Apple's Tim Cook and Salesforce's Marc Benioff DECLARE WAR on anti-gay Indiana

Two high-profile tech CEOs – Apple's Tim Cook and Salesforce's Mark Benioff – have publicly criticized a new Indiana law that legalizes discrimination against gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people. Cook tweeted earlier today: "Apple is open for everyone. We are deeply disappointed in Indiana's new law and calling on …

[Craigness]

Re: It's never black or white.

The state hasn't banned gay people, they've allowed private business to decide who they do business with. This is more freedom, not less, and less government, not more. This leaves business to operate as they see fit, and to succeed or fail depending on the will of the people who transact with them. That's more democratic than having a government tell us what we can and can't do, and far more democratic than having a CEO tell a government what they can and can't tell people to do. Are you sure it's a good thing when CEOs use their influence over government, rather than over the public?

[beanbasher]

At the risk of invoking godwins law...

Will the state of Indiana require gays and such to wear the pink triangle the nazis required for thier gays. Or will we be lurching back to the 1960's for a new round of civil rights campaigns

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: At the risk of invoking godwins law...

"Will the state of Indiana require gays and such to wear the pink triangle the nazis required for thier gays"

Nah - they are not that old fashioned. It will surely be along the lines of handkerchiefs in the back pocket. The US queer population are at least already familiar with that approach...

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: At the risk of invoking godwins law...

Beanbasher,

Have you actually even read the law?

Sec. 8. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b), a governmental entity may not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.(b) A governmental entity may substantially burden a person's exercise of religion only if the governmental entity demonstrates that application of the burden to the person:(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.

[Aitor 1]

Re: It's never black or white.

It is NOT freedom.

"We do not serve your kind here".

You see, blacks had "freedom", as in "you cannot go to our places, but you can go to those places that accept backs".

This exactly about oppression and discrimination of minorities.

[gnarlymarley]

Re: It's never black or white.

"It is NOT freedom."

Let me get this straight, do you mean it is not freedom as a buyer? This whole issue about freedom has two sides, the buyer and the seller. Both sides cannot have the same freedom. Either the buyer has to lose some or the seller has to lose some. Something that you need to remember is that when you take a side, such as the buyer LOSING some freedom, means the seller is GAINING some freedom. The law is about GIVING some freedom to the folks working in a business.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: It's never black or white.

So segregation and discrimination count as "more freedom", do they?

There was a long, hard fight to get rid of racial segregation in the USA. It seems to me that if you agree with Craigness's argument, banning racial discrimination counts as "less freedom".

After all, what greater freedom can there be than the right of hate-filled bigots to deny full participation in society to any group they despise?

Surely if it's right to ban gays from a restaurant, then it's got to be just as right to permit private businesses to re-introduce the whites-only lunch counter? Isn't it?

Yes it is: it's exactly as right to ban non-whites from your restaurant as it is to ban gays. By which I mean: it's not right at all.

The reason this isn't a black and white issue is that in all civilised countries - even the USA - it's illegal into discriminate against black people in this sort of way.

It's just a shame that other groups suffering from discriminatory prejudice aren't protected in the USA as they are in less socially backward parts of the world.

[big_D]

Re: It's never black or white.

@Craigness don't companies already have the right to not serve? In most countries shops can refuse to sell to a customer, it is after all a voluntary contract between both parties. They usually don't have to give a reason and, if they do give a reason, it cannot be for racial prejudice etc. otherwise they can end up getting prosecuted or sued.

"I'm not serving this guy," or "I'm not serving this guy because I don't like him," are generally legal.

"I'm not serving this guy, because he is black / gay," is illegal.

[TechicallyConfused]

Re: It's never black or white.

Bull-*cough*-shit!

All I will say is this, once again religion is being used as a catalyst to make people’s lives just that bit less enjoyable. If god loves as all as these hypocrites say then how can we make a law based on religious belief that clearly smacks this down?

How free will people feel when they walk down the street and every third shop fronts a sign stating "Straights Only, No Gays or Transgender".

