Jim Hoft:
Apple CEO Tim Cook attacked Indiana this weekend for passing a religious freedom bill.
Cook said, “There’s something very dangerous happening in states across the country.”
Cook may believe Indiana’s new law is very dangerous towards gays…
But it’s not as dangerous as the several countries Apple does business with where they execute gays.
This is proof that all Obama has to do is blow the dog whistle and his leftist minions come running.
Sadly ironic is the fact that, as a state senator, Obama, himself, backed a law just like this one.
Nationally Bill Clinton signed one that was passed in a very bi-partisan manner.
Yeah, but there’s LOTS of phone money in Saudi Arabia. Let’s not get stupid about this “gay rights” business.
I posted this on Facebook and very few comments, Very sad that the bias is from both political parties. People hear and read and believe what they want to.
Apple is probably only concerned with making money.
It’s a matter of getting your own house in order before worrying about your neighbor’s house.
In any case, what means would Apple have of bringing pressure to bear on the African and Middle Eastern nations in question? They have none. All they could damage by refusing to do business is their own corporation. Competitors like Xiaomi and Lenovo would immediately fill the vacuum with their own products.
@Greg:
Apple sure as hell didn’t make sure China had it’s house in order before doing business with them. Why would another country worry about Apple having it’s house in order. It’s only about the money and liberalism.
Corporations generally have more influence in their own nation than they have over foreign governments. Apple can’t force the Chinese government to do anything the Chinese government doesn’t want to do.
@Greg: You are the one that said that a company doing business will most likely do it with a country that has their act together. Apple could use their influence (move their business somewhere else) to make China get their act together. But NO, then they would be hurting their commie buddies.
Apple’s products are merely designed in the USA.
Apple’s products are made in China.
If Apple cared about human rights they would make their products elsewhere.
Apple’s CEO has publicly criticized Indiana’s new law. He’s entitled to express an opinion. He’s certainly not the only corporate leader to have done so, either. There was an immediate backlash from businesses and from within the Indiana General Assembly itself. The Indianapolis Star, Indiana’s largest conservative-leaning newspaper, took issue with the law.
It’s not an imaginary or contrived reaction. People genuinely don’t like what they think the law is saying. Attitudes are changing, even in Indiana. Greater tolerance of people who are different is becoming the norm.
Attacking Apple because they’re not in a position to promote their ideals universally is ridiculous. It seems to suggest that if they can’t promote their values universally, they shouldn’t promote them at all. In reality, well intentioned people do what they can do. That’s the most that can be expected of anyone.
@Greg:
A leftist’s concept of “tolerance” is believing only what the leftist believes. Disagreeing with a leftist is the new definition of “bigotry”.
And it is laughable to characterize the Indianapolis Star as a conservative-leaning paper.
Tolerance only means accepting the fact that other people don’t necessarily think or behave in the same way you do. It doesn’t mean that you have to make their way of thinking or behaving your own, or even personally endorse it. Tolerance of gay people doesn’t mean that you have to change your own beliefs or behaviors. You just don’t get to repress them because their differences happen to make you uncomfortable.
@Greg:
But has he criticized the law in Saudi Arabia that allows them to kill homos?
If a cake shop in Indianapolis can’t sell cakes unless they sell them to gays also, and Apple can criticize those owners for their stand, and if Saudi Arabia wants to kill gays then why doesn’t Apple simply refuse to sell Iphones in Saudi Arabia? Is it because they might lose money if they stood on principle? Aren’t they just as guilty for refusing to discriminate Saudi Arabia for their beliefs? Is it more important for Apple to make a profit than for the cake shop make one? Why isn’t Apple in a position to promote their ideals universally? Do you suppose that if Apple told the head guy in Saudi Arabia that he had to quit chopping off gay guys heads that they would likely not sell anymore iphones in Saudi Arabia? Just asking.
@Redteam:
They don’t have that sort of power in Saudi Arabia. Is that difficult to understand? They have the power to render their company and it’s products immediately unwelcome there. What useful thing would be accomplished by that? As pointed out, Chinese competitors would just as quickly fill the vacuum, eliminating whatever positive influence Apple might have been having on local culture.
Maybe I’ll repeat what I said previously: Attacking Apple because they’re not in a position to promote their ideals universally is ridiculous. It seems to suggest that if they can’t promote their values universally, they shouldn’t promote them at all. In reality, well intentioned people do what they can do. That’s the most that can be expected of anyone.
