Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Apple Urges Arizona Governor To Veto Anti-Gay Legislation

Soulskill posted about 5 months ago | from the getting-involved dept.

Apple 917

Hugh Pickens DOT Com writes "According to NBC, Apple has confirmed that it urged Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer to veto a bill that would allow business owners with strongly held religious beliefs to deny service to gays and lesbians. Last November Tim Cook announced that Apple was building a sapphire glass plant in Mesa, AZ, that would bring 2,000 new jobs to the state. 'Apple is indisputably one of the world's most innovative companies and I'm thrilled to welcome them to Arizona,' said Gov. Brewer at the time. 'Apple will have an incredibly positive economic impact for Arizona and its decision to locate here speaks volumes about the friendly, pro-business climate we have been creating these past four years.' According to Philip Elmer-DeWitt, it sounds like Tim Cook may be having second thoughts about how 'friendly' and 'pro-business' the climate in Arizona really is."

cancel ×

917 comments

First blacks, (4, Insightful)

Threni (635302) | about 5 months ago | (#46340587)

now gays. Can't Americans just stop acting like utter fucking cunts for a few moments and work on their hatred? I'm guessing it's religious in nature; after all, religious texts are full of specious, homophobic nonsense. Thank fuck that shit is on the way out.

Re:First blacks, (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Psychopath (18031) | about 5 months ago | (#46340609)

I imagine a gay CEO isn't too enthused about doing business with a state that thinks it's ok to refuse to do business with someone because they're gay. It's a two-way street, Arizona.

Re:First blacks, (1)

geminidomino (614729) | about 5 months ago | (#46340763)

Is Tim Cook gay? Or were you just being hypothetical?

Re:First blacks, (5, Informative)

seebs (15766) | about 5 months ago | (#46340789)

Yes, he's one of the first openly gay major corporation CEOs, which has gotten some amount of commentary... But only some as it turns out to have very little impact on his ability to do his job.

Re:First blacks, (2)

geminidomino (614729) | about 5 months ago | (#46340907)

Huh. I didn't know that (that he was gay, not that being gay had fuckall to do with job performance).

Re:First blacks, (-1, Troll)

angel'o'sphere (80593) | about 5 months ago | (#46340855)

That would explain why iOS 7 is so 'gay', never thought about hat.

Re:First blacks, (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46340929)

How is iOS 7 "gay"?

Re:First blacks, (4, Insightful)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about 5 months ago | (#46340909)

Different question: is it okay for the state to tell someone who they must do business with?

Completely leaving aside sexual orientation. Or not. Take your pick of prejudices. Can the state tell someone they must not refuse to do business with brunettes? Or people with freckles?

I did not oppose a Federal gay marriage law out of hate for gays. I opposed it because marriage is none of the Federal government's f*ing business.

Granted, this is not Federal but State. But that other question still remains: is it okay for the State to tell someone they can't do business with someone they don't like?

Re:First blacks, (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46340995)

Yes. It is okay for the state to tell someone they cannot refuse to do business with someone based on any prejudice. Example: https://www.humanrights.gov.au/guide-australias-anti-discrimination-laws

Re:First blacks, (1)

ButchDeLoria (2772751) | about 5 months ago | (#46341029)

What about by lying about motive, like firing policies in most states?

Re:First blacks, (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46341025)

If its business, I bet hes suck cock to make a deal. After all, were talking about money. Ethics come later.
Lol, his ass is a two way street.

Re:First blacks, (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46340633)

People have the right to be racist. They also have the right to say & publish racist speech, etc.

I have mixed feelings. I know that the religious nuts are pushing this because of gay hatred, but I think businesses should have the freedom to refuse service. The public is welcome to boycott and post their negative opinion about the business.

On the other hand, I think this law may open the door to "no hispanics or negroes allowed" signs going up, because someone could claim its their religious belief...

Re:First blacks, (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46340645)

They do. They just shouldn't have the right to enshrine their hatred into law and impose it on everyone else.

Re:First blacks, (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46340707)

I don't see how this law enshrines or imposes it on anyone. Like I said, It's religious hatred being veiled behind economic freedom.

The business is the one making the decision to deny service.

Re:First blacks, (5, Insightful)

cas2000 (148703) | about 5 months ago | (#46340735)

but I think businesses should have the freedom to refuse service.

why, exactly, should they have that right? it's fair enough for a business to exclude particular individuals who have caused problems in the past (e.g. shoplifiting or being an annoying PITA), but to exclude people simply because they are a member of a particular group ("women", "gays", "blacks", "teenagers", whatever) - or *appear* to be a member of such a group - is discrimination....and that's definitely unethical and almost certainly illegal.

