Tim Cook’s Apple is no stranger to standing up for social issues including marriage equality.
Almost a year ago to date, the company—not just Tim Cook—voiced public opposition to anti-gay legislation in Arizona which was surprisingly vetoed after weeks of public attention. The company also embraced last year’s annual Pride parade in San Francisco with an official video highlighting participation by thousand of employees and family members. There’s also Tim Cook’s widely praised essay published last year in which he first publicly acknowledged being gay—a first for a Fortune 500 chief executive.
So when Apple realized it hired a former politician with a history of promoting anti-gay legislation to lobby on its behalf to the Alabama Congress, it’s no surprise that the company reportedly severed ties with the individual…
Citing records shared by the Alabama Ethics Commission, BuzzFeed reports that Apple recruited then ousted lobbyist Jay Love:
“The hire appeared to create an unusual relationship between a conservative lobbyist known for anti-gay views and a company run by a gay CEO, but the love for Love appears short-lived.”
As Buzzfeed mentions, Jay Love is “a former state house speaker who sponsored legislation praising a beauty pageant contestant for opposing same-sex marriage”.
When asked, an Apple spokesperson shared a statement with Buzzfeed declaring that Love does not work for Apple or lobby for the company while a lobbyist liaison official confirmed that the former house speaker had been registered as a lobbyist for Apple.
Tim Cook, a native of Alabama, recently spoke at length at the state’s capital where he called on Alabama to push forward on social equality issues in a speech, and Cook recently paid a substantial personal donation to an LGBT equality group that operates in Alabama, Arkansas, and Mississippi.
[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xdjAX5A-6qE]
Cook has also long voiced his support for legislation to protect LGBT employees from discrimination from employers. Meanwhile, marriage equality has been a developing issue with major decisions from the judicial system moving the state forward.
Neither Apple nor Love addressed the hiring and subsequent contract termination, but the evidence from state officials is apparent—the only surprise being that Love wasn’t vetted more closely from the beginning. Apple has noticeably increased its investment in lobbyists—a job field full for former politicians—over the last decade.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
GOOD FOR HIM! And it’s not just Apple that supports Gay Marriage, or even tries to fight this lame “Banned Gay Marriage Bill”.
Where’s the support for twin-cest?
Ask Rush
No one is stopping you from having it.
great news and i love tim’s resolve :)
LGBT and their straight supporters don’t support incest. What hypocrites! Siblings, parents and relatives of Apple employees aren’t eligible for health insurance. Support incest rights and the right to incest!
How do you know LGBT supporters don’t support incest? It’s possible to support more than one cause, you know. I mean the slippery slope of two people of the same sex being allowed to marry leading to the biologically dangerous practice of incest is inevitable, so feel free to rally up your incest supporters and have an annual incest parade!
You’re reply is an example of LGBT hate for incest. Incest couples have the option of aborting fetuses and homosexual incestual couples can’t reproduce. Don’t spread your FUD of biologically dangerous practice! Incestual couples aren’t stupid and know how to have safe sex. You’re just like he bigots that think all homosexuals have AIDS.
There’s no i in LGBT. For a group that like iDevices, iLGBT should be a nobrainer. There are more against incest in the LGBT community that they ignore incest.
There’s no i in TROLL either but obviously that letter doesn’t mean much since you’re still included in that group. :)
I agree. If two brothers marry, there goes the argument for biological dangers because they cant reproduce just like same sex couples. So why not let two relatives of the same sex marry? There is no argument as to why they can not marry
Incest is illegal. Being gay is not.
Slavery was legal. Sodomy was/is illegal. Female votes. Homosexual marriage. What’s your point?
As a straight person it sickens me that someone is given less rights than me because they happen to be gay or lesbian. Good for Apple and good for Tim Cook! I haven’t always agreed with the decisions made by Apple but this is a good one!
But you are fine with the idea that it is alright for a person to have less rights (loose his employment) they happen to believe differently than you.
