SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
David Knowles reports at Bloomberg that former Hewlett-Packard CEO and potential 2016 presidential candidate Carly Fiorina called out Apple CEO Tim Cook as a hypocrite for criticizing Indiana and Arkansas over their Religious Freedom Restoration Acts while at the same time doing business in countries where gay rights are non-existent. “When Tim Cook is upset about all the places that he does business because of the way they treat gays and women, he needs to withdraw from 90% of the markets that he’s in, including China and Saudi Arabia,” Fiorina said. “But I don’t hear him being upset about that.”
In similar criticism of Hillary Clinton on the Fox News program Hannity, Fiorina argued that Clinton's advocacy on behalf of women was tarnished by donations made to the Clinton Foundation from foreign governments where women's rights are not on par with those in America. ""I must say as a woman, I find it offensive that Hillary Clinton travels the Silicon Valley, a place where I worked for a long time, and lectures Silicon Valley companies on women's rights in technology, and yet sees nothing wrong with taking money from the Algerian government, which really denies women the most basic human rights. This is called, Sean, hypocrisy." While Hillary Clinton hasn't directly addressed Fiorina's criticisms, her husband has. “You’ve got to decide, when you do this work, whether it will do more good than harm if someone helps you from another country,” former president Bill Clinton said in March. “And I believe we have done a lot more good than harm. And I believe this is a good thing.”
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Rickter on Monday April 06 2015, @12:55PM
The legislation specifically says that the courts cannot compel somebody to do something to which they object due to religious reasons, especially when alternatives that require less legislative force are available. The primary intent of the law is to protect somebody who objects to gay marriage from being sued for not treating a gay couple the same as a heterosexual couple by agreeing to participate in their marriage ceremony, but the law could be used for other purposes. For instance, somebody who runs a print shop or advertising business would be able to reject business which they find objectionable, for instance, not having to print somebody's hate speech billboards or leaflets. Somebody who rejects Satanism wouldn't have to provide them animals for a ritual sacrifice (if they do such things). Somebody who provides a particular service with a religious aspect (Jewish food) wouldn't have to provide an alternative without that aspect for other customers.
The question is, should the state and the liberals be able to force dissenters to participate in ceremonies in which they disagree with what is happening? Should they be able to punish people for their religiously held beliefs, just because their business has some aspect to it that requires them to decide some people may not fit their definition of a legitimate customer? Realize that as things are cyclical, whatever side of the the issue and whether you are in the majority or minority of the public opinion is on the matter, it is a good idea to recognize that opinion on the matter may change dramatically in the future, and any law or power you give the government now may be used against you in the future. For instance, abortion used to have 70% approval in polls, but it has fallen to about 50%. If you give the state the ability to pay for abortion, and make that the expected way that it is procured, you give conservatives (or dissidents) the power to take it away in the future just by cutting off funding instead of having to make it illegal.
It's not like these people are going to refuse all services to these customers. They only wish not to participate in marriage ceremonies the object to. If it were me, I can't imagine inviting somebody who had expressed disapproval of my marriage, so it is clear to me that the individuals who have been sued in this manner were done so out of spite, not because the plaintiff actually wanted that individual to participate in their ceremony.
Here are some articles that discuss the issue supporting the law and the state on this issue. #1 [nationalreview.com] #2 [theatlantic.com] #3 [nationalreview.com]
If it were
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 06 2015, @01:00PM
If I, as an atheist who is part of no religion, doesn't want to treat a gay couple the same as a heterosexual couple, can I do that? If not, why not? Why should religious people get special rights over me just because I choose not to be part of a certain religion? You can believe whatever nonsense you want, but you don't get special rights over me. Either everyone can reject things they find objectionable, or no one can. Choose.
(Score: 2) by Kell on Monday April 06 2015, @01:35PM
+1 Probing question
Scientists ask questions. Engineers solve problems.
(Score: 1) by Rickter on Monday April 06 2015, @02:57PM
Can you articulate your moral reasoning for having the view you do? Then you would have just as much right under rational atheism to participate under the first amendment as any Christian. I don't see your problem.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 06 2015, @03:15PM
Can you articulate your moral reasoning for having the view you do?
