Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 4th Nov 2013 17:14 UTC
Legal

Tim Cook, in a letter published in The Wall Street Journal:

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.

We urge senators to support the Employment Nondiscrimination Act, and we challenge the House of Representatives to bring it to the floor for a vote.

It's hard to imagine for someone like me, from The Netherlands, but in the US, gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people have, in most states, far fewer rights than straight, non-transgender people. The LGBT community in the US still has a long fight ahead of itself, and large companies like Apple publicly urging Congress to address the archaic position of the LGBT community can only be seen as a good thing.

Most technology companies support the LGBT community's fight for equality, and considering the importance of this industry, that's a blessing.

Thread beginning with comment 576164
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Americans with Disabilities Act
by tomz on Tue 5th Nov 2013 01:59 UTC
tomz
Member since:
2010-05-06

This backfired.

Before, Employers would often make accommodation and do what was reasonable to make things work, but that might mean moving the desk downstairs instead of reconstructing the entire building to add an elevator.

Once the act passed, hiring a disabled person was an invitation to a lawsuit. Since much hiring is subjective, they were found "to be missing a skill" or "not enough experience" or whatever.

There were also many "horror stories" where people claimed that some chemicals in their office were making them sick and demanded "clean rooms".

Skin color tends to be obvious and irrelevant. I don't know how I could tell someone is LGBT without THEM bringing sex into the workplace, and remember "Sexual Harassment" is also illegal and against the law.

In the USA, we are also supposed to have religious freedom and freedom of speech. Some religions consider homosexuality an abomination. So what happens if they must work across from each other and one has a picture of him/herself in a gay pride parade and the other has bible verses condemning such behavior, where each are equally offended?

Censor? Tell BOTH to tolerate? Or ignore completely the existing laws that prevent discrimination based on religion or creed because you personally are an atheist or agnostic so it doesn't affect you (no more than discrimination against LGBTs affects straights)?

I think it would be better for Tim Cook to have the ability to discriminate in the manner he wants, and for Chick-fil-A to discriminate in the manner they want.

Remember that government is force, violence. Somehow "gay rights" has turned into meaning putting a gun to people's heads by proxy and saying if you have the wrong thoughts we will do violence to you or your property. Is violence, force, and threats what "gay rights" is about?

The evil is advocating violence to get your way in the first place. Sanitized, indirect, done by proxies, and mainly intimidation.

Much like the "war on drugs" where SWAT teams break down doors to serve warrants - and occasionally kill innocents if they have the wrong address or something. But nothing can stop progressives from implementing their policies.

And now with the NSA we can all snoop and be even better at prosecuting thought crime.

Reply Score: 0

kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

Remember that government is force, violence.


I wish people would shut the hell up with this line.

Somehow "gay rights" has turned into meaning putting a gun to people's heads by proxy and saying if you have the wrong thoughts we will do violence to you or your property. Is violence, force, and threats what "gay rights" is about?


Guess what? Employers (and employees) who discriminate against gays are ALSO using violence and force, if we were to use your meaningless equivocation fallacy.

So the message is clear. It's not you're against force. It's that you're against other people limiting your use of force.

People like you are monarchs waiting to happen.

Reply Parent Score: 7

DrJohnnyFever Member since:
2012-03-07

How about this? All human interaction should be voluntary.

Human beings should not be forced to interact. Both sides should agree. You're never going to FORCE a bigot to not be a bigot. If the employer is a jerk, DON'T WORK FOR HIM.

Find somebody who likes you.

Voluntarism.

Reply Parent Score: -1

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

I think it would be better for Tim Cook to have the ability to discriminate in the manner he wants, and for Chick-fil-A to discriminate in the manner they want.


So you would be ok to be discriminated against because of your opinions on, say, government?

Tell BOTH to tolerate?


Yes, obviously.

Somehow "gay rights" has turned into meaning putting a gun to people's heads by proxy and saying if you have the wrong thoughts we will do violence to you or your property.


Wut???

Edited 2013-11-05 07:44 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 4

JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

Before, Employers would often make accommodation and do what was reasonable to make things work, but that might mean moving the desk downstairs instead of reconstructing the entire building to add an elevator.

Unreasonable requirements and the intent of the law are not the same. There are plenty of heavy handed laws, just look at the laws that are the result of "the war on drugs".

I don't know how I could tell someone is LGBT without THEM bringing sex into the workplace, and remember "Sexual Harassment" is also illegal and against the law.

Oh.. So you're one of those unenlightened people that think that being gay is only about what you do in the bedroom. How about when your workplace has a social event where people's partners are invited? Would that be considered "them bringing sex into workplace"?(If so, wouldn't you mentioning your wife be the same?)

So what happens if they must work across from each other and one has a picture of him/herself in a gay pride parade and the other has bible verses condemning such behavior, where each are equally offended?

A: Your outdated assumption is that straight people don't attend Gay Pride events.
B: Freedom does not entitle you to feel comfortable and safe when looking at other people's personal space.
C: Gay Pride is no more offensive to highly conservative religious people than absolutely heterosexual Rio carnival.

Censor? Tell BOTH to tolerate? Or ignore completely the existing laws that prevent discrimination based on religion or creed because you personally are an atheist or agnostic so it doesn't affect you (no more than discrimination against LGBTs affects straights)?

I don't think that you understand what discrimination means.

Somehow "gay rights" has turned into meaning putting a gun to people's heads by proxy and saying if you have the wrong thoughts we will do violence to you or your property.

Last time I checked, Westboro Baptist Church is fine and well. And the CEO of Chick-Fill-A has not been forced to relinquish control of anything after his remarks. So please don't start pulling "facts" out of your a**.

Edited 2013-11-06 13:24 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 4