Working for Apple isn’t protected by the constitution.
What are you talking about? He doesn’t have less rights. Do you even understand what a right is?
1) Employment is not a right. If your views discriminate aginst the CEO of your client company, expect to have a serious talk soon.
2) Being “persecuted for believing differently” is a common false argument used by those who oppose gay marriage. If your views restrict other people, it’s not simply a matter of policing belief or restricting your free speech.
If your beliefs include restricting the freedoms of others, and “others” include Tim Cook, you should probably look into a backup career path.
Losing employment is having less rights?
Nonsense. Get a brain transplant.
What right are you talking about? Marriage? Gays and lesbians can marry and have married under the marriage definition of one man and one woman. Have they not? Now, if you want to talk about marrying the person of your choosing, then we have a problem!
So Apple is so intolerant of those it believes are intolerant that they now base employment on religious and social beliefs! They don’t discriminate do they? After being a loyal Apple customer for many years I believe that I may have to sacrifice that relationship so I am not perceived as tolerating Apple’s bigotry.
“So Apple is so intolerant of those it believes are intolerant that they now base employment on religious and social beliefs!”
Is that even legal? Here in Canada it is not. You can only fire someone based on poor work performance or committing serious crime.
California is an at-will employment state, meaning an employer can terminate your employment for any reason, at any time.
I can’t speak to Canadian law, but in the US, it is most certainly legal. In the US, we have protected classes. On a Federal level, they include: Race, Color, Religion or creed, National origin or ancestry, Sex, Age, Physical or mental disability, Veteran status, Genetic information, and Citizenship.
This means that you can’t terminate someone based on them being one of these classes. However, that does not mean that you can’t terminate someone when one of these classes prevents them from doing their job. In other words, someone in a wheelchair can’t sue because they’re not going to be a quarterback for a pro football team.
Likewise, a lobbyist who believes in things that don’t represent the interests of the client can legally be terminated.
This makes sense, and isn’t bigotry. You can’t have someone effectively advocating a position that they have a history of actively opposing since they would have no credibility on the issue. It’s a conflict of interest and happens all the time with lobbyist and lawyers.
Shameer, as a fellow Canadian I can say that you are really off-base on your remarks. People can be and are fired every day of the week just for “not fitting in” or for any of a variety of shallow reasons. Obviously the employer doesn’t TELL them that or put it on a piece of paper when the individual is fired. This is how the world works pretty much everywhere.
I must say though, on another note, these comments are very entertaining in general. Americans are so backward and it’s times like these that they really show themselves as being so. Why anyone wants to live in that medieval, backward nightmare called the USA I will never know. So funny. :-)
@Gazoo
“People can be and are fired every day of the week just for “not fitting in” or for any of a variety of shallow reasons.”
Correct. Stil doesn’t make it right or even lawful
Exactly! Another case of the hypocrisy of these idiots! Apple is intolerant of people who do not believe the same as they do!! Tolerance my ass!! Just another case of the ‘liberal’ left condemning those that do not think the same as they do. That is not tolerance, it is the very actions they think they are against. Sign of a very weak-minded culture doomed die out, not soon enough either. I am intolerant and I am not afraid to say so!
“Sign of a very weak-minded culture doomed die out,…”
Problem is, is that type of thinking doesn’t just permeate within Apple but with many tech companies – MS, Google, Facebook, etc.. Apple is more forthright about it.
There is a huge difference between someone not having a job and someone not having basic human rights. “Liberals”, as you blanket them all into one pile, don’t care about people believing the same thing. They care about the actions that are taken. If you feel that you are entitled to rights that others are not simply because of their beliefs, then you will be condemned. Equality is not the hard. Losing your job because you don’t reflect the values of the company is their choice. They’re not removing any rights from him in doing so the way he is… But maybe that’s just too hard of a concept for you to understand.