I don't have such a view. But I'm saying that religious people shouldn't get special rights like they do now (e.g. with hats and such in schools, and these laws mentioning only religious discrimination). Someone shouldn't need to explain themselves, either.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Monday April 06 2015, @04:25PM
No, you miss the point. This law treats people differently based on religion (specifically, an atheist is not protected from his bigotry but a Christian/Muslim is). That should make it unconstitutional (reality check -- don't expect much from our dog and pony Supreme Court).
(Score: 1) by Rickter on Monday April 06 2015, @05:28PM
Hasn't the Supreme Court already recognized that atheists have the same rights as Christians as pertains to the Constitution and government, at least in some cases? Why wouldn't you be able to express your reservation using reason, and express that you have a moral reason for the government to keep it's hands off?
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Monday April 06 2015, @06:43PM
The law is specifically for religious reasons, not for a lack of religious reasons.
Secondly, unlike religion, logic or reason are terribly poor bases from which to espouse bigotry. Sure -- people try from time to time, but they end up being debunked as being rooted in prejudice and emotion.
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by Rickter on Monday April 06 2015, @07:31PM
So, you couldn't create a reasoned justification to refuse business to a bigot that you didn't agree with in order to justify turning their business away? And you think somebody else who can shouldn't be able to do so because you can't think logically enough to provide a rational explanation?
This is especially rich when you think about the issue at hand. Homosexuals are people who have an emotional need that they are lacking, so they demand that that need be met by others catering to their emotions, and pretending that what they do in a homosexual relationship is as equally important to the maintaining of civilization as what heterosexual citizen creating couples do when they create children.
You see, I don't see people who are demanding validation of their emotions of attraction as important as the actual creation and raising of the next generation of citizens. I see the latter as securing the creation of future leaders and citizens who understand what civilization is about. Pandering to the emotions of homosexuals is not necessarily beneficial to the continuation of a stable civilization since we managed to get this far without it.
Do not misunderstand me, I definitely think we must treat homosexuals as having all the rights and responsibilities that the rest of us get as individuals, but we continue to reserve marriage to heterosexual relationships, which they can choose to participate in or not. If they don't want a marriage, then let them go create some other legal situation that allows them to have the rights and responsibilities they feel they need.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Monday April 06 2015, @07:38PM
That was sort of incomprehensible. What I gather you are saying is that only straight married couples raise kids well. Looking at how many straight married couples have fucked up relationships, that seems rather dubious.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 06 2015, @09:33PM
So, you couldn't create a reasoned justification to refuse business to a bigot that you didn't agree with in order to justify turning their business away?
Would the law accept that? And religious people don't have to do that. They're just part of some illogical religion. Why would you burden someone to provide some silly rationalization when religions people don't have to do even that? Sounds like the religious have special rights to me.
and pretending that what they do in a homosexual relationship is as equally important to the maintaining of civilization as what heterosexual citizen creating couples do when they create children.
There are over 7 billion people. We don't need more, and in fact, we need less mindless breeding. Homosexuality will not be the death of civilization. And what is and is not important is utterly subjective.
Do not misunderstand me, I definitely think we must treat homosexuals as having all the rights and responsibilities that the rest of us get as individuals, but we continue to reserve marriage to heterosexual relationships
Why? What the fuck does it matter to you if they can get married or not? It doesn't hurt you one bit.
which they can choose to participate in or not.
So you're one of those 'Everyone has the same rights because they can always marry someone of the opposite sex!' people, are you? But they can't marry someone of the sex that they're actually attracted to, so no.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 06 2015, @10:07PM
Wat. The rest of your paragraph, based on this ridiculous assumption, is at best a straw man.
Who is demanding that? Again, straw man.
Apparently not. This also falls along the lines of, "You know somebody is a bigot if they preface their statement with 'Now, I'm not a bigot, but...'".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 06 2015, @07:04PM
If your only reason for refusing them is that they're not straight, you're a bigot. Society has decided that everyone should have equal opportunities, which means discriminating against people for things that are outside of everyone's control is not allowed.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 06 2015, @07:26PM
You missed the point of my comment, which isn't that I think this discrimination is okay, but that religious people shouldn't get special rights. Either the right to discriminate applies to *everyone* or no one. You don't get to discriminate against people (e.g. gay people) just because you're part of religion X.
which means discriminating against people for things that are outside of everyone's control is not allowed.