On the other hand, I think this law may open the door to "no hispanics or negroes allowed" signs going up, because someone could claim its their religious belief...

that door is already wide open - "no gays" is no different to "no blacks". it's the same fucking thing.

Re:First blacks, (0, Redundant)

gIobaljustin (3526197) | about 5 months ago | (#46340779)

That might be the case, but it might also not be the case.

Re:First blacks, (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46340795)

People have the right of free association. the government should not force someone to associate with someone. this includes being forced by the government to perform a service or sell a product with someone you don't want to.

I have no problem with the government being forced to treat all citizens equal.

Re:First blacks, (3, Informative)

ebno-10db (1459097) | about 5 months ago | (#46340901)

People have the right of free association. the government should not force someone to associate with someone. this includes being forced by the government to perform a service or sell a product with someone you don't want to.

You forgot the "taxes are theft" line. Private affairs means your home and whatnot. If you have a business that otherwise lets anybody with the money and proper attire to come in, then it's no longer a strictly private affair, even though it's privately owned.

Re:First blacks, (0, Offtopic)

Bartles (1198017) | about 5 months ago | (#46341045)

Does the same rule apply to Planned Parenthood clinics? No? I didn't think so.

Re:First blacks, (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46340841)

but to exclude people simply because they are a member of a particular group ("women", "gays", "blacks", "teenagers", whatever) - or *appear* to be a member of such a group - is discrimination....and that's definitely unethical and almost certainly illegal.

Unless that particular group happens to be "men".

Re:First blacks, (3, Interesting)

Bartles (1198017) | about 5 months ago | (#46341037)

Is it OK to refuse service to someone from the Westboro Baptist church? The Catholic church? How about a Neo-Nazi? Because if your answer is yes, you cannot rationally support a veto. Beyond that, this law is entirely unnecessary, because the default state of law is no restriction on activity.

Re:First blacks, (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46340753)

> On the other hand, I think this law may open the door to "no hispanics or negroes allowed" signs going up,
> because someone could claim its their religious belief...

A religious belief is treated differently because it's a religious belief? What's the moral underpinning for that little oddment? You'd be happy with blacks being refused service as long as it's in some religious book or other, but because it's not it's unacceptable; however, it's fine to single out gays. I don't see how that's morally or logically defensible.

Re:First blacks, (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46340895)

depends on if you see sexuality as rigid or more Kinsey Scale-ish.

Re:First blacks, (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Psychopath (18031) | about 5 months ago | (#46340829)

People have the right to be racist. They also have the right to say & publish racist speech, etc.

I have mixed feelings. I know that the religious nuts are pushing this because of gay hatred, but I think businesses should have the freedom to refuse service. The public is welcome to boycott and post their negative opinion about the business.

On the other hand, I think this law may open the door to "no hispanics or negroes allowed" signs going up, because someone could claim its their religious belief...

Well, your last sentence was correct. Some Christians (I'm looking at you, Southern Baptists) used to preach that being black was the Mark of Cain and used it to justify first slavery and then racism. To purposefully legalize this behavior is stupidity of the first order. As the law is written, a business in Arizona could use the Mark of Cain argument to refuse to do business with blacks.

Re:First blacks, (2)

ebno-10db (1459097) | about 5 months ago | (#46340877)

but I think businesses should have the freedom to refuse service

Why?

To me there are basically three categories, public, private, and something in-between that I'll call "public accommodation". In your private affairs you can be as bigoted as you want. You can also speak or write about it, have religious convictions, whatever. Obviously prejudice at the public (government) level shouldn't be tolerated, and can easily be made illegal. The third "public accommodation" category refers to things that are privately owned but readily accommodate the public, such as stores, restaurants, hotels, etc. If you've got the money (and in some cases are dressed appropriately) you can walk in and do business. Libertarians, in their Manichean view, would argue that such businesses are privately owned. Sorry, but I don't think that private ownership gives you the right to do anything you want. It reminds me of the Greensboro Four [wikipedia.org] , whose (intentional) offense was to try to order some food at a segregated lunch counter. Should that be legal?

Re:First blacks, (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46340971)

>Greensboro Four
Yes, the only crime would be simple tresspass, though. If you read the article you posted, you'll see it was an economic factor (boycott, lost sales) that convinced the business to abandon segregation.

Re: First blacks, (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46341013)

If you want to see this turn into a shitstorm never mind excluding sexuality or race. Put up a sign that says no disabled people allowed.

