Apple and Other Companies Push Forward in Fight for Marriage Equality

[Moyank24]

why not just move to a state that supports your alternative lifestyle. You're a prime example of not wanting to change things but to force people to accept your lifestyle. I'm sure you'll disagree and that's just fine with me.

Let me provide a perfect example. I was working for a company and i was moved to another location that needed a strong manager. The problem was the location was in the ghetto and being white i was not welcomed there at all. My life was threatened within the first few hours for being somewhere i didn't belong. So i updated my resume and found a better job at a different company in a few weeks.

lol

 

[yg17]

.No...No, loss of focus at all...

Yes, I'm sure all of the engineers and designers at Apple stopped what they were working on while their PR and legal team did this

Apple is not a one man operation. They have multiple departments who are capable of doing many things at the same time.

Why not just move to a state that supports your alternative lifestyle. You're a prime example of not wanting to change things but to force people to accept your lifestyle. I'm sure you'll disagree and that's just fine with me.

Let me provide a perfect example. I was working for a company and I was moved to another location that needed a strong manager. The problem was the location was in the ghetto and being white I was not welcomed there at all. My life was threatened within the first few hours for being somewhere I didn't belong. So I updated my resume and found a better job at a different company in a few weeks.

Why should she have to move to a different state so she can get equal rights? Should blacks in the south in the 1950s have just moved to a northern state if they didn't like it? Thankfully they stayed and fought, and now they have equal rights no matter which of our 50 states they reside in.

 

[Nunyabinez]

The government needs to be involved in marriage because it is a extremely pervasive legal contract between people. The government has created a standardized contract, because without one there would be chaos-- every transaction that involves the rights of one spouse with regard to other would have to be settled by pulling out the specific contract for that relationship and having multiple parties interpret the relevant clause, each time. So, government has created a standard agreement, and called it "marriage". Simple as that.

I find that un-compelling. What about couples that simply live together? There's is plenty of that going on and it doesn't seem like it's brought our legal system to a halt. In fact, I believe if it were left to churches to deal with marriage and divorce issues, they could work out disputes better than the courts. And many people have prenuptial agreements even with marriage, so why couldn't people be trusted to work out their own problems. Oh, that's right. We're all stupid and we need the paternal government to protect us against our own ignorance and incompetence.

 

[filmantopia]

Says the guy with the offensive signature. You'd never say that about Islam, would you?

I'm not against marriage equality in the least, but will people please STOP with clumping all Christians into the same stereotypical ******** that you also loathe?

Jesus was a Jew.

----------

Meanwhile...

Image

Dimensions 142 mm (5.6 in) H
70.1 mm (2.76 in) W
7.0 mm (0.28 in) D
Operating system Android 5.0 Lollipop
CPU Quad-core 1.5 GHz Cortex-A53 & Quad-core 2.1 GHz Cortex-A57
Memory 3GB of LPDDR4 RAM
Storage 32GB, 64GB or 128GB of UFS 2.0 flash memory
Battery 2600 mAh
Data inputs
List[show]
Display 5.1 inch, 1440 x 2560 pixel, aspect ratio 9:16
Rear camera 16 MP, 3456 x 4608 pixels, optical image stabilization, autofocus, LED flash, Real-time HDR
Front camera 5 MP, 1080p@30fps, dual video call, Real-time HDR

And the iPhone can't keep a Safari tab in memory more than 30 seconds...No...No, loss of focus at all...

Yeah, Apple has always been about having the highest specs, haven't they?

----------

Why not just move to a state that supports your alternative lifestyle. You're a prime example of not wanting to change things but to force people to accept your lifestyle. I'm sure you'll disagree and that's just fine with me.

Let me provide a perfect example. I was working for a company and I was moved to another location that needed a strong manager. The problem was the location was in the ghetto and being white I was not welcomed there at all. My life was threatened within the first few hours for being somewhere I didn't belong. So I updated my resume and found a better job at a different company in a few weeks.

So if the laws change toward equality (which they inevitably will) I suppose you'll move to a place where people think more like you do? Many traditional Muslims aren't fond of gays-- maybe you would be happier in a predominantly Muslim country?

 

[Technarchy]

Yeah, Apple has always been about having the highest specs, haven't they?

No, what Apple was about, should be about, in Steve Jobs own words...

XXX ruined Apple and he ruined it by bringing a set of values to the top of Apple which were corrupt and corrupted some of the top people who were there, drove out some of the ones who were not corruptible, and brought in more corrupt ones and paid themselves collectively tens of millions of dollars and cared more about their own glory and wealth than they did about what built Apple in the first place — which was making great computers for people to use.

Maybe Tim Cook should spend more time demanding greatness than marching in parades.

 

[69650]

This has nothing whatsoever to do with Apple et al. It's not something that directly affects their business. They should leave the politics to the politicians and stop preaching.

 

[thekev]

Why not just move to a state that supports your alternative lifestyle. You're a prime example of not wanting to change things but to force people to accept your lifestyle. I'm sure you'll disagree and that's just fine with me.