So if homosexuality *were* a choice (it isn't), it would be okay to discriminate? I think not. It would be a harmless choice.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 06 2015, @10:24PM
If it were a choice (its not), it would be about the same as not wanting to associate with somebody because you don't like their mate, like kicking your daughter out of the house because she hooked up with some thieving scumbag.
So long as people aren't denied opportunities because of factors outside their control, I don't feel its necessary for society to intervene. That is, its fine for somebody to refuse you service because you wore a red shirt today, but not because you were born with red hair. You could always go change your shirt and go back or go to a different service provider, so you're inconvenienced more than denied opportunities (factors outside control, like there only being one service provider, can change "inconvenienced" to "denied opportunities"). Whether or not the choice is harmful is tangential to the matter; how would discriminating against harmful choices be different, who defines what's "harmful", and "harmful" against who?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 06 2015, @11:42PM
So long as people aren't denied opportunities because of factors outside their control, I don't feel its necessary for society to intervene.
Harmless choices shouldn't result in you being refused. That is shallow and harmful to society as a whole, and only serves to isolate people. It can be used to oppress people who belong to a certain culture and make them feel as if they have to abandon their culture if they want to do something as simple as conduct business with others.
how would discriminating against harmful choices be different
I would say harmful choices would result in the business being financially harmed in some way just by dealing with the individual.
who defines what's "harmful", and "harmful" against who?
Almost nothing would be actually harmful. But there is no rational reason to oppose homosexuality; it's completely harmless. It's irrational intolerance.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by fadrian on Monday April 06 2015, @01:32PM
it is clear to me that the individuals who have been sued in this manner were done so out of spite...
Were the black people who sat at segregated lunch counters in the South in the late 50's and early 60's also doing this out of spite? Didn't they have their own lunch counters to sit at? When they marched later to ensure that laws rolling back their gains were not enacted, was that done "out of spite"? This is what's happening in Indiana. People have been granted the right to marry. Some people in the Indiana statehouse are yelling WE DON'T LIKE HAVING GAYS GET TEH MARRIED and so they're trying to put laws into place that would randomly allow a "Get out of jail free" card to anyone who wants to fuck about with a gay person's business. Why not this law? Because although you can see and test for discriminatory behavior, we cannot find what's truly is behind that act, religion or no, and you can't devise a legal test for this. In doing this, they encourage de facto discrimination and make this world a worse place.
That is all.
(Score: 1) by Rickter on Monday April 06 2015, @02:50PM
Look, if somebody comes in and wants to do business in the store the same way it's provided to other customers, the business must do that. And when it comes to providing food or some other basic service somebody needs to survive, there cannot and should not be any discrimination. So, in regard to minorities wanting to eat in a diner, they weren't suing out of spite. They legitimately wanted to eat in those diners where they were sitting. They wanted to be included in being American in daily life by being able to sit down in any restaurant and eat. On the other hand, when most florists probably have no qualms about making a floral arraignment for a gay wedding, why would you want to hire somebody who expresses that they don't think your ceremony is a real wedding? If somebody did that to you, would you still want to hire them? Probably not. So you go and sue them? That is spite.
When the business involves participating in something that the customer is hiring somebody else to do outside of the store, the business should have some ability to control what they are involved in, and they should be able to have standards for where and what they do as long as there is no impediment to safety (electricians for the power company should not be able to avoid working on a building when there could be safety issues for the people in that building, etc.). But when we are talking about participating in a wedding, an event planned months in advance, these are not imminent needs that cannot be planned, and the services being discussed here aren't even essential services to the event being planned (all you actually need are the officiant, a place and any guests you want; decorations, photographer, meal, and music are luxuries). Thus, those who are choose to serve in those capacities should have the same opportunity to participate or not in any given ceremony they choose.
Or, would you rather that we require scientists or programmers, to take money and work from people that they disagree with? If I am a climate change denier, should I be able to hire and compel, without being discriminated against, a scientist who agrees with the climate change science, and compel him, under the terms of hire, to participate in a charade where he will claim to no longer agree with the science as currently presented? Under the normal standards of how he normally works, he's hired to do science and present that to the public. In this case, all we are doing, economically, is participating in a transaction where I will hire him to work for me the way he works for anybody else? Should he be compelled to to participate? You may think, "But you are forcing him to participate in deceit," and you would be right. But for these business people, they believe they are being forced to participate in a deceit, one that has been deliberately planned. If somebody else can be found to do the work, you should not force these individuals to participate in something they consider to be lying.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Monday April 06 2015, @09:39PM
Look, if somebody comes in and wants to do business in the store the same way it's provided to other customers, the business must do that.
