Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 18 submissions in the queue.
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This discussion has been archived.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: 2) by curunir_wolf on Tuesday April 07 2015, @12:45AM

    by curunir_wolf (4772) on Tuesday April 07 2015, @12:45AM (#167272)

    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
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 07 2015, @01:37AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 07 2015, @01:37AM (#167280)

    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

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 07 2015, @11:48PM (#167642)

      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.

      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

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 09 2015, @09:36PM (#168508)

        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.