Unleash hell

Re:First blacks, (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about 5 months ago | (#46341023)

"Libertarians, in their Manichean view, would argue that such businesses are privately owned."

First, it is disingenuous to pretend to know what someone else "would argue" unless they actually do it. But what really has my curiousity up is where your characterization "Manichean" came from. It does not seem to apply here.

Re:First blacks, (1)

SpankiMonki (3493987) | about 5 months ago | (#46340939)

...but I think businesses should have the freedom to refuse service.

In Arizona, businesses *already* have the ability to refuse service to homosexuals.

This law is one of the last gasps of the "culture war" that the religious right has fought and lost. If Brewer signs it into law (unlikely), it will be quickly challenged in court and declared unconstitutional. That's the real stupidity of the religious nutters pushing through this law - if they'd have just kept their bigoted mouths shut, businesses that want to discriminate based on sexual orientation would likely have been able to do so until a federal law made such discrimination illegal.

Re:First blacks, (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46340993)

I'll agree with you to a point. People can be racist but that racism stops when it affects other peoples rights such as the right to work and shop and be in public places. You want to open your store front to the public, gays are a part of the public.

It's because we allow freedom of religion (2, Interesting)

mozumder (178398) | about 5 months ago | (#46340637)

This really is dangerous, as religion should be contained and eliminated from society.

Religion serves no positive purpose, and only works to hinder the good that government itself does in socialization.

Eventually religion will die, due to the socialization that the world is currently experiencing due to communications technology. Can you imagine a middle eastern person in 23 AD learning about science and pornography and art and cultures?

Some of the shit we know & see these days must be completely insane to the mind of a primitive person that would actually thinks religion is real.

And of course, you'll notice that religion is strong in non-socialized rural environments, where people don't get to normally interact with other races & cultures. Once they actually start to interact with black or gay people they end up figuring out that they're not so bad, and that their religion was probably lying to them all along.

Re: It's because we allow freedom of religion (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46340705)

Wow. Just...wow. I cannot even begin to measure the density a post like that requires...

Re: It's because we allow freedom of religion (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46340859)

Yeah, density of pure intelligence, unlike your spastic post.

Religion DOES serve a purpose. (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46340793)

Religion is for people too stupid to understand and/or process real-world information. You're not going to be able to convince these people if they choose not to see. Instead, it's best to understand religion, and apply psychology to convince people to do the right thing based on reasons that they can understand and relate to. Simple minds need simple reasons and simple explanations. Where none exist, make them up in a way such that the resulting actions are still positive.

Re:Religion DOES serve a purpose. (0)

mythosaz (572040) | about 5 months ago | (#46340955)

Religion is for people too stupid to understand and/or process real-world information.

Too stupid to understand science? Try religion!

Re:It's because we allow freedom of religion (3, Insightful)

ebno-10db (1459097) | about 5 months ago | (#46340919)

This really is dangerous, as religion should be contained and eliminated from society.

Are you familiar with the word "irony"?

Re:It's because we allow freedom of religion (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46340949)

This really is dangerous, as religion should be contained and eliminated from society.

Bigots are dangerous and should be eliminated from society, whatever the reason behind their prejudice.

Eventually religion will die, due to the socialization that the world is currently experiencing due to communications technology.

And as some religions die, others will rise up in their place. Humans aren't perfectly rational beings, and they won't ever have perfectly rational beliefs.

Can you imagine a middle eastern person in 23 AD learning about science and pornography and art and cultures?

Yes? All of those things existed at that time, in some form or another.

Religion (or lack thereof) isn't any reason for hatred, and if it didn't exist, the world wouldn't be any better. The cultures that has become associated with various religions encourage poisonous interpretations of religious beliefs. Most of the religions that I know of are based on peace and love; humans are the ones that twist those goals and make religious teachings into tools of social control, hatred, and political power.

Re:It's because we allow freedom of religion (0)

Culture20 (968837) | about 5 months ago | (#46340975)

Religion serves no positive purpose

Incorrect. Even if you believe no deities exist, and you can find a perfect atheistic philosophy of morality and ethics which everyone would agree is not only good, but perfect, and people no longer fear death, religion still serves a vital role in society: some percentage of society are sociopaths; the type of people who, when they believe no one is watching and they can get away with it, will do anything evil if it gives them an advantage. They may agree with everyone else that your system of ethics is great, but they'll ignore it when it suits their interests. Now imagine a population with the same percentage of sociopaths, but with a strong cultural belief in an omniscient deity. Doctrines involving Heaven are great for the "good" folk, but it's the fear of Hell that can keep a sociopath in line. Removing that cultural underpinning increases the number of sociopaths willing to act out on their evil impulses (absent a Big Brother network).