Let me provide a perfect example. I was working for a company and I was moved to another location that needed a strong manager. The problem was the location was in the ghetto and being white I was not welcomed there at all. My life was threatened within the first few hours for being somewhere I didn't belong. So I updated my resume and found a better job at a different company in a few weeks.

The people who threatened you were jerks, and they were wrong to do it. Why would you rationalize anyone behaving like that?

 

[69650]

Jesus was a Jew.

Many people would disagree with that statement... http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/jesusjew.htm

 

[Nunyabinez]

I know not everyone will agree with me, but it seems that in a democracy/republic like what we have, people need to be able to separate what they believe is morally right (or sinful if that works for you) and what should be required for all people.

Some things we can all agree on like murder or theft. Some things we can't agree on and unfortunately, you have to go with the more liberal view for those things.

I have my own personal opinions about the morality of many things including abortion, homosexuality, etc. and I resent anyone saying that I don't have the right to believe one way or the other. However, given the amount of disagreement over these issues I am not willing to push my views onto society as a whole. But I don't appreciate being disparaged because I disagree either.

And for those who are against gay marriage, all I can say is it is going to happen and no amount of whining or fighting is going to stop it. At this point the best you can do is accept it and move on. You don't have to change your opinion about whether it is morally wrong or right, but it's happening.

 

[yg17]

This has nothing whatsoever to do with Apple et al. It's not something that directly affects their business. They should leave the politics to the politicians and stop preaching.

Someone obviously didn't read the article:

The patchwork of inconsistent state marriage laws makes it challenging and more costly for employers to administer benefits systems when some employees are unable to marry, and other employees' marriages are not recognized by the state. This burdens businesses by costing them both time and money.

 

[Nunyabinez]

This has nothing whatsoever to do with Apple et al. It's not something that directly affects their business. They should leave the politics to the politicians and stop preaching.

Apparently you didn't take time to read the article. Go back and read it and you'll see that the brief they filed lists a number of substantial impacts that not having a national stance on gay marriage has no businesses. You might not agree, but these companies are not fighting on moral principles, it's simply business.

Edit: yg17 hit enter before me.

 

[Gasu E.]

In fact, I believe if it were left to churches to deal with marriage and divorce issues, they could work out disputes better than the courts.

Ah HA! You favor Sharia law!!!

 

[yg17]

Full list of companies for the American Family Association to boycott and the rest of us in the 21 century to praise starting on page 17

Warning: PDF link

 

[Gasu E.]

Many people would disagree with that statement... http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/jesusjew.htm

I'm sorry, this is a thread for anti-gay bigots; not Anti-Semites. Your hate is off-topic.

 

[Nunyabinez]

Ah HA! You favor Sharia law!!!

This kind of stupid comment should be the modern day equivalent of Godwin's law.

 

[the8thark]

What do you mean by this? I would say many countries already have "true" marriage equality, but of course there are people with opinions about it but there will always be.

You don't feel like it can be talked about in the open? Where do you live? I guess things are just really progressive here in NYC-- it's not a taboo topic at all.

I mean here on these forums it's not being talked out in the open. It's hidden away in PRSI. And this is a website based in the USA. I just feel that people are making this into a political/social issue when really it's not. it's just a simple thing. Treat everyone equally and don't put talk on this subject in out of the open places. That's all really.

 

[Gasu E.]

I find that un-compelling. What about couples that simply live together? There's is plenty of that going on and it doesn't seem like it's brought our legal system to a halt. In fact, I believe if it were left to churches to deal with marriage and divorce issues, they could work out disputes better than the courts. And many people have prenuptial agreements even with marriage, so why couldn't people be trusted to work out their own problems. Oh, that's right. We're all stupid and we need the paternal government to protect us against our own ignorance and incompetence.

I don't disagree with everything you say, but you do miss my point. I'm not suggesting you absolutely need the government to define your particular relationship. But the government has defined a boilerplate definition, which millions of people take advantage of, and it sure makes things a whole lot simpler. If you don't want to have common property, shared health benefits, pension rights, well-defined parental rights, by all means don't bother with marriage. And pre-nups are built on top of existing government definitions of marriage-- they are just customizations of the government standard-- so they really are not a counter-example. I suppose people could band together to have boilerplate Catholic marriage contracts, Mormon marriage contracts, etc.-- and in some cultures they do-- but it would still result in a complex legal environment for society as a whole, and wouldn't solve the case of "mixed" marriages (which it seems is outside your worldview; amiright?)

----------

This kind of stupid comment should be the modern day equivalent of Godwin's law.

Why is it stupid? This is exactly the kind of thing Sharia law does. Not that there's anything wrong with Sharia law, necessarily.

Is your objection that I'm implying there's something wrong with Sharia law? Because that wasn't my intent at all. I was just pointing out the irony of someone (who appears to be a Christian) upholding the concept of Sharia law (which is much derided by Christians). I did go to your Godwin's law link; you seem to equate Sharia with evil (Nazism)-- that's in your head, not mine.

