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) by curunir_wolf on Monday April 06 2015, @12:43PM
What the RFRA to do with sexual freedom? I can't even find a link to the legislation.
It's a ruse. The Democratic party keeps winning elections by making people afraid of a Republican party they have characterized as hating women, and gays, and minorities. They've decided they can keep the social agenda in the forefront of election issues by vilifying this law as an attack on LGBTs. The scenario they've come up with is that if a gay couple wants to hire someone to cater, participate in, or run a gay wedding, this law will allow people with religious objections to participating in a gay wedding to refuse to do so.
Even if that's the case, it would seem like those businesses would be hurting themselves (gay folks have a lot of disposable income), and it's not like they wouldn't be able to find services for their ceremony. It's also a really thin excuse for wanting to ban religious freedom. But of course it's just a marketing idea to get people to hate and fear the opposition party. Reading the law, you would be unlikely to envision such a scenario.
I am a crackpot
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 06 2015, @12:56PM
It's a ruse. The Democratic party keeps winning elections by making people afraid of a Republican party they have characterized as hating women, and gays, and minorities.
The real reason that both parties are bad is because they're full of evil scumbags who violate the constitution and people's liberties on a routine basis. Mass surveillance, the TSA, the drug war, countless wars, world police tactics, and too many other horrendous things to list. Pick a candidate in either party and it's almost certain they'll support something that violates the constitution and people's freedoms.
It's also a really thin excuse for wanting to ban religious freedom.
Religious people shouldn't get any special rights over those who are not part of a religion. For example, if some people part of a certain religion can wear hats or hoods in schools, then everyone should be able to do so, or no one should. We shouldn't be granting religious people special rights just because of the religion they're part of. Then you have the government picking and choosing which religions are 'true' religions, so good luck creating a brand new religion and getting tax exempt status.
(Score: 2) by curunir_wolf on Tuesday April 07 2015, @12:45AM
For example, if some people part of a certain religion can wear hats or hoods in schools, then everyone should be able to do so, or no one should.
You've gotten it all backwards, here. WHY are you banning hats or hoods in schools (or anywhere else)? Sure, the SCOTUS has come up with that tired old "compelling state interest" to decide that the state can tell people what they can wear, or say, or eat, or think, but when you start trampling on generations-long traditions you should have a higher standard before you start taking away peoples' freedoms. Many of these things are recognized not only implicitly in the Constitution, but people felt so strongly about them (religion, speech, arms, not being searched, not being subjected to forced confessions, etc.), that they were codified explicitly in the Bill of Rights. If you don't get that, your school's educational program has failed you.
We shouldn't be granting religious people special rights just because of the religion they're part of.
Well, they aren't really "special rights", they are protected freedoms from government interference. We provide special protection for all kinds of groups - historically disadvantaged minorities, for example, as well as the disabled, veterans of the military, senior citizens, and many others. And those often include not just specific freedoms but specific privileges and rights, too.
Then you have the government picking and choosing which religions are 'true' religions, so good luck creating a brand new religion and getting tax exempt status.
That is quite easy, actually (have you actually looked into it?) You don't even have to be an actual "religion" - calling yourself "social welfare" organization will work just as well. I know there is a major movement to start taxing churches, but it's wrong-headed when you understand the rationale and the tax treatment of a broad group of organizations. Did you know that atheist groups can get the same tax breaks - including parsonage housing allowances - as traditional established religions? It's all really very fair. Unlike the characterization of this law.
I am a crackpot
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 07 2015, @01:37AM
You've gotten it all backwards, here. WHY are you banning hats or hoods in schools (or anywhere else)?
I don't think they should be banned. But they should be allowed for *everyone*. Schools are almost like prisons, especially now.
Well, they aren't really "special rights", they are protected freedoms from government interference.
If your actions harm none, they should be allowed. Which means it doesn't matter if you're doing something because of a religion or not; the only question should be whether or not it's harmful. This is why, to me, freedom of religion is pretty redundant. You would already be free to believe using my standard, and you would be free to worship through action as long as it doesn't harm anyone else. Religious people don't need special rights; all of this can be solved with true quality.
We provide special protection for all kinds of groups - historically disadvantaged minorities, for example, as well as the disabled, veterans of the military, senior citizens, and many others.
Don't compare those to which fairy tales you choose to believe in.
And those often include not just specific freedoms but specific privileges and rights, too.
Which is nonsense and anti-freedom. That's not equality. I demand all of the same freedoms that everyone else gets, and I shouldn't have to be part of some religion to get them.
I know there is a major movement to start taxing churches, but it's wrong-headed when you understand the rationale and the tax treatment of a broad group of organizations.
It's not wrong-headed. If they want to run charities or something, they can just start a separate organization. There is no reason that churches should not be taxed.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 07 2015, @11:48PM
You have the same freedoms. You're free to choose a belief system that requires you to do x, just the same as them. Their belief system requires it, thats why they get an exemption. That your belief system does not also require it does not mean you have less freedoms than them.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 09 2015, @09:36PM
Bullshit! That means you have to be part of a certain religion to get that right, which is absolutely unacceptable. Freedom to believe in magical sky daddies != freedom to do as you please. Actions are different from mere belief. The religious people shouldn't get special rights just because of their religions.
And you think I can just *choose* to be a Christian, for instance? I can't force myself to believe in that garbage, or any other religious nonsense, so it would be in name only.
Their belief system requires it
Well, too motherfucking bad. If they want to do something that is harmful, then they'll have to compromise on their shitty belief system or be punished. They don't get to break the law and they don't get special exceptions just because they believe in certain myths and are part of an organized religion.