Re:It's because we allow freedom of religion (4, Insightful)

gIobaljustin (3526197) | about 5 months ago | (#46341015)

Religion doesn't seem to be doing a very good job of keeping people from doing Bad Things, so I somewhat doubt what you're saying.

but it's the fear of Hell that can keep a sociopath in line.

Where is your evidence of this?

Re:First blacks, (1)

QuantumLeaper (607189) | about 5 months ago | (#46340649)

Some American all they can is Hate, it been that way for along time. Sometimes it takes a long time for thing to change, some want to Hate everything that is different then them, be it Gays. Women, Latinos, or whoever or whatever the the person. If the law goes through, I hope Apple move their plans to another State.

Re:First blacks, (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46340679)

Most of the religions around here are against this sort of discrimination.

Me, I'm sick and tired of the piecemeal approach. You can only be legally protected from discrimination if your identity group gets enough political clout to get on the "race, religion, national origin,..." list.
It's still legal to discriminate against people for being fat, supporting the Green Party, or any other thing that's not on the list.
Why isn't it just illegal for employers and service providers to discriminate against people for every irrelevant thing?

Re:First blacks, (1)

bondsbw (888959) | about 5 months ago | (#46340881)

Why isn't it just illegal for employers and service providers to discriminate against people for every irrelevant thing?

Setting aside the Constitution for a moment, this probably isn't a great idea. How do we define "relevant"?

Could you kick someone out of your bar for getting naked and defecating in the middle of the room? He could claim that his religious beliefs led him to do so, and that those acts have nothing to do with buying drinks. (Well... I guess it could if you buy too many...)

I think I'd rather stick to letting the business owner have the responsibility of deciding matters of business, including whose business he wants. Let the chips fall where they may... people will see the discrimination and get offended and probably even make a case of it in the news. And I don't know of any business that is better off discriminating against good faith customers.

Re:First blacks, (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46340717)

Obama should just come out of the closet. Americans love to follow the Dear Leader, they'll immediately stop being homophobic if their Dear Leader is a Real Gay Nigger.

Re:First blacks, (0)

MightyMartian (840721) | about 5 months ago | (#46340757)

What I can never quite sort out is why anyone would believe an infinite all-knowing being of unlimited power would actually care whether someone was homosexual or heterosexual, or hell, Catholic, Jewish or FSMer for that matter. The god of these kinds of people is a weak ineffectual sociopath.

Re:First blacks, (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about 5 months ago | (#46340821)

"now gays. Can't Americans just stop acting like utter fucking cunts for a few moments and work on their hatred? I'm guessing it's religious in nature; after all, religious texts are full of specious, homophobic nonsense. Thank fuck that shit is on the way out."

To many people, it's not about gays at all. It's about whether the government can tell them who they can like or do business with and who they can't.

Re:First blacks, (2)

MightyMartian (840721) | about 5 months ago | (#46340879)

The bigots lost this argument fifty years ago. Why do some continue to try to fight that which law and jurisprudence forbids them?

You're rights as a business are not an absolute on a number of fronts.

Re:First blacks, (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about 5 months ago | (#46340991)

"The bigots lost this argument fifty years ago. Why do some continue to try to fight that which law and jurisprudence forbids them?"

You don't have to be a bigot to ask the question.

"You're rights as a business are not an absolute on a number of fronts."

Of course. The question is: where is the line?

Your comment about "bigots lost the fight 50 years ago" was about Federal government, and the Constitutionality of that is being questioned even now. But this is about businesses over which presumably the Federal government has no jurisdiction. So where does the state power end?

But back to the point: I wasn't referring to bigotry or anything of that nature. My question was simply: to what extent can government tell people who they must do business with? It's easy to see that there can be a point that is too far. I'm just asking where that point is. That is all.

Re:First blacks, (1)

mythosaz (572040) | about 5 months ago | (#46341041)

This is one of those times where my principles likely disagree with what I think is right.

One of the incidents at the root of these recent attempts at laws was a wedding photographer who elected not to be the photographer for a gay wedding, because, well, his invisible sky person doesn't believe in anything other than man+woman=marriage.

Should the photographer be forced to be the photographer for the wedding because he wasn't already booked that day?

It's obviously stupid that the gay couple would want the anti-gay photographer to shoot their wedding, but why can't the photographer refuse? Can he refuse to shoot May-December couples? Blacks? Whites? Little people? Pepsi drinkers? Mensa members?