@Greg: :
but attacking a cakebaker in Indiana serves a real purpose? How does it help Apple if a cake baker does or does not sell a cake to a gay guy?
The point is: if Apple has standards and principles, then isn’t their principle of not killing gays for being gay more important than who sells a cake to who? If they have standards and principles they should say: We’re not gonna sell our phones in Saudi Arabia anymore unless they change their laws about gays. Yes, Saudi Arabia will tell them to go to hell, but what the hell, it’s just for the principle, right? Or are you saying if it means the liberal company might lose a dollar then they shouldn’t have principles?
This Pizza Parlor Is Indiana’s First Business to Deny Service to LGBT Customers
No, it isn’t an April Fool’s Day hoax. The date is pure coincidence:
RFRA: Michiana business wouldn’t cater a gay wedding
Jesus told me I shouldn’t sell pizza to gay people if they plan to serve it to guests after their wedding?
It’s going to take some serious effort to out-stupid that sort of reasoning, but I’m sure there’s somebody out there who will rise to the occasion.
The article doesn’t say if the gay couple are being married by a minister. They could be. They might be Presbyterians. Or Episcopalians. Or Disciples of Christ. Or members of the Ecumenical Catholic Church. Or Evangelical Lutherans. Or members of the Friends of Jesus Fellowship. Or members of the United Church of Christ. Or…
@Greg: no one has denied service to anyone. That pizza place said if gay persons come into the restaurant they will be served just as anyone else is. They just said if gay persons asked them to cater a wedding they would not take the job. If they normally cater, then they should cater.
@Greg:
Unfortunately, Gullible Greggie, you’re just too damn stupid to know the difference between selling a pizza at your place of business to a person who might be gay and being forced to participate in a same-sex wedding by catering to that wedding. The pizzeria owner didn’t say he wouldn’t serve gays, he said he wouldn’t cater a gay [faux] wedding.
Should the black owner of a tent rental company be forced to set up tents at a KKK rally? How about forcing a Jewish caterer to cater a neo-Nazi rally? You support that?
You continue to prove what an idiot you are.
@Greg: If Apple was actually concerned with a gay couple not getting their cake from the bakery of their choice, would they not be even more concerned with their product being used to phone the authorities to come arrest homosexuals for execution?
I fully understand Apple not wanting to sacrifice profits for the sake of a social issue, but pretending like this is a concern of theirs in Indiana while they ignore a much more serious threat elsewhere is, well, typically hypocritical.
As others have pointed out, this is a gross misrepresentation of the owner’s position, but it does effectively describe the vindictive viciousness of the left when anyone dares not align themselves with their “values” 100%. Apparently, it is everyone else’s job to be tolerant.
@Bill, #19:
There’s nothing ambiguous about the owner’s position.
Nobody is asking the owner to support gay marriage. They’re asking the owner to sell them pizza which they want to serve to guests at a social event, just the same as they would sell it anyone else.
Since when are pizza shop owners concerned about what customers intend to do with their pizzas after they’ve been bought and paid for?
Is it vindictive viciousness when people get angry upon being subjected to such discrimination?
@Greg:
There is indeed nothing ambiguous at all. They have made it clear that they have no problem serving anyone their product. What they will not do is serve a hoard of gays as a group involved in an activity they have convictions against.
While I have some associates that are gay whom I have no problem spending time around, I’ll be damned if I will spend time at a “gay pride” parade surrounded by people trying to out-do each other with their level of gay. In addition to their religious objections to the fallacy of “gay marriage”, no doubt this too is on their minds.
No, Greg, sorry; you have no hope of pretending this about a desire for gays to be treated just like anyone else. This is about FORCING a point of view upon others and the less likely one is to fully accept that view, the more pleasure is taken in forcing it down their throats. This is the point, the goal and the motive.
Well, this is a pretty good example of vindictive viciousness.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/04/01/high-school-coach-suspended-after-threatening-to-burn-down-christian-owned-pizzeria/
When someone making such a threat is merely suspended rather than fired and indicted, we realize that it is not exactly an activity that is discouraged. What do I do when I do not think a business deserves MY business? Well, I don’t threaten to burn the damn place down; I spend my money elsewhere and encourage others to do likewise.