This isn’t a matter or someone not believing as you do. It’s not a polite disagreement among friends. This is a matter of your “beliefs” are harmful to a group of people and restrict rights granted to them. You can believe whatever you want, but when your actions are to petition the government to restrict rights to a group of people, it’s not some harmless belief to be tolerated.
They’re not restricting rights to a group of people. They’re preventing expanding privileges to a group people that can’t reproduce like the other group of people that can reproduce. Where’s the outrage for restricting the rights of incestual couples? Hypocrites don’t care about incestual marriage because it makes them look bad.
This really isn’t the same thing. Apple probably employs a load of employees that are in opposition to marriage equality, etc. What many people here have mistaken is that a Lobbyist isn’t an employee – it’s a contractor. More importantly, it was the wrong contractor for the job. The home-building analogy for this would be that It was hiring a guy who was good at connecting your new home’s electricity to the power company’s grid to install solar panels and keep you off of the grid.
Apple’s going to do some pro-gay lobbying in Alabama. This guy wasn’t the one for the job.
“Apple is so intolerant of those it believes are intolerant” is a false argument I see all the time. Nobody at Apple is saying this guy can’t go to church or worship freely. It’s the SPECIFIC, vocal stance of restricting other people’s rights, that makes this person inappropriate as a representative for Apple Inc.
No one is applying an atheism test to aspiring software engineers.
I don’t believe you’re an Apple customer at all.
So if someone is fired for being FOR gay marriage, is that ok? if its not then thats a double standard.
Isn’t this this the exact same thing the gay community is trying to fight against? Discrimination against someone based on a specific view or belief?
No. You’re implying that being gay is a view of belief. The difference is as simple as rights vs. beliefs. Beliefs are not rights and they’re not defended as such.
Actually you’re (legally) incorrect here. See my post above.
LGBT (or any part) unfortunately isn’t a federally protected class (yet). Religion is. You can fire someone for being LGBT (as far as Federal law is concerned). You can’t fire someone solely for being religiously opposed to LGBT.
Hopefully this will change soon and LGBT will be recognized as a federally protected class.
In this case, the lobbyist is being terminated because he can’t effectively represent the client (Apple) because he has a history of actively being opposed to an issue that Apple supports. In other words, you can terminate someone for not being able to do their job, even if they belong to a protected class.
No, not even close. Sexual orientation is not “a specific view or belief,” it’s an immutable characteristic, and one with a history of being discriminated against. If you’re a professional who thinks it’s ok to eat horses or beat your children, you’re likely to be discriminated against for holding those beliefs.
Sexual Orientation is not an immutable characteristic.. If so, where is the gay gene? How is the gay gene passed from two gay individuals to their offspring? You argument that being gay is an immutable characteristic is false.
A few of you crack me up. “It’s a discrimination circle!! They’re so hypocritical” :-/
Come on, you really believe what you’re saying? This person was a hired contract, not an employee. He was hired to argue on their behalf about a variety of issues. One of those many issues is the equality for LGBT humans. The dude failed his own job description. As others have pointed out, Apple should have vetted him better. But you’re an absolute idiot if you are defending this guy and saying Apple is hypocritical for severing his contract.
He was hired to lobby for Apple’s beliefs. If he opposes those beliefs, he isn’t a fit for the job. Plain and simple. Some of you…are simply beyond belief or plain stupid.
You’re absolutely correct, but in fairness, the legal details involving protected classes are rather complex for someone who hasn’t ever studied law.
Anyone who’s crying hypocrisy here should read:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_discrimination_law_in_the_United_States#LGBT_employment_discrimination
Gay are not a protected class. When did SCOTUS rule that gays and/or straights are a protected class?
@tomweston2015678
Where did I write that gays were a federally protected class? Read my other comments. I specifically wrote that they weren’t. The purpose of that link is to read where and why you can fire someone in a protected class and how it applies to terminating this lobbyist. Read the full article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_discrimination_law_in_the_United_States
Thanks for keeping the discussion civilized!