Also, why do you seemingly think the only type of belief system is a religious one? What if I have a *personal* belief system that requires I do something? Why does that not count, fool?
That your belief system does not also require it does not mean you have less freedoms than them.
Yes it does! It means I have to convert to their religion to get those freedoms, which means I currently do not have them until I do so. This is the government advocating religion implicitly by giving the religious more rights.
Bottom line: Requiring people to be part of a certain religion to have a certain right is anti-equality, anti-freedom, and extremely authoritarian. If you're all of those things, well, you might as well step up and admit it. If you're not, well, why not consider my solution? My solution is: "If it harms none, it should be allowed." That is, regardless of religion, everyone should have a certain right or no one should. This is a pro-equality solution and doesn't alienate people based on what religious they are or aren't part of.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by fadrian on Monday April 06 2015, @01:16PM
Well, yes. We are afraid of Republicans governing this country - we see the shithole Sam Brownback is creating in Kansas. We see the anti-abortion (excuse me - mother safety) laws being passed in red state houses. We see the judges you appoint and the non-support they give to equal wage laws. No, you don't hate women - you just hate letting them have laws that might improve their lot.
Not to mention we see the competence with which your party governs in Washington, D.C. You can simply take it from me that Democrats don't need to spread fear about Republicans. Republicans do it themselves by the legislative and economic agenda they try to put into place.
That is all.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Thexalon on Monday April 06 2015, @03:53PM
Also, how many of us fondly remember the presidency of George W Bush? I mean, with a track record like this:
- Ignoring the threat of Al Qaida until it was too late.
- Reacting to Sept 11 in the most panicky way imaginable, running and hiding, and then making a speech designed to scare the population.
- Having the Attorney General of the United States create and implement a policy of rounding up thousands of citizens without charging them with a crime, and locking them up for months before releasing them, violating at least 2 amendments of the Bill of Rights.
- Following that up with one of the dumbest wars the US has ever had for basically no reason.
- Gitmo. And Gitmo was just the most well-known of many sites where the US was torturing people. This made the US an international pariah, and continues to this day to be used for recruiting people into terrorist organizations.
- Putting somebody who knew a lot about Arabian horses in charge of emergency management, and doing approximately nothing as a major city was destroyed.
- Underfunding the SEC and tolerating internal corruption that helped lead to the economic collapse and a massive recession that we're still haven't recovered from.
- Replacing a modest budget surplus with massive budget deficits.
So yes, I think we all have good reason to fear from Republicans being in charge. And yes, Obama has been far from perfect, but he hasn't done anything remotely as bad as that.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 06 2015, @04:00PM
And yes, Obama has been far from perfect, but he hasn't done anything remotely as bad as that.
But he's still an evil scumbags, so like Republicans, Democrats will not get my vote. Mass surveillance, not taking a stand against the Unpatriotic Act, and not trying to get rid of the TSA make him a scumbag all by themselves, along with his good buddy Bush.
(Score: 5, Informative) by hemocyanin on Monday April 06 2015, @04:22PM
I haven't updated this in a few years because it became so overwhelming, but here is a short list comparing Obama to GWB policies:
http://nothingchanged.org/ [nothingchanged.org]
Each item can be expanded for more detail by clicking the link in the left column.
Certainly some our outdated, but the scale of similarity between GWB and Obama is overwhelming. The two of them both are some evil sumbitches.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Monday April 06 2015, @10:04PM
My position on this is pretty simple: Obama isn't a good guy, and isn't the savior of America or any such nonsense. The Democrats in general seem to be more-or-less lukewarm, trying to tread the line between their liberal party base and their fairly conservative rich donors on Wall Street.
However, the Obama administration has been approximately competent at governing. To use the FEMA example above, Obama's FEMA director is Craig Fugate, who started as a firefighter/paramedic and worked his way up to being head of Florida's emergency management, a post he held for many years before his appointment to FEMA. And I consider that likely to be one reason why the federal response to Hurricane Sandy was a lot more effective than the response to Hurricane Katrina.
By contrast, Republicans believe that government is the problem, and when in office do their best to prove it.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Tuesday April 07 2015, @01:51AM
As counterpoint, I present the Obama Administration's handling of the FDA's approval of Plan B.
From: http://nothingchanged.org/obama_hates_birth_control.html [nothingchanged.org]
Update: As of June of 2013, the Obama administration gave up on it's appeal of a court decision overturning Sebelius' Plan B restrictions -- the outcome however is ultimately positive _in_spite_of_, rather than because of, the Obama Administration:
(Score: 1) by nitehawk214 on Monday April 06 2015, @03:03PM
A ruse, hmm? One one thing that if the majority of people want freedom from religion and keep voting for Democrats... that the Republicans would figure it out and jump on the train.
Instead you hear the banging drums about how they are going to pander to the Tea Partiers and install new conservative religious laws and turn us into the Americanstan... you know, just like RFRA wants to do.
"Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
(Score: 2) by curunir_wolf on Tuesday April 07 2015, @12:28AM
You're right about the Republicans (or any other political party leaders) - they will compromise any ideal to maintain their position of power.
That said, religious freedom is a major part of the Constitution, and a major motivator for the people that founded the country in the first place (many people came here because the religions in Europe were too liberal - go figure). So if you want to amend the Constitution to get rid of those First Amendment provisions, then go for it. Me, I'd rather let people do their own thing. They're not hurting me. But, you know, haters gotta hate...
I am a crackpot