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: 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?"