So Apple is not pro-choice?
This is ridiculous. Nowhere in the article (9to5’s nor Buzzfeed’s) does it mention the reason for the contract termination. Honestly, no evidence that he was fired based upon his beliefs was presented, even by any “source.” It looks like Buzzfeed came to a conclusion that is dubious at best and gossip at worst. The whole article depends upon the assumption that Apple would fire this guy solely upon the fact that he has held anti-gay views. This isn’t news, it’s gossip.
9to5mac has its own agenda they’ve been tring to push for a long time. Zac Hall is clearly bias towards these types of “news” articles attempting to drum up support.
You mean biased?
@zac hall – thanks Internet spelling police!! I’ll PM you for any grammar recommendations too!
He was terminated because his history of anti-gay activities interfered with his ability to represent Apple as a client. Read my other comments here. It’s not a violation of law here for Apple to do this as it’s not his protected class (religion) that was the basis for termination, but rather his inability to do the job. Again, like not hiring someone in a wheel chair to be a quarterback for a pro football team. It’s a conflict of interest and happens all the time with lawyers and lobbyists.
The whole idea of “protected classes” and defending someone’s “freedom of religion” is such bullshit anyway. What are we living in the 1400’s all of a sudden?
The average American has a twisted idea of religious freedom. It’s widely misinterpreted to mean that people have “the right to live life according to their religious beliefs,” even when they conflict with the law, when in fact it’s really only about the freedom to not be beat up or denied service in a public place for believing in whatever nonsense you believe in.
I thought Apple was a tech company. What does someone social beliefs have to do with them getting hired by Apple? Does apple fire people who believe or don’t believe in abortion?
No its not a violation of the law. But, it sure does send a message that if you don’t think like Tim Cook on social issues, then you will not work for Apple. I wonder how Tim fill about abortion!
“He was terminated because his history of anti-gay activities interfered with his ability to represent Apple as a client”
I disagree. Being anti-gay doesn’t interfere with his ability to represent Apple. He doesn’t have to hold the same social views or values as Apple or Tim Cook for him to be able to do his job. He got let go because he disagrees with Cook’s social views. That’s not lawful. That wheelchair / QB example is nothing compared to this.
@Shameer Mulji (@shameermulji)
“Being anti-gay doesn’t interfere with his ability to represent Apple. He doesn’t have to hold the same social views or values as Apple or Tim Cook for him to be able to do his job”
If he were a store manager or some other position, I would agree with you. It would be illegal for Apple to fire someone who did and believed exactly the same as this lobbyist, but was in a different position at Apple where there was no impact.
However… he’s a lobbyist.
So imagine you’re meeting with him to address various LGBT issues. He comes into your office and starts talking pro-LGBT. That’s all fine and good, but… he was just previously at your office talking anti-LGBT for another client.
It’s a conflict of interest.
@kevicosuave
When you put it that way, that makes much more sense.
Choosing to no longer retain a lobbyist who you hired to lobby the same legislative body in which they previously promoted legislation you would actively have opposed makes perfect sense. Apple has a right to end a relationship with a vendor that would create a credibility issue for the company. They aren’t firing an employee for holding anti-equality views.
on the surface it may sound right, but when a person becomes powerful and gets rid of people who don’t think like they do, thats a problem.
I agree! This is an example of how Gay CEOs will act when someone does not think like them on social issues. Tim Cook is a disgrace to Apple. He is setting a bad example for Gay CEOs. Religious Liberty Bills, here they come.
Why not Apple just stay neutral …. to Gay, straight, Poly (coming soon) …… for GOD’s sake it doesn’t have to take a stand on this issue!!
