral stipulations (of which eating shrimp was not included) are still in effect. And just to be clear, the New Testament does condemn homosexuality

      • Eric Cole says:

        @telecastle – the entire New Testament can be stated to have been written by Jesus – either by his direct presence on the earth, or after his crucifixion and resurrection. John 1:1 clearly tells us that. And in the NT, homosexuality is stated to be against the natural order.

        Even if you are a believer in evolution homosexuality would be against the “natural order” as that would NOT be “survival of the fittest” for the species. I always find it so amazing how the liberal minded are so inconsistent from topic to topic.

    • a god didn’t write the bible. ancient men did, for hundreds of years….these ancient men also advocated slavery and stoning daughters to death should they be unfortunate enough to be raped.

      these ancient men are no more qualified to dictate modern civil law than Adolf Hitler.

      • Godwin! Right here!

      • blakegentry777 says:

        Might I ask for textual evidence for the stoning of raped daughters?

      • Brian Victor says:

        @ mdelvecchio99. I too would be interested to see your proof test that says raped daughters should be stoned to death. Perhaps you are contriving a case where a girl was raped, did not tell anyone, and then could not give proof of her virginity and was thus stoned under Deuteronomy 22:21. This scenario, of course, ignores what might have happened if she then made the claim that the reason she had lost her virginity was because she had been raped. Which brings us to Deuteronomy 22:25 and following which makes it very, very plain that rape is a terrible crime. It prescribes the death penalty to the rapist if the girl was pledged to be married. If she was an un-pledged virgin, he had to marry her. While our modern Western mind may see this as furthering victimizing the girl, make note that the Scripture says nothing about the girl being forced to live or have sex with the man ever again while the marriage bond absolutely demands that he must financially support her in addition to the 50 shekels he had to pay her father. It also does not say anything one way or the other about whether or not she had to consent to the marriage and it stands to reason that the girl’s wishes would have been taken into consideration in a loving home.

        As for advocating slavery, the “slavery” which God made laws for in the Old Testament was really a form of indentured servitude, was highly regulated, mandated that people protect abused escapee “slaves”, and even provided them cities of refuge. And in case you have a problem with the kind of “slavery” which God regulated, I suppose you must also have a great deal of angst over the military which is a modern form of indentured servitude.

    • mike3k says:

      The bible is a work of fiction, just like all other ancient myths.

      • Eric Cole says:

        Thus stated by someone who obviously has never studied ancient literature, or its origins, or any of the prophetic writings of the Bible. Name one thing that is mythical in the Bible, that you can prove to back up that statement?

    • And it is clear that you haven’t read anything regarding the oral law or the commentaries that were written by Jewish scholars over the centuries in terms of interpreting the Tanakh.

  7. Dave Huntley says:

    Everyone is entitled to their opinion of course, but I have to say, it is always refreshing to read of a company that doesn’t just have brain, it has a warm heart. All those employees walking today have much to be proud of and I hope you all make your community a happy and safe place! The sun was truly shining on you all today.

  8. glock858 says:

    what no hetero day? i cry racism….

    • Go on over to AppleInsider.

      All the old, white, male, bigots that dominate that forum are in their element today. You will feel right at home.

      SolipsismX, Tallest Skil, Apple ][, and Rogifan are all there trying their best to condemn Apple for going to the parade and yet simultaneously imply that they certainly aren’t bigoted at all. The intellectual knots they are tying themselves into are quite amusing. It feels like a KKK convention.

    • Dave Huntley says:

      Start your hetero day! White Day, Black Day! You get off your butt, you get a group of people around you with similar thoughts, you petition the city for a right to stage a parade et voilà, c’est ça! The point is you have the same right to start your hetero day as anyone has to start a Pride day. That is what this is all about. Everyone having the same rights!

      But no one is going to give your own day, you still have to get off your butt d put some effort in.

    • Arthur Peña says:

      What struggles have heterosexuals had to endure because of their heterosexuality? Please enlighten me. Heteros don’t get their own day because you have never experienced oppression for being straight. Sorry bout’ it.

  9. Aaaaand now I have a new favourite T-shirt I probably can’t buy.

  10. I have no debates on “sinfulness.” The biggest sin is not loving.

  11. Why the custom logo!? They could have just cracked out the old 80’s rainbow Apple logo and given us some 80’s retro Apple realness! iTunes cards were kinda cool though, would have been better if they attached a condom to them.

  12. While not an Apple employee, I know firsthand that Apple has a great corporate culture. They really do care about their employees and their customers, and events like this are a great demonstration of that. I don’t have any doubt that if this has any effect on people purchasing Apple products, it will be a net gain. I also don’t have any doubt that’s not why Apple did it.

    As far as the religious arguments, for Christians the New Testament supercedes the Old Testament, and in the New Testament, the second greatest commandment, second only to loving God, is “You shall love your neighbor as yourself”. It doesn’t make any exceptions, based on anything you might know about your neighbor. We need to just do that for everyone, and leave any judgements about people to God.

  13. Carlos Bcn says:

    Wow. I really can’t believe some of the comments here: It’s 2014 people! LGBT community is fighting for Civil rights, just like women fought for their right to vote back in the day, or african-americans fought their right to keep a seat on a bus. It’s a fight for social equality, not for religious acceptance.
    If anyone wants to believe in a god, it’s a personal CHOICE. Being LGBT is not (As much as being heterosexual is not a choice. Or can you remember at what point anyone “decide” to be straight or gay?).
    Great for Apple for being supportive of minorities in an “unapologetic” way.

  14. Jim Phong says:

    This is just another proof and good reason why Tim Cook was a bad choice as Apple CEO. Steve Jobs did a terrible mistake choosing him, he should have selected an engineer that even if gay wouldn’t have gone around like a clown showing his nonsense “pride” … this is just a shame for an Apple CEO.

    • Don’t forget your PC has been created by a gay and Atheist guy called Alan Turing. Please, throw or give all your technologies to us and go back to the cave.

    • Eric Cole says:

      Very true. People should NOT use the company to promote or support such volatile social causes. Individually people can do what they want, but when you start handing out iTunes cards specifically made for the event, people with an active, undisturbed conscience really have to rethink their future purchases.

  15. Eric Cole says:

    There are so many inaccurate comments here about the Bible and who wrote it that it is pathetic. Those who claim that the gospels weren’t written in the first century AD simply do not know history. You can choose not to believe what they are, but it is historical fact of the timeframe they were written. Every book in the Bible can be dated to a within a small timeframe. To argue against the dates of the books is to simply show your ignorance of the historical reality.

    BUT, that isn’t really the point of me commenting. I find it very interesting what is NOT shown in this article, and what is usually kept from the general public regarding these events. The absolute freakishness of these events. If the average American saw this, they would generally be appalled and would have very little regard for those claiming LGBT status. And how could they not – seriously?

    The short clip on this page, which is condemning the clip though the actual people in the clip condemn themselves, shows the reality of any “pride” parade: http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/07/08/gay-pride-parades-are-still-funny-on-the-oreill/200017

    It is funny in that he calls them “right-wing stereotypes” but the reality is that those “stereotypes” are on open display at the parade – no one stereotyped them, but themselves. From the article:

    “The segment touched on a number of typical right-wing stereotypes about gay people and pride parades; Gay people are promiscuous and predatory (and wear tight pants)! Why are there no straight pride parades? Gay pride parades shove homosexuality down people’s throats!”