 

[tennisproha]

All ethics arguments aside, I feel like it's trivial of tech companies to be supporting social issues. It opens up a whole big can of worms. For one they are potentially alienating their customer base. But more importantly than that, this stuff always turns into biased agendas with lobbying efforts and whatnot. For example, I've never seen apple at a racial equality rally. This makes me question apple's "equality" stance knowing their CEO's orientation and general employee demographic. It looks like a veiled agenda to me.

 

[Gasu E.]

This kind of stupid comment should be the modern day equivalent of Godwin's law.

So, to summarize:

- I compared what you said to an Islamic concept
- You equate Muslims with Nazis
- Therefore you believe I was comparing what you said to Nazism

Did I summarize that accurately?
And that makes my comment stupid, is that right? In that case, I profoundly apologize; and in my defense, I didn't realize you had this severe antipathy for Muslims. You hadn't expressed that previously, and I just wasn't brought up to make these kinds of assumptions about people's beliefs about others.

 

[haxrnick]

It doesn't make sense, because he said something very specific about the historical Jesus. And the response was "would you say the same thing about Islam"? Who is this Mr. Islam?

At least, you could be add value by restating a sensible question, instead of the useless and hostile "you didn't answer the question."

You know exactly what he was talking about and now you're splitting hairs for the sake of arguing.

I said nothing about Christianity. My signature says nothing about Christianity. So I can't say the same about Islam because I never said anything about Christianity.

Are you going to answer the question or not? I'm guessing no. You are an apologist "atheist". Whatever that means.

 

[yg17]

Are you going to answer the question or not? I'm guessing no. You are an apologist "atheist". Whatever that means.

What ****ing question? Ask the question in a manner that makes sense and I'll answer it.

 

[Nunyabinez]

I don't disagree with everything you say, but you do miss my point. I'm not suggesting you absolutely need the government to define your particular relationship. But the government has defined a boilerplate definition, which millions of people take advantage of, and it sure makes things a whole lot simpler. If you don't want to have common property, shared health benefits, pension rights, well-defined parental rights, by all means don't bother with marriage. And pre-nups are built on top of existing government definitions of marriage-- they are just customizations of the government standard-- so they really are not a counter-example. I suppose people could band together to have boilerplate Catholic marriage contracts, Mormon marriage contracts, etc.-- and in some cultures they do-- but it would still result in a complex legal environment for society as a whole, and wouldn't solve the case of "mixed" marriages (which it seems is outside your worldview; amiright?)

Actually, it's not at all outside my world view. Most Christians believe that the validity of their marriage comes from the fact that is was done my a priest, not that it was done by a government recognized official.

What I'm saying is that people should rely on whatever form they feel that they need to enter into a relationship. If you're Catholic then your priest, if you're Mormon then in a temple, if you don't have a religious belief then you can live together with nothing formal or draw up a simple agreement and get it notarized.

I don't believe that letting people decide the level that they want to formalize their relationship would be any more taxing on the legal system, if anything it would be less so. Again, how often do a cohabiting couple end up in court trying to solve their property distribution? But every couple that divorces ends up there.

I think that the government used to believe that there was a compelling reason to keep a man and a woman bound to each other so that the care of their children did not fall on the rest of society. But now divorce is so easy that I don't see any benefit to society for the government to be in this business at all. You may disagree and that is perfectly fine.

I may have misconstrued your other comment. I just meant that, for example, if a couple feels like they need to have a priest marry them, then that's where they should turn if they can't resolve their issues by themselves. I'm not saying it we should require it, I'm just saying let people follow whatever guide they think they need to make their relationships legitimate and let them figure out how to end them, whether that be a local judge, a priest or a mediator. I apologize if I misread your comment as an attack.

 

[haxrnick]

Says the guy with the offensive signature. You'd never say that about Islam, would you?

I'm not against marriage equality in the least, but will people please STOP with clumping all Christians into the same stereotypical ******** that you also loathe?

What ****ing question? Ask the question in a manner that makes sense and I'll answer it.

Let me hold your hand since you're trying to be difficult.

 

[Nunyabinez]

So, to summarize:

- I compared what you said to an Islamic concept
- You equate Muslims with Nazis
- Therefore you believe I was comparing what you said to Nazism

Did I summarize that accurately?
And that makes my comment stupid, is that right? In that case, I profoundly apologize; and in my defense, I didn't realize you had this severe antipathy for Muslims. You hadn't expressed that previously, and I just wasn't brought up to make these kinds of assumptions about people's beliefs about others.

See my above comment. I didn't not mean to imply that Islam is evil, it was more the idea of invoking extreme hyperbole, which seeing your comment I misread. Again, accept my apology for my reading comprehension fail.

 

[yg17]

Let me hold your hand since you're trying to be difficult.

WHAT? WOULD I SAY WHAT ABOUT ISLAM?

His question makes no effing sense since I said NOTHING about Christianity. DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND THAT?