It's obvious to me -- in that it trips my bullshit meter -- that posting a sign at the Circle K on the corner that says, "Sorry, no homos." is wrong - deeply wrong - but I can't make a logical argument against the business that doesn't get into businesses being dependent on roads and police and fire and other government services, and as such, the government can make rules that force you to cater to your enemies. Businesses need licenses, and depend on state services -- after that, I got nothing. Let the shitty businesses out themselves as close-minded bigots.

Re:First blacks, (1)

ebno-10db (1459097) | about 5 months ago | (#46340941)

To many people, it's not about gays at all. It's about whether the government can tell them who they can like or do business with and who they can't.

So we should re-legalize discrimination against black people? That would be progress.

Re:First blacks, (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46340835)

now gays. Can't Americans just stop acting like utter fucking cunts for a few moments and work on their hatred? I'm guessing it's religious in nature; after all, religious texts are full of specious, homophobic nonsense. Thank fuck that shit is on the way out.

Cunts?!?!!

Wow. Pot, meet kettle.

Kettle is a sexist hypocrite.

Re:First blacks, (1)

ebno-10db (1459097) | about 5 months ago | (#46340951)

Maybe he's British. They use that word in reference to both sexes. Perhaps we should send a "Birds and Bees" book to that island.

Re:First blacks, (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46341033)

He's still right.

Re:First blacks, (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46340961)

Nonsense, we dont hate gays, we just dont like to think of our offspring choosing a lifestyle that defies survival of the family line, we dont like to think of two guys locking moustaches or blowing a load of semen in another guys crusty, hairy asshole, or some dude slarping the crust off his buddys bunghole or two guys drinking each other from a 69 perspective or hormonally challenged women glomming on to a confused curvacious babe who needs some dick instead of strap on. Nope, we accept them, we just want them back in the closet where they belong, not out in the open where they can pretend their lifestyles are acceptable. Kinda dampens the spirit to think your kids teacher has buttjuice instead of peanut butter in the corner of his mouth. Nope, keep it to yourselves on the down low. We dont wanna know and if we do, we cant possibly ever treat you the same, knowing what you do.

Not pro-business? (0)

OhPlz (168413) | about 5 months ago | (#46340621)

Regardless of one's feelings regarding human sexuality, how is the proposed law not "pro-business"? The law gives businesses a choice. Offering business a choice is pro-business. Taking choices away would be anti-business.

Re:Not pro-business? (5, Insightful)

khasim (1285) | about 5 months ago | (#46340647)

No. It would be similar to allowing restaurants to refuse to serve black customers.

This is not about business. It is about the personal beliefs and prejudices of the person owning that business. Those beliefs are not the same as business.

Re:Not pro-business? (0)

OhPlz (168413) | about 5 months ago | (#46340887)

No. It would be similar to allowing restaurants to refuse to serve black customers.

Not really. This is one right battling another right. One group wants to be able to practice their religious beliefs without fearing legal retribution, while another group wants to counter that right claiming their own right to be served as people. Segregationists weren't practicing a right.

Re:Not pro-business? (1)

cdrudge (68377) | about 5 months ago | (#46340953)

It's similar, but there is one major difference. Race is one of the protected criteria for civil rights. Sexual orientation isn't universally protected yet, particularly when it comes to private employers.

Re:Not pro-business? (2)

noh8rz10 (2716597) | about 5 months ago | (#46340667)

If large businesses pull out of Arizona because of this law, then it can accurately be described as anti-business. perhaps when people are sitting home alone and unemployed they can console themselves by thinking about how the remaining businesses have "more choice" as a a result of this law...

Re:Not pro-business? (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | about 5 months ago | (#46340703)

"White only" and "colored only" bars, laundromats, cafes, taxis and the like gave businesses a choice, too. No freedom is absolute, nor was any freedom intended to be.

Re:Not pro-business? (1)

R3d M3rcury (871886) | about 5 months ago | (#46340771)

The problem is that businesses are made up of people. If I can't hire the people I want to hire because of laws that are hostile to them, then it's anti-business.

Re:Not pro-business? (1)

OhPlz (168413) | about 5 months ago | (#46340827)

I guess you're not planning on hiring any religious fundamentalists then? Keep the law, and the state is "hostile" towards homosexuals. Strike the law, and the state becomes "hostile" towards religious people.

Is there any middle ground here?

