I am a strong believer of "With great power comes great responsibility" and many times have been pretty disappointed that celebrities, CEOs and the super rich have largely been silent.
Its great to see Tim Cook voicing his opinion on stuff that does not concern Apple.
Laws that encourage discrimination against employees do concern companies. Apple has historically cared about this stuff; here's an example[1] from 1993 of a Texas county getting upset about Apple's tolerant HR policies... Apple stood their ground and won.
I find wealthy public figures using there power and influence to push personal vanity causes in the public square as rather cheap and selfish. Not just Cook but in general. You do not magically gain moral or ethical credentials simply because you have managed to become extremely rich selling cellphones.
The tone of the piece simply echoes the Anti-Religious Freedom talking points that have made the rounds in the liberal press. Which have been rather cheap and inaccurate. that ruined its authenticity. its calculated and agenda driven. much like groups that try to sue little old lady bakers into bankruptcy because they feel that baking cakes for homosexual 'marriages' violates there religious vows. Its all rather cheap and hypocritical.
I'm curious what Cook's position is on the Israel/Palestine conflict. Apple's making heavy investments in Israel and Cook has met with Netanyahu who's extremely right wing. Netanyahu's party wants no Palestinian state west of Jordan and for Israel to be an officially Jewish state. Gaza's essentially an open air prison. Of all the things Apple's involved with, that seems to be the most at odds with his expressed values of freedom, equality and human dignity.
Maybe so, but this isn't so far fetched. Tim Cook is making public statements on human rights and their infringement by the state. His company is making substantial investments in Israel (in the hundreds of millions to billions range) and has had meetings with Netanyahu as a result - a politician who doesn't have a particularly subjective position - his position on Gaza and such is fairly concrete and described above.
So yes, we could ask, is Tim Cook a champion of human rights violations by the state against some or all repressed individuals?
I am not sure whether I should feel happy that someone higher in power took their time to talk about something important, or feel disappointed that someone actually has to talk about something that seems obvious. I guess we all live in very different worlds.
I think in general, businesses should be free to decide with whom they do business, which many posters in this and the flag-killed earlier thread already stated. Being a heterosexual white male doing business this right comes to my mind first, because the right not to be discriminated mostly benefits me only secondarily. Nevertheless you have to acknowledge when other people's rights trump yours. I think it is undebatable that this should be the case here, even if you are concerned with religious beliefs, which I am not.
I also think, that religion should get no special treatment by law. In Germany we have § 166 StGB, which is highly in conflict with freedom of expression, because it says, that you can be put in prison for up to 3 years if you hurt somebody's religious feelings publicly. Courts mostly ignore the law anyway by valuing freedom of press/art/etc. above it.
On the other hand if you join any big German party, you have to confirm, that you are not a member of Scientology (what I totally support), arguing, that it is not a religion, but a sect trying to get traction here. So religious laws do not apply for everything you call your religion anyway, making them senseless in a way, because the small ones do need protection more than the big ones, but are effectively less protected.
I can rarely think of a religious rights law, that is not covered by a civil liberty law or should not exists anyway.
If I could mix the perfect religious legislation i would choose the French approach, Laïcité [0], and add the German right for children to get religious education in school to prevent extremism by giving up the interpretation to other groups.
The text of the bill seems really.... non-offensive.
"A governmental entity may substantially burden a person's exercise of religion only if the governmental entity demonstrates that application of the burden to the person: (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest." [1]
That seems... pretty reasonable? The government can't limit exercise of religious freedom unless they have a reason and they do so in the least restrictive way possible?
Sexual orientation could be added as a protected class. That'd perhaps be the best of both worlds? There's seemingly not been a lot of traction on that. I'm not sure why exactly. Can anyone explain?
Several cities in Indian have added sexual orientation as a protected class. This law effectively overrides that if the person doing the discrimination claims it is for religious reasons.
In other jurisdictions when their RFRA laws conflicted with their anti-discrimination laws, the anti-discrimination laws have tended to win. The anti-discrimination laws won because the RFRA laws were interpreted as prohibiting government action that burdened the exercise of religion. They did not provide a defense when a person was sued under an anti-discrimination law by a person claiming to have been discriminated against, because government was not a party to the lawsuit.
The Indiana law contains specific language that says it applies to lawsuits even if no government entity is a party.
On your first point, it doesn't quite override that if they claim it's for religious reasons. It simply sets the benchmark with which the law must be judged. There must be a substantial burden. There must be a compelling government interest. And the restriction must be the least restricting way to achieve that interest.
That at bare minimum makes it not as apocalyptic as more than a few news reports had led me to believe.
However odious the law is, businesses meddling in politics is even more scary and odious. Even if it's for the "good thing" (because of course everybody defines thet "good thing" to be what he stands for).
It's a technique that one uses to cut through with people who don't care about anything but the bottom line.
