Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Nah, he's just your average guy that happens to be CEO of the largest publicly traded corporation in the world by market capitalization and the first U.S. company to be valued at over $700 billion. What possible influence could he have?
Just another rich person who thinks he can influence moral values. What a jerk. Why do you give rich people such reverence when it comes to your own personal values?
Business can influence values. It does so by avoiding locations with laws they disagree with. That costs the offending location jobs, and in doing so, drives down the value of labor in their regions.
Let Tim Cook put his money where his mouth is. All the rest of them too. The U.S. has 21 states and the federal government with Religious Freedom Restoration Act
Let Apple close all their Apple Stores in Chicago, Indianapolis, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Phoenix, etc and stop doing business with the federal government.
Timing is everything. Coming on the heels of the legalization of gay marriage leaves little doubt that this bill was aimed at gays.
Let Tim Cook put his money where his mouth is. All the rest of them too. The U.S. has 21 states and the federal government with Religious Freedom Restoration Act
...
Let Apple close all their Apple Stores in Chicago, Indianapolis, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Phoenix, etc and stop doing business with the federal government.
Big difference between Indiana and these other states. Indiana legislators, when passing this law, made statements that the law was specifically designed to let businesses (such as florists and bakers) run by religious people turn away gay customers.
When interpreting what a law means when the meaning is disputed, the primary job of a court is to figure out what the legislators intended it to mean and to give it that meaning. So when interpreting this law and what is meant by "compelling governmental interest," Indiana courts will have no choice but to determine that protecting people from discrimination based on their sexual orientation is not a compelling governmental interest for the State of Indiana and that Indiana's RFRA does provide businesses run by religious people the right to ignore local anti-discrimination ordinances that (attempt to) protect people from being discriminated against because of their sexual orientation.
This isn't true for the other states that have RFRAs. They weren't passed with legislators specifically saying that the intent of the law was to allow discrimination against gay people even when local city laws/ordinances forbid it. And many of these states also have state-wide laws that prevent discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Those law serve to declare - unlike in Indiana - that protecting people from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is a compelling governmental interest in those states.
Big difference between Indiana and these other states. Indiana legislators, when passing this law, made statements that the law was specifically designed to let businesses (such as florists and bakers) run by religious people turn away gay customers.
When interpreting what a law means when the meaning is disputed, the primary job of a court is to figure out what the legislators intended it to mean and to give it that meaning. So when interpreting this law and what is meant by "compelling governmental interest," Indiana courts will have no choice but to determine that protecting people from discrimination based on their sexual orientation is not a compelling governmental interest for the State of Indiana and that Indiana's RFRA does provide business run by religious people the right to ignore local anti-discrimination ordinances that protect people on the basis or sexual orientation.
This isn't true for the other states that have RFRAs. They weren't passed with legislators specifically saying that the intent of the law was to allow discrimination against gay people even when local cities laws forbid it. And many of these states also have state-wide laws that prevent discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Those law server to declare that protecting people from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is a compelling governmental interest in those states.
Even the dimmest pol knows who lobbies for what. You can bet that it wasn't Indiana's unitarians who suddenly felt an urgent need for this bill.
Tim Cook runs the most valuable company in the world.
You think he's a dumbass. What have you done? Did you graduate high school?
No one says he's a dumbass. He is just not the person to decide what is right and what is wrong. It's not rocket science.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