There doesn't need to be middle ground. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46340935)

Discrimination against religious people is not even close to the same thing as discrimination against homosexuality. Religious fanatics like to justify their actions by claiming being gay is a choice. Of course it's not, but what IS a choice is associating yourself with a religion.

I see nothing wrong whatsoever with discriminating against ideas like religions, however discriminating against innate qualities like sexual orientation is unacceptable.

Re:Not pro-business? (1)

rearden (304396) | about 5 months ago | (#46340785)

What your are missing is that the individual has the right, not just the business. So all of these business's that want to keep serving gay, or really perceived gay customers, will have a scheduling nightmare. They will have to start asking people if they are willing to serve gay (or again perceived gay people) and if the person says no they have to schedule someone else along with that person to make sure everyone is covered. That is the kind of nightmare that business's want to avoid.

Then pile on top of that someone calls in sick to say Walgreen's and the check out person refuses to serve someone they perceive as gay, and boom- they have a PR nightmare b/c the other checkout person called out sick and the fill in is not in yet. Not the kind of scheduling, HR, or PR nightmares that any company wants to deal with.

For most business's putting aside the issues of the principle, the real issue or them is the lawsuits (they made me serve gay people ick!), the PR issues (they would not serve me boycott!), and the HR issues (I don't work Sundays & I don't serve people I think are gay!). The principle of the idea just makes something that is a legal and paperwork nightmare into something beyond reasonable.

Re:Not pro-business? (2)

OhPlz (168413) | about 5 months ago | (#46340937)

Then pile on top of that someone calls in sick to say Walgreen's and the check out person refuses to serve someone they perceive as gay, and boom- they have a PR nightmare b/c the other checkout person called out sick and the fill in is not in yet. Not the kind of scheduling, HR, or PR nightmares that any company wants to deal with.

Good point. That's already a problem in some places. I've heard of cases where a pharmacist refuses to fill the morning after pill because of their beliefs. Taken to an extreme though, would it be agreeable to force a doctor who doesn't want to perform abortions to do so? Where do we stop, or do we? Why would the doctor have a choice but not the pharmacist? I'm not picking one point-of-view over another, I just think it's an interesting conflict of competing rights.

Re:Not pro-business? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46340891)

Well stated. It just allows businesses freedom that would otherwise be considered appalling to many others.

Re:Not pro-business? (1)

cbhacking (979169) | about 5 months ago | (#46340897)

TL;DR: It's anti-people, and businesses are made up of people

It's not very "pro-business" when it makes it hard to hire people to work there! The west-coast culture, which by-and-large embraces different sexual orientations and gender identities, is very prevalent in computer culture as well (largely because many of the best computer tech universities, and best computer industry jobs, are in California or Washington). Most of those people - even those who are cis and straight - aren't going to want to work in a state that has given official sanction to homophobia and transphobia. Ignoring the jokes about Apple fans (I don't like their products, but I have no problem with their hiring practices), this would likely be a problem for any major tech company. They simply can't afford to build a major location in a state where they're going to have to write off a significant number of potential employees simply due to the political environment.

Sheesh, as if "papers, please" wasn't enough! Arizona really does seem to want to shoot itself in the foot...
We hired one guy from Arizona. He was overjoyed to move to Seattle and had no trouble convincing a couple other guys to do so too. Dude landed a huge referral bonus before his first six months at the company were up. People want *out* of that state!

Re:Not pro-business? (1)

rsclient (112577) | about 5 months ago | (#46340899)

Some of the earliest (European) laws are about the duty of hotels to serve all comers. If you're a country, and you want people to travel to market towns to buy and sell, it turns out that you have to make laws requiring that hotels treat everyone uniformly; that traders can go to a town knowing (with high confidence) that they will be able to eat and sleep.
In some places, there were additional requirements that hotels be able to feed and care for a herd of animals, too.
This is also why hotels are required to safes: traders have to know that their goods are secure, especially from the people most able to steal it (the hotel workers)

Re:Not pro-business? (1)

MrEricSir (398214) | about 5 months ago | (#46340977)

It's not like business exists in some kind of vacuum where one can't hurt others in the community. You can argue that it was "anti-business" to require BP to clean up all the oil they spilled, but I'm sure there's an entire industry of fisherman who would disagree.

Some grade A consistency from Apple (0, Offtopic)

bhcompy (1877290) | about 5 months ago | (#46340641)

They're cool with China suppressing political speech, committing wrongful imprisonment, treating employees like shit, mortgaging the planet's future for short term gain, and providing no legal protections for homosexuals, but Arizona doing only one of those things gets them threatened by the Apple CEO. I love it

Re:Some grade A consistency from Apple (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46340697)

They also take 30% off the top for nothing more than giving you a web page, processing a payment, and hassling you every time you want to push a new version.