Essentially, you say that first and foremost, it's bad for business. Plus, it also has some negative effects on society and the ability for people to participate as equal members in society; you know, for airy fairy types with lofty ideals in ivory towers who care about such things.
It's somewhat upsetting that people see the need to frame things this way, but unfortunately it's an effective way to deliver a message without being 'partisan' (whatever that is).
The business community has figured out a lot of things great for business. Non-Discrimination is on the list, but so is wage-fixing (on one hand) and providing alcohol to minors (on the other).
Leveraging Apple's weight here just seems inappropriately selective to me.
On this one, I think both shard972 and gotothrowaway are both equally correct.
Business isn't a monolithic entity, nor is the 'business community'. I'm not sure arguing down this line makes much sense, as it's very very easy to construct straw-men.
Remember that Tim Cook and Donald Trump are both in the business community. I wonder how much they have in common...
I wonder if this piece is enough for Apple to become the next target of boycotts from religious groups. There's many places of worship whom hold different views and are Apple customers.
Personally, I'm on Cook's side. Just pointing out the line that potentially may have been drawn.
> A wave of legislation, introduced in more than two dozen states, would allow people to discriminate against their neighbors.
I would hate to live in such a world where such thing would be considered illegal but ok.
> say individuals can cite their personal religious beliefs to refuse service to a customer or resist a state nondiscrimination law.
So? I don't see how this is a problem, as a business owner you are allowed to discriminate against who you do and do not want to be your customers. It happens all the time and to religious people themselves when they are boycotted by LGBT groups.
> Legislation being considered in Texas would strip the salaries and pensions of clerks who issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples
If we start with the premise that we need to be afraid of every considered bill then I don't know how you could ever not be afraid these days. Just simply a bill being considered doesn't mean anything.
> They go against the very principles our nation was founded on, and they have the potential to undo decades of progress toward greater equality.
The US was founded on principles of freedom of expression and association. The freedom to associate is also the freedom to not associate, only Tim skips over all that.
> America’s business community recognized a long time ago that discrimination, in all its forms, is bad for business.
Really Tim? All forms of discrimination? What world do you live in?
> This isn’t a political issue. It isn’t a religious issue. This is about how we treat each other as human beings. Opposing discrimination takes courage.
Except it is political (legislation), it is about religion (Freedom of association for religious reasons) and NO, it doesn't take courage to say what apparently the whole business community believes according to you Tim.
> The US was founded on principles of freedom of expression and association. The freedom to associate is also the freedom to not associate, only Tim skips over all that.
So freedom for a business to not associate with anybody who is not white is ok?
There's a thing you can do with real estate called a "restrictive covenant". Basically this means that as part of the agreement to sell a piece of property, you attach a rider like "but the purchaser isn't allowed to do X with the property, and must pass this restriction on to future purchasers".
This is pretty basic and pretty well established to be legal. For example, people sometimes use restrictive covenants on land they want to ensure is preserved/undeveloped.
Back in the day, though, many people used this to enforce racial segregation. There would be a restrictive covenant along the lines of "Purchaser agrees never to sell the property to a black person, and to pass this restriction on to future purchasers".
This came up in court eventually during the era of the civil rights movement, and the US Supreme Court took an interesting approach (Shelley v. Kraemer, for anyone interested in the full details): restrictive covenants which restrict sale according to race are legal, but unenforceable. Private individuals are free to discriminate as much as they want, but the government, which is legally bound not to discriminate, cannot intervene to enforce it, since doing so would require the government to take part in the discrimination (which is illegal/unconstitutional).
That is a fun story, and a great example of a deeper analysis of the sort you aren't going to get from Cook. Thank you for sharing it. :) It would be interesting to see whether there is an application of this to hiring practices (I don't see a clear way this could be done).
> That’s why, on behalf of Apple, I’m standing up to oppose this new wave of
> legislation — wherever it emerges. I’m writing in the hopes that many more will
> join this movement. From North Carolina to Nevada, these bills under
> consideration truly will hurt jobs, growth and the economic vibrancy of parts of
> the country where a 21st-century economy was once welcomed with open arms.
This is bizarre. In what way does a 21st-century economy depend on same-sex marriage?
Am I too cynical for thinking this probably has more to do with PR and/or company morale?
Simple example: Your new gay employee needs to move to a new city to start his job, but is denied any service from realtors after they asked for his sexual orientation. Still he manages to find a new apartment but has to drive 30 miles to the next super market, because the local ones decline to serve him.
He seems to mainly be talking about discrimination against gays, though doesn't say it directly. I wonder if he really means it that Apple won't discriminate against pedophiles, incestuous couples or the grey areas on the boundaries of age of consent? Or is it like the old "universal suffrage" that turned out only to be universal to men, and not women?
What sexualities do you think he's talking about? Surely not all of them. But he doesn't explicitly say which groups, if any, he supports discrimination against.
What are Tim Cook's credentials here? Did he say anything that hasn't been said by others? Is his take novel or particularly developed?
