Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by cmn32480 on Monday April 06 2015, @10:47AM   Printer-friendly
from the hypocrisy-knows-no-bounds dept.

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.”

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 06 2015, @07:04PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 06 2015, @07:04PM (#167096)

    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?

    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

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 06 2015, @07:26PM (#167114)

    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

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 06 2015, @10:24PM (#167214)

      So if homosexuality *were* a choice (it isn't), it would be okay to discriminate? I think not. It would be a harmless choice.

      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

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 06 2015, @11:42PM (#167248)

        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.