Re:Some grade A consistency from Apple (5, Insightful)

MightyMartian (840721) | about 5 months ago | (#46340719)

Let me get this straight. Because China does bad things, Arizona a free pass?

Re:Some grade A consistency from Apple (4, Insightful)

ShanghaiBill (739463) | about 5 months ago | (#46340751)

The difference is that Apple has leverage in Arizona. The governor is on the fence, and hasn't decided whether she will sign or veto it. So a nudge from Apple may make a difference. In China, Apple has no influence whatsoever on government policy. American corporations are not going to "fix" China. That is up to the Chinese people.

Re:Some grade A consistency from Apple (1)

Bob_Who (926234) | about 5 months ago | (#46340783)

They may be evil hypocrites with wads of cash, but at least they're politically correct and over rated.... what you said.

Re:Some grade A consistency from Apple (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46340913)

Because they're an American company and Arizona is home turf?

Jeez, I know people hate Apple, but seriously..

Hear hear (0)

rmdingler (1955220) | about 5 months ago | (#46340643)

I don't pretend to understand the dynamic that makes a man attractive to another man, and I have no frame of reference regarding how a woman feels whatsoever, but being hateful towards folks for an innate adult sexual preference is like kicking puppies.

Re:Hear hear (0, Troll)

stonecypher (118140) | about 5 months ago | (#46340685)

No.

Kicking puppies is awesome.

Re:Hear hear (1)

rmdingler (1955220) | about 5 months ago | (#46340823)

Stick that in your pipe and smoke it, Reddit.

We have Mike Tyson on /..

Hate is not a religious freedom worth protecting (3, Insightful)

Jharish (101858) | about 5 months ago | (#46340659)

I'm all for religious freedom, but institutionalizing the hatred of religious zealots who tend to ruin religion for everyone else seems a very inhuman thing to do.

Next they can pass laws saying that religious freedom can also include suicide bombing.

Anti-Gay Law? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46340661)

There is no mention of sexuality in the bill at all. It allows a business to use religious believes as a defense when sued - it doesn't guarantee they win the suit.

Read the bill yourself it mentions nothing about (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46340701)

I personally oppose the bill and live in AZ, I read the bill and it mentions nothing about sexuality. Someone decided to be a drama queen here and blow this out of proportion. It's a bill for small businesses in my opinion, no profitable company run by real business professionals would ever turn away a customer based on sexual orientation. I feel it was drafted more for small business owners that work out of their homes. It protects people from frivolous lawsuits if they don't want to provide service to someone for some 'other' reason.

Re:Read the bill yourself it mentions nothing abou (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | about 5 months ago | (#46340731)

Sounds like a good solid Jim Crow law.

Jim Crow? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46340931)

Jim Crow laws required blacks to be treated differently than whites. This allows business to use religious beliefs in defense for refusing service. This is in reaction to gay couples suing bakers and photographers who refused their business. But it is different from Jim Crow and that it is left to the business owner, not required by the state. I'm kinda libertarian in my leanings and think this is fine. If enough people refuse to do business with the owners they'll either have to change or go out of business.

Re:Read the bill yourself it mentions nothing abou (1)

overshoot (39700) | about 5 months ago | (#46340921)

I personally oppose the bill and live in AZ, I read the bill and it mentions nothing about sexuality.

Wink, wink, nudge nudge.

All of the other main targets of discrimination are covered by Federal law such as the 1964 Civil Rights Act. However, you're correct that the Arizona bill [1] would not exclusively affect the LGBT population. It would also affect the XX population, for instance, when they're looking for emergency contraception. Or for that matter contraception at all -- because a pharmacist who doesn't believe in it, or for that matter a clerk who disapproves etc. -- becomes untouchable.

[1] Yeah, I live here too. Born in Queen Creek, in fact -- 60+ years ago. I'm also leaving in part because of shit like this.

Re:Read the bill yourself it mentions nothing abou (2)

rearden (304396) | about 5 months ago | (#46341011)

You are right, in the literal writing of the bill it says nothing about sexuality. However, when you put it in the context of the rest of the laws and the Federal laws you realize quickly the ONLY people you can discriminate against are... Gays. Why you ask?

This law trumps all other AZ & AZ locale laws to say that in question of"rights" the Religious right wins, UNLESS there is a prevailing Federal law. This is only because AZ state law cannot trump Federal law. So, if we look at the Federal law then what is covered: Race, Sex/Gender, Pregnancy, Religion, National Origin, Disability, Age (over 40 only), Military, Bankruptcy and Citizenship status. So... the only thing NOT covered is Sexual Orientation.