Are you sure about that? Don't they still have that saying, "Management reserves the right to refuse service to any customer"?
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by ancientt on Tuesday April 07 2015, @12:45AM
It's been said better [americanthinker.com] than I can say it, and frankly I'm disgusted to see that this debate rages on with neither side willing to even consider the valid points from the other.
Side 1 valid point: deciding that you don't want to do business with someone based on characteristics of a group they belong to is legitimately something a society should condemn and sometimes prevent.
Side 2 valid counter: deciding you don't want to be responsible for a message someone requests, no matter how valid or invalid that message may be, is protection of your personal right to free speech.
Side 1 invalid counter: race and sexual preference are the same thing.
Side 2 invalid counter: people should have the right to refuse service to anyone without consideration of the reasons.
Those signs are still around but they don't negate the laws against some refusals of service. Management may say they reserve that right, but in practice they cannot (legally) refuse service based on race.
There is room for compromise here. It is reasonable to say that a business should not be allowed to refuse service based on what they think someone's sexual preferences are, but at the same time, it should be reasonable for a business to refuse to create a message endorsing any activity, regardless of what that activity is.
Example of valid (if stupid) refusal: A baker should be able to refuse to put mixed race figurines on a wedding cake.
Example of an invalid refusal: A baker cannot refuse service to a couple because they are of different races.
Why is it about bakers? Most readers this far and late in a thread probably already know, but I've discovered some people don't. The fact is that in Colorado a judge has ordered bakers to create a message they specifically felt was contrary to their religious beliefs. There have been several of these cases and Colorado and California have had enough of them that other states are trying to prevent their citizens from being forced by law to produce messages they strongly disagree with. That's the silly part, there was no refusal to provide the usual service to someone, regardless of their sexual preferences; it was a refusal to produce a specific type of message. Most states think that the right to refuse to refuse to create a specific message is reasonable, while most states also don't think the right to refuse service based on the characteristics of the customers is reasonable.
I think it is immoral and should be illegal to force anyone to produce art or a message they believe is immoral, regardless of their reasons. I think dogs are great, but I don't believe I should have the right to force anyone to create a sign saying dogs are great if they don't want to, regardless of their motivation. But nobody is up in arms saying people should be forced to create those signs, so I'll go to the radical extreme of the same idea. I don't believe people in the KKK should be forced by law to create banners saying all races are equal. I think the beliefs of the KKK are stupid and I adamantly believe there are many, many, many things they should be legally prohibited from doing, but I don't they should be legally prohibited from being allowed to refuse to create messages in disagreement with their beliefs.
As a citizen of the United States of America, I cherish my right to say what I believe and my right to not say something I don't believe. That freedom is so important that I want to see even the most disgusting and disturbing beliefs of people I disagree with protected the same way. This isn't about tolerance, this about freedom and specifically my freedom. I'm dismayed that so many people are so vested in their cause and beliefs that they want to see such a basic freedom taken from everyone else.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Tuesday April 07 2015, @06:19PM
Two points.
1) The proprietor is better off just not giving a reason. "Are you refusing to service me because I'm black, or a convicted felon?" (for example)
B) In most circumstances it's kind of a moot point anyway because the business in question is just turning away paying customers. So if people just weren't assholes a lot of the problem wouldn't exist.
I can see both sides of the argument somewhat. On the one hand, forcing a store owner to sell to someone is ridiculous. On the other hand, people will often be assholes unless specifically barred from doing so by law.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Monday April 06 2015, @04:34PM
A business operates to serve the public for profit. In order to encourage business, all people no matter what characteristics they possess, provide support for public services such as roads, sewage, water, fire protection, police protection, court system, and others I'm sure I'm not thinking of. If a business wishes to take public support by having access to all of these services, it should in turn serve that public.
If a person is so bigoted that he/she can't imagine serving [randomCharacteristic] people, that business should be barred from using any of the services the public provides. Yeah sure, they'd go out of business, but they would still have the freedom to make that choice. However, to take from those who help you, and then spit in their face, is the epitome of assholery.