But that is not sufficient for radical, insane leftists, Greg. They have to destroy whatever will not align itself with it. This is tolerance for you.
It wasn’t a genuine threat, it was an unacceptable expression of anger by someone who should be setting a better example. Suspension seems appropriate.
@Greg:
Who are you to determine it to be or not be a genuine threat?
The dirt bag posted it on social media, what was it thinking….
@Greg:
Yeah, Adam Lanza wasn’t a genuine threat. The Tsarnaev brothers weren’t a threat. Jared Loughner didn’t pose a threat.
When violence is threatened on someone, it should be taken seriously. When it isn’t, violence is not taken seriously. All those caught in violent activity during the Ferguson violence have avoided punishment. This does not discourage future violence. Of course, the media, the left, and much of the justice system is willing to sanction violence, as long as it is committed against the correct targets… which they all get to choose.
Your argument is weak and silly… again, Greg.
@July 4th american, #23:
The fact that you can’t separate angry words from a serious suggestion doesn’t mean that more perceptive people aren’t able to do so.
@Greg:
And you know that how?
Oh, because you’re an idiot.
The Unintended Consequences Fairy strikes again:
I’m guessing Indiana republicans probably don’t share the Unintended Consequences Fairy’s sense of humor. That hardly matters, since no one is making a joke.
Religions that utilize marijuana or other psychotropic substances as sacraments aren’t anything new, nor are those who engage in such activities doing so in a trivial, insincere fashion. Religious use of various mind-altering substances predates any modern religion and certainly predates any modern government.
The First Church of Cannabis was approved after Indiana’s religious freedom law was passed
What hath Indiana wrought?
@Greg:
And the dirtbag step father of the gentle giant who said “burn this bitch down” was just issuing angry words but not a serious suggestion.
It would appear the rioters of Ferguson were not perceptive enough to separate his angry words from a serious threat.
HS Coach Who Threatened to Burn Down Pizzeria Was Merely “Adding To The Conversation”…
Obama can get a new golfing partner.
Via JWF
Obama’s America in 2015. A psychotic, deranged mob goes apeshit on a business in Indiana, with a local high school coach calling for the business to be burned to the ground. But she was only “adding to the conversation” about Indiana’s RFRA law. Talk about the sorry state of journalism.
A Concord High School coach has been suspended after she tweeted about arson in relation to a Walkerton pizzeria whose owners told the media they agree with the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
Jess Dooley, who is the head coach of the girls golf program and also an assistant coach with the softball and girls basketball programs, took to Twitter Wednesday, April 1, to voice her opinion about the RFRA.
She was adding to the conversation about Memories Pizza, a Walkerton restaurant whose owners announced in a television news segment that they would not cater gay weddings.
Threatening to burn a business down is not adding to the conversation, it’s criminal behavior.
@July 4th American:
And what will happen to that coach after her suggestions of violence toward the pizza shop? She will be put on suspension, with pay, of course, while the school district “investigates” and then she will be right back into the class room or locker room. Now, had the pizza joint been owned by a Muslim, or a black, she would be kicked to the curb and out on the street.
And since she was so quick to make those comments, can you even wrap your head around what she says to her class of students?
You see, journalism does have rules. If you’re black, Hispanic, Muslim or gay, it is politically incorrect (Cultural Marxism) to say anything negative. But if you’re a white Christian, and especially if you live in a southern state, you’re fair game for anyone that wants to threaten or slander you. You know, because of …………..slavery, or something.
And those on the left will never say one damn word because it is not their ox being gored. But one day it will be, and there will be no one to speak out for them and they will wonder why.
@retire05:
Agreed,
The posted article was to reinforce the lefts mantra as greg was so quick to support, I think the future golfing partner of Obama should be fired, suspension with pay is not enough….
@Greg:
You do not, I guess, understand the nature of a “threat”. A threat is a threat because of the implication of the execution of the stated act. Remember, these are imbalanced, intolerant liberal zealots we are talking about here.
Apparently, when the requests for “civility” issue forth from the left, it is just another attempt to silence the argument until they can generate a fresh batch of lies and accusations. Civility in speech and discussion, as well as by actions, has no true place in the left. The true nature of the left, though currently suppressed, more like the proclivity for violence utilized by the Nazis and Communists of the ’30’s. Make no mistake, Greg, when a left wing zealot make a violent threat, it SHOULD be taken seriously because it is aimed at the minions of the dim of wit that form the base of the liberal movement.