Wow! It looks like we need a religious liberty bill. Instead of the gays claiming that they are discriminated against, it seems like if you don’t believe that marriage includes two people of the same sex the gays will discriminate against you. How hypocritical! This is a prime example of what will happen if SCOTUS force same sex marriage on the states. The gays will force you to believe what thy want by hitting you in your pockets. Actually, people should be happy what Apple has done because it shows how the gay lobby will act towards religious people who won’t bow to the gay lobby pressure. Will it be wrong if a person who does not believe in same sex marriage to not hire a person who believe in same sex marriage?
See my previous comments. You should read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_discrimination_law_in_the_United_States
Apple didn’t terminate an employee solely because he had any specific religious belief. They terminated this lobbyist because he has a history of actively opposing Apple’s position on LGBT issues. The lobbyist couldn’t effectively do the job due to this conflict of interest. It happens all the time with lawyers and lobbyist.
Come on, they fired him because of his religious beliefs which is mostly tied to the same sex marriage debate. Most people know it. It does not take a rocket scientist to read between the lines.
@tomweston2015678,
There are no lines to read between. This isn’t someone who was a store manager or sales person or engineer at Apple. This was someone who was a lobbyist. Their role was specifically to influence others on issues that Apple pays him to. Had he been in another position, it wouldn’t necessarily have affected his job and thus would be illegal to fire him, but here, there’s clearly a conflict of interest because as a lobbyist he represented the exact opposite of what Apple was paying him for.
It’s like a Catholic church firing a priest because they find out he happens to be a satanist. You can say, “Oh come on, they fired him for religious reasons”… yes, but he couldn’t do his job.
They fired him because he was a bigot.
Equal rights trump the rights of bigots. Simple as that.
@Inaba-kun (@Inaba_kun),
“Equal rights trump the rights of bigots.”
Care to point to any law that states this, case precedence or reference in the Constitution?
Again, read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_discrimination_law_in_the_United_States
It clearly states the reasons why Apple had the legal right to terminate the lobbyist. That is, his history of bigoted actions prevented him from doing his job as lobbyist.
He’s bigoted because of his religious beliefs. That’s a Federally protected class. You can’t fire someone because of their religious beliefs. However, when their religious beliefs (or anything else that defines a protected class) prevents them from doing the job, then you can fire them.
It has nothing to do with one right “trumping” another.
That sounds like bigotry in reverse.
Tolerating the intolerant rarely ends well. Sometimes you have to draw a line in the sand and say equal rights are non negotiable.
APPLE IS INTOLLERANT OF OTHER OPINIONS OF MARRIAGE. Maybe someone should let Tim know that SCOTUS has not ruled that same sex marriage is a constitution right and there are many different of marriage. With that being said, is Tim saying he is for all forms of marriage? Would he not hire someone who think polygamy is not marriage? I guess this is how GAY CEOs of major companies will act if you don’t believe in gay marriage. America is no it way to destruction!
Ever heard of a slippery slope argument? Because you just fuckin’ nailed it.
Is that you answer to the questions? A slippery slope argument? I am not making a slippery slope argument, I am making a reality argument. There are other forms of marriage and polygamy is one of them. Polygamy has a longer history than the newly created same sex marriage definition. In fact, polygamy is recognized by more countries around the world than same sex marriage and polygamy has not damaged society. So why would Tim be biased to gay marriage and not other forms of marriage? Just wondering!
Apple, as a company, should not make decisions based on the personal beliefs of their executive employees, e.g. Tim Cook.
I’m all for Gay marriage. With the divorce rate at over 50%, I would hate to exclude the LGBT community from going through ugly divorces, alimony, splits of assets, etc…Be careful what you ask for.
“Someone has a different opinion from me? Fired!” Tim Cook sounds like a bigot to me.
You sound like an idiot to everyone, so I guess it all evens out in the end.
Fortunately you can’t reproduce with your sam.e s.ex partner. The illusion of Society that you are think your safe within will not be there to protect you when it comes crashing down. It’s always the fr.e.a.ks and failed g.e.ne.tics that are thrown under the bus first. I love how this whole generation fails to understand the past. Enjoy the oversized bubble. They always burst.