Secondly, the on-premises vs. off-premises service is so much bullshit. There are all kinds of businesses, not just caterers, that do their work off premises. Plumbers, electricians -- basically all construction trades and maintenance trades. Those businesses rely on public services just as much as the other types -- in a shop, people drive to the store and use the road access to access the store -- the plumber uses the roads to access his customers. It's the same in it's essential characteristic in that if people could not travel (either to the business, or business travel to the customer) then the business totally fails.
(Score: 1) by Rickter on Monday April 06 2015, @06:01PM
The taxes/infrastructure argument is ridiculous. If the business pays it's taxes, it has earned the right to use those resources even though they didn't pay for the entirety of them, and it shouldn't be taken away because they choose to make a decision with values you don't agree with. After all, most businesses, especially small local ones like the ones being discussed here pay a disproportionate amount of taxes to support local roads and other services. That should earn them immunity from having their use of those resources questioned because other people disagree with what they do.
I replied [soylentnews.org] to another post (an hour and a half before yours) with a bit mentioning electricians. I'd be more interested in hearing what you thought of the scenario I posted in that post, and reposted here:
Would you rather that we require scientists or programmers, to take money and work from people that they disagree with? If I am a climate change denier, should I be able to hire and compel, without being discriminated against, a scientist who agrees with the climate change science, and compel him, under the terms of hire, to participate in a charade where he will claim to no longer agree with the science as currently understood? Under the normal standards of how he normally works, he's hired to do science and present that to the public, which makes him a provider of service just the same as these business individuals. In this case, all we are doing, economically, is participating in a transaction where I will hire him to work for me the way he works for anybody else? Should he be compelled to to participate? You may think, "But you are forcing him to participate in deceit," and you would be right. But for these business people, they believe they are being forced to participate in a deceit, one that has been deliberately planned (in their understanding). If somebody else can be found to do the work, you should not force these individuals to participate in something they consider to be lying. Shouldn't we expect that of all citizens? That they assess the character of those they associate, or the actions and agreements they are asked to partake in, and chose not to participate in those they find offensive. By your very desire to strip them of their ability to use the roads because they don't agree with you, you indicate that you think this should be a standard they should live up to. But then when they do it in disagreement with your values, you want to strip them of their rights.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Monday April 06 2015, @07:11PM
Only if it pays ALL the taxes.
I own a business in WA state. We have no income tax but we do have a sales tax, property tax -- and a B&O tax which only affects business owners. Although I may pay more tax than the average person in WA by virtue of owning a business, I still don't pay _all_ the taxes, and other people kick in too. Many things I don't support get the benefit of my tax dollars -- churches for example. FN1.
The fact is, a business is not exactly a private space like a home, because it invites the public to use its services. It is thus perfectly reasonable that if the public at large provides an infrastructure on which to build that business, the public at large is right to expect that it will be served as a whole, otherwise, that business is just a freeloader sucking at the public teat.
---
FN1: Can you think of a bigger waste of money, intellect, time, and effort than churches? It's pretty hard -- video games, heroin, fishing -- these come to mind but each of them actually has some utility (flight simulators for video games, pain treatment for heroin, food from fishing). I can't play games anymore because of my wrists, never tried heroin, but I have spent thousands of dollars and countless hours fishing. I still pay taxes that in part, make it possible for people to go to church, for churches to not get broken into and sacked, and for those utilities they use despite having a strong moral objection to churches (imagine the awesome place the world would be if all that time and money spent on fantasy went to science or art). But I also pay taxes that go to building boat launches, seeding oysters, monitoring the populations of various sea creatures, and the like. Anyway, you have to take the good with the bad, and for a business open to the public, that means serving people you don't like because that person contributed to the infrastructure your business needs. Just like when paying taxes, you buy some crap you totally don't want, and some stuff you really like.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday April 07 2015, @03:06AM
Only if it pays ALL the taxes.
So if someone else pays just a little bit of tax, then that dirties the pool?
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Tuesday April 07 2015, @07:54AM
Only if it pays ALL the taxes.
So if someone else pays just a little bit of tax, then that dirties the pool?
Shut up, Donnie, you're out of your league. (Big Lebowski, Bowling Alley Scene)
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday April 07 2015, @11:59AM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 07 2015, @08:04AM
Except, of course, if we have to re-institute the Draft. Then all these religious pofters are going to have to toe the line! Sure, we might grant a CO status exemption, if we can spare the bodies on the front, but if not, the state overrules your paltry gods, Xandarians!