If you owned a business (shed your liberalism and imagine being a self-supporting business person for a moment) and someone publicly threatened to burn it down, would you take it seriously? If your livelihood was threatened by people of an ideology that regularly acts upon and carries out such threats, would you feel the need to go to the extra time and expense to protect your source of income? If a white supremacist group made the same threat against a black business, would it be considered “just talk”?
@retire05:
I have no problem wrapping my head around her statements to her students; I am sure they are just as what she recommended should happen to the pizza parlor. Nowadays, liberals in education (and they are the majority) spread their ideology far more than they promote actual education (note the poor grades and achievement of US students today) and, in the overall scope of things in education as they are, what this idiot pronounced is nothing extreme or out of the ordinary.
The left wing ideology is one of violent extremism.
@Bill, #31:
You’re ignoring the fact that no one here has defended the coach’s behavior. I agreed from the start that what she said was irresponsible and unacceptable. So did her employers, since she’d been suspended from her job by the time the article appeared. I’ll trust local authorities to determine whether she’s just an angry person foolishly running her mouth on social media—which seems to be very common these days—or someone who’s mentally unbalanced and poses an actual threat. I suppose you can decide whatever you wish, if seeing her as a ticking time bomb being ignored by most likely leftist local authorities provides you with a recharge of the outrage needed to fuel your free-floating political hostility. A lot of people seem to use outrage as energy. It’s one of the ways the right wing media sells tickets.
Threatening to burn a business down is not adding to the conversation, it’s criminal behavior.
The police department conducted an investigation and forwarded the case to the St. Joseph County Prosecutor’s Office for possible charges, according to a statement released to the media.
“The Walkerton Police Department is committed to extending professional police services to all in need, regardless of said person’s sexual, religious, or political views,” according to the release. “We encourage all to follow Indiana Laws and Statutes. We ask that all frustrations and rebuttals with Memories Pizza’s recent media statements remain within the law.”
Concord Community Schools superintendent Wayne Stubbs confirmed that the district is aware of the situation and Dooley has been suspended from her coaching duties pending further investigation.
Dooley also works with Concord as a paraprofessional through the Elkhart County Special Education Cooperative. Because the district contracts with the cooperative for support, Stubbs said he could not comment on that part of her employment status. As of 5:30 p.m, a call to ECSEC from The Elkhart Truth was not returned.
Why hasn’t this deranged woman been fired yet? In fact, a lot of people should be losing jobs over this.
@July 4th american, #33:
Possibly because they haven’t concluded that she’s a deranged woman.
You don’t know any more about her than what she said in an angry Twitter post and the skimpy details that have been in the media. Neither do I.
All of the actions taken by her employer and local authorities have been measured and appropriate. Some on the right, however, are behaving like a damn lynch mob.
@Greg:
She has been suspended.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/04/01/high-school-coach-suspended-after-threatening-to-burn-down-christian-owned-pizzeria/
Fired is a whole other kettle of fish what with the teachers’ union.
We may end up supporting her as she is not working for decades like we do so many teachers who cannot be fired even when they molest boys or girls.
http://nypost.com/2014/07/13/four-city-teachers-rake-in-millions-while-banned-from-classrooms/
@Greg:
If ‘they’ haven’t decided by now, then ‘they’ must be deranged also.
@Greg:
there, fixed it for you.
@Greg:
You say this is unacceptable, yet in this case and many, many (practically all) others, it is totally acceptable since it occurs each and every time. SOMEONE is accepting it… a LOT.
That “someone” is the left, Greg. The left accepts it and promotes it and it this cow/bull does not receive serious penalties (including concerned parents who are uncomfortable having this maniac instructing their children demanding she be fired), it apparently IS acceptable. It is either acceptable to the school or the school fears the retribution of the leftists who find this acceptable and launch mass protests over her firing.
Unacceptable? These are the people that drive a man out of his job simply because he had an opinion YEARS AGO that they disagree with. How is it you feel this is unacceptable? This woman should get the same treatment as Eich over her views; why not?
OK, Greg; tell me who will full control of their faculties threatens to burn down a business over catering?
Yes, the union. Keeping incompetent and unacceptable people teaching our children for decades.