So without listing it they make it the only one. To say it is not "against gays because it never mentions them" is strictly factual while being very intellectually dishonest.

I wanna have sex with anything that moves (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46340737)

And most things that don't.

And you have to sell me stuff, walmart.

conspire to tell the truth (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46340743)

does being trysexual make us even more unperfect? there is hope for us unchosens? stop killing each other off might help? the WMD on credit genociders would prefer nothing more than convincing coercing us into offing each other on a glowbull scale? does apple inc. have a heart or a conscience instead of us?

Tempted to Bite the Apple Arizona....? (1)

Bob_Who (926234) | about 5 months ago | (#46340745)

...Or will the Genesis of Arizona end in Eden.

It sure as Hell doesn't sound like Paradise over there.

Yeah this law should work out well (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46340747)

I'm pretty sure the KKK have some pretty strongly held religious beliefs about black people and Jews.

Re:Yeah this law should work out well (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | about 5 months ago | (#46340787)

And apparently discriminating against Jews and blacks (and presumably Communists and Catholics too) will be just fine in Arizona.

Until the bigots suddenly find themselves hauled into Federal court under the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Ah Arizona, land of bigots and morons.

Headline (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46340759)

"Apple urges Arizona and their governor not to be backwards twits."

FTFY

Pro freedom, not anti-gay (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46340765)

This whole thing started when a baker who sold confections to gay and straight clients was asked to make a wedding cake for a gay wedding. The baker refused on religious grounds and got nuisance-sued. It wasn't because the clients were gay. It's because the baker didn't believe in gay marriage.

Re:Pro freedom, not anti-gay (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | about 5 months ago | (#46340803)

If the baker didn't believe in miscegenation, would you object then?

The United States has been down this road before; hence the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Re:Pro freedom, not anti-gay (1)

seebs (15766) | about 5 months ago | (#46340833)

So what? No one's asking them to believe anything, just to not discriminate against people.

Look, think it through. Imagine that someone's sincerely held religious beliefs were that interracial couples weren't legitimate and couldn't be validly married, and they wanted to refuse to make cakes for them. Or just they didn't think black people could get married. Would you expect people to just stand by and watch someone refuse to serve people based on skin color, given how long it took to fight that battle? I wouldn't.

I don't think it's a nuisance suit, any more than I think the various lawsuits about refusing service to blacks were nuisance suits. I think it's a fundamental question about what we think is the baseline of acceptable behavior in our society.

Doesn't sound very "pro-freedom" to me.

Re:Pro freedom, not anti-gay (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46340871)

He probably doesn't believe in evolution or the Earth going around the Sun, either, but they happen anyway.

Re:Pro freedom, not anti-gay (1)

overshoot (39700) | about 5 months ago | (#46340969)

This whole thing started when a baker who sold confections to gay and straight clients was asked to make a wedding cake for a gay wedding.

In New Mexico. Under a State Constitutional guarantee against discrimination that covers sexual orientation. This has -- what? -- to do with Arizona?

And BTW: "nuisance suits" generally have to be meritless. In the NM case, the plaintiffs prevailed on the merits.

Arizona (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46340769)

And what's Arizona's view on people that have strong religious beliefs that they should smoke pot (i.e. rastafari)? Would they be excused too?

Hypocrisy (0)

common-lisp (2771805) | about 5 months ago | (#46340819)

So Apple is going to withhold business from Arizona because Apple thinks the bill is wrong? The bill merely gives a company the right to withhold business from a customer based on one's sense of right and wrong (i.e., religion). This is a picture-perfect example of hypocrisy.

Re:Hypocrisy (1)

Yunzil (181064) | about 5 months ago | (#46340963)

Yeah, no. One is a company deciding of their own free will where to locate their business. The other is the government attempting to enact legally-sanctioned discrimination.

Re:Hypocrisy (1)

common-lisp (2771805) | about 5 months ago | (#46341031)

What do you think the basis for Apple's free will decision is? It's Apple's sense of right and wrong. (And by Apple, I mean the people in charge of Apple.)

The hypocrisy of protesting by doing the thing you're protesting is quite obvious--if you can think critically, without regard to whether or not you have a horse in the race.

Reason The Law Was Proposed (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46341035)

It was proposed because either in that state or some other photographers were being forced to work at gay weddings against their religious beliefs. I don't think it's anything to get worked up over.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...