I don’t think you know what “bigot” means. Your statement is a false argument, a straw man.
This wont end well. If in business you can’t get into anything political. You can’t afford it.
You shun politics and then shun it some more.
Too distracting …. stick to your mission statement and business charter.
Usually when a company “hires” a lobbyist, they hire the person’s company on contract. That’s quite different from hiring an individual to work for you – either on a contract or permanent basis. Think of it like a small company contracting with a third party company to provide IT support. Usually the rights of each party, including termination provisions, are written into the contract.
I’m not from the US and I do not know whether the issue of protected class enters into such contracts and if it does, whether one is permitted to contract out of that protection.
When I contract with a third party, I make sure that there is a clause giving me the right to terminate the contract for any reason upon 10 days notice – and companies that hire me invariably insist on similar language so they can get out of our contract if they want. There is usually a clause dealing with payment should one party pull the plug – generally you get paid for the work done up to the date of termination notice. No reason for terminating the contract is required to be given – it is simply a right that the parties have negotiated and accepted.
Recently, I see more contracts that require me to adhere to the company’s code of conduct and conflict of interest policy and to not do anything that would reflect poorly on the company.
I would expect nothing less from Apple.
In the U.S. (Federal Law):
No, it doesn’t matter if the lobbyist was directly employed by Apple, or contracted, or with a 3rd company. Protected Class law still applies.
Having a “termination for any cause” clause doesn’t help. You can’t contract away civil rights.
Apple’s move was legal because due to his anti-gay activity history, he couldn’t do the job as lobbyist for Apple. Protected class laws don’t protect people in protected classes from being terminated (or not hired, promoted, contracted, etc…) when they can’t perform the job.
And yet Apple is perfectly happy to trade in many countries in which even being gay can earn you a death sentence.
Not exactly very consistent there Tim, or does your stance on equal rights only go as far as token gestures which don’t impact Apple’s profits?
There’s a practicality issue here. Refusing to sell iPhones in a country won’t impact change in that country. Selling iPhones in a country does help expose that country to our culture, information, education, and knowing that they came from a company with a gay CEO. And in reality, Apple can’t prevent iPhones from going to any country at this point anyway.
Sounds like tolerance to me.
Well,go ahead and call me a bigot,it always happens when I try to have a civilized conversation about this.Apple is well within its right to disassociate itself with someone that it disagrees with on a certain issue.Now to get you to call me a bigot!!Since when has marriage become a RIGHT???Marriage is a privilege,which is licensed by each individual state,not a right!Done calling me a bigot yet??Marriage cannot be discriminating either,since it is licensed by the state!!HA,180’d on you…People need to understand that in June when the court rules on the matter,they can only rule on equal opportunity of marriage because there is no definitive definition on the subject.Now,let me 180 again…This is also a state issue as of this moment and all that is happening is because this group knows that Alabama will push the hardest for an absolution.180 again,and sadly…because of the perception of Alabama’s past this group is trying to persuade the public perception into it’s favor.HAHAHA!!Don’t know where I stand on the matter??I don’t care what gay people do,however it galls me that they are trying to disgrace people to persuade opinion on the subject,and that they also think that when a state amendment is struck down that it automatically legalizes something,without going to the highest court.Lastly,who cares what you think Canada,as it has nothing to do with you!
Remember people: Homosexuality is an inborn trait. Homophobia/Bigotry is a lifestyle choice.
So many comments here can be summarized as such: “How dare you not tolerate my intolerance!” smh
Different type of troll then we usually see here.
I am going to say that most likely this mans beliefs on gay marriage probably had no ill affect on his ability to work for Apple. But since Apple is trying to build a culture that supports this belief I guess it makes sense to cut ties with someone who does not believe in it. The unfortunate truth though is that it shouldn’t of affected their relationship whether he was just contracted to do work for them or was a direct employee because Apple’s business has nothing to do with this issue. If this was 10-20 years ago this probably would not of happened.