This is an incredibly complex issue. As a left-leaning person who wants to see discrimination eradicated, but as a person who also wants to see it eradicated without it being the purview of some constellation of legal obligations, I recognize deep rooted conflicts.
Take for example the ACLU's (IMO correct) defense of Neo Nazi groups to march in solidarity. This is the type of freedom that our country is based on. It's not something I personally affirm, but I have to defend the right on principle.
Tom Cook talks up one side of the issue. His credentials have nothing to do with the topic. If we were in a critical thinking class we would recognize this as a cut and clear case of an appeal from authority.
For one, this issue seems to be one which he is personally taking on himself. Part of it seems to be his identity as a gay man. He also takes pains to frame the issue with regards to a faith which is deeply personal to him.
I don't know that he is necessarily trying to use this as a rhetorical cudgel, to beat the conclusion into the minds of those who support discriminatory legislation. This letter/editorial seems to be framed as Tim, with the support of Apple, raising a rallying flag or even just joining in the rally of businesses who are against this legislation.
But apparently it's not Tim Cook who is using this as a 'rhetorical cudgel' (whatever that is). It's WaPo.
I don't know what to make of this. One interpretation is that WaPo have enlisted Tim Cook as some kind of patsy or useful idiot. The same Tim Cook who is CEO of one of the world's largest and most profitable corporations.
As Dr Evil would say, 'Riiiiiiight....'
I suspect Tim Cook is stating his actual opinion on this one; as a gay man, who doesn't want laws passed in his own country that would allow businesses to withhold service solely because he's a gay man. Seems sensible to me.
Who said Tom Cook was enlisted? That's not a very charitable interpretation...
Here's the interpretation. Tom Cook has ideas. They aren't particularly interesting ones (they aren't 'idiotic', rather they seem mundane). Tom Cook made statements including his ideas. He is nobody's patsy.
WP made an appeal from authority in its article about Tom Cook. It implied that his ideas were interesting somehow because he is an authority figure. But on their own - no the ideas are not anything new.
The opinions of powerful people are indeed appeals from authority by the media that (selectively) publish them.
So I would agree with this, sans the universal (there are powerful people who are experts in an area of law as a counterexample).
How could a media outlet make it more clear something is an opinion? They could put it in the title and in the body of the article as a start. They could add content to contextualize the opinion and remind the reader that the opinion maker holds no authority on the matter. They could link to opinion holders with opposing views but equal status. There are a myriad of ways they could do this - some of them very minimal ("Tom Cook opinion: Pro-discrimination 'religious freedom' laws are dangerous").
If you don't want Tim Cook to say the words, just read them aloud to yourself and pretend they are your words. Then analyze their substance based on the content, rather than who says them. The counter to an appeal to authority is not to ask for a different authority. (It is to become an authority yourself.)
The Washington Post is making an appeal from authority based on the headline alone. The WP readership is going to understand that as "Person I look up to says something I might agree with". No one can pretend that away.
Then, the argument itself isn't anything particularly deep - and of course it isn't. Cook doesn't have the credentials to add anything meaningful to the discussion.
Why does the argument have to be 'new' or 'deep'. Many of the best arguments are extremely old (perhaps timeless would be a better way of saying it), and are also very simple in their logic.
Merely being a citizen makes someone qualified to comment.
Being the CEO of one of the world's largest and most influential companies has nothing to do with having correct, interesting or developed legal background or politics.
The Washington Post is using his status as CEO as an appeal from authority - to imply his politics are somehow interesting or informed or correct.
It doesn't mean that their comments are interesting. The headline is an implication that Cook's ideas on the issue are interesting. They aren't - they are mundane. But Cook is looked up to. So it is an appeal to authority - it is his authority that gives his ideas weight; not his ideas that give themselves authority.
You keep saying this over and over... that they are not 'new', or that they are 'mundane'. I don't see a whole lot of explanation from you as to how they are wrong.
Edit: as for your 'appeal to authority' idea, it's an opinion piece, and clearly marked as such by WaPo. By your standard, every opinion piece ever written by anyone powerful or popular is an appeal to authority.
You live in a fantasy land if you think his comments aren't interesting.
Most ordinary people are very interested in what Apple's position on issues given how popular and progressive they are. Politicans would be even more interested given that (a) most states would love to be the next home of a manufacturing/data center, (b) Tim Cook is widely respected and is in a position to influence other CEOs.
Whether YOU think his comments are interesting or not is irrelevant.
> You live in a fantasy land if you think his comments aren't interesting.
Ad hominem.
> Most ordinary people are very interested in what Apple's position on issues given how popular and progressive they are.
Tautology and appeal to the masses.
> Politicans would be even more interested given that (a) most states would love to be the next home of a manufacturing/data center, (b) Tim Cook is widely respected and is in a position to influence other CEOs.
Right, that's the point I've been making. The interest in Tom Cook's opinion isn't derived from how good an idea it is - the interest is from his power status. We agree here.