Talk about taking a walk back in time 50 years.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's never gay or straight

Funnily enough, I have to agree with the Craigness argument, up to a point but for very different reasons.

The real issue at hand should be:

To what degree does the government have the right to interfere with people's private lives ?

Sexual preferences are just one aspect of private life. If someone is gay, or black or Jewish, they should not be the object of discrimination, it is as simple as that. Indiana does not need to create gay-discrimination laws anymore than Mississippi needed to create Jim Crow laws, nor should they.

Similar cases regarding people's race brought racial discrimination cases to a head in the 50s and 60s. The result was sweeping civil rights legislation which eliminated a virtual US state of racial apartheid at unparalleled speed.

When discrimination against a person's sexual orientation becomes an infringement on people's civil rights, (as it currently is for sex, race, religion and so on) then laws like those proposed by Indiana, will become instant non-starters.

And if history repeats itself, Cook was not only right to speak up, he may help ensure these laws are pilloried in Federal Courts.

There is nothing wrong with public figures speaking their mind about the issues of the day, they are citizens just like anyone else, but with a bigger public audience.

[SuccessCase]

Re: It's never black or white.

"Is Apple's influence such a good thing when thinking about corporate tax laws, the 100+ billion they're hiding in tax heavens?"

It's interesting how erroneous memes start with loose thinking. Apple are frequently cited in articles on tax avoidance (perfectly legal) these days, so it seems reasonable to make the sweeping statement they are hiding 100+ billions in tax havens. Except they aren't. They are keeping their money in the jurisdictions where they earned it and not moving it to the U.S. because when you move money doing so attracts tax. When no tax is due, there's no point in moving money back to the U.S. or any other place in the world, until you need it there for a reason. Otherwise if you later need to move your money elsewhere in the world you will have needlessly paid tax where it simply wasn't owed in the first place.

Indeed Tim Cook is on record as stating Apple do not use financial instruments for side-ways effects on tax (do not use instruments for effects other than their intended purpose - so no loans from one Apple subsidiary company to another to reduce profit margins in higher tax jurisdictions ) and they do not move money to to jurisdictions it isn't needed other than for the purpose of tax reduction. Those are actually pretty strong statements and deserve to be acknowledged. Especially when certain competitors who are trying to claim the moral high ground and do make use of financial instruments purely for their sideways tax effects and do move money to tax havens when it is not required there to cover any genuine operational costs. Google I'm looking at you.

[big_D]

Re: It's never black or white.

@SuccessCase I don't really want to divert the conversation, but... Apple are releasing bonds to get cash on credit, instead of repatriating the cash they already have.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: It's never black or white.

Suppose you're a photographer and you turn down a gay couple because you're already booked for the given weekend or you decided in advance to take that weekend off.

Suppose you turn them down because the other couple pays more, or you decide to cancel the vacation because a friend comes by asking for that specific date.

They sue you for discrimination.

You lose the lawsuit because that's how things roll.

--

Think about it. If you *can* win that case, then businesses have all the right to discriminate against anyone they don't want to serve. It's just that they need to provide a different reason for refusing business.

However, if you can only lose that case, then gay couples can walk to any photographer and demand pictures being taken for one dollar (or at cost), and if you refuse, they'll sue you to bankruptcy. And don't even think about turning up at their wedding and taking lousy pictures. They'll sue you for that, too.

[Triggerfish]

Re: It's never black or white.

"However, if you can only lose that case, then gay couples can walk to any photographer and demand pictures being taken for one dollar (or at cost), and if you refuse, they'll sue you to bankruptcy. And don't even think about turning up at their wedding and taking lousy pictures. They'll sue you for that, too."

I would have thought you could refuse because they are not paying the price asked for.

[PoliTecs]

Re: It's never black or white.

Really? That's what business is for or should even remotely be involved in social issues? Because Halliburton was interested in securing freedom by supporting our troops for our country and our allies but I bet you were a nut job over that weren't you...

Liberalism is a mental disorder!

[Anonymous Coward]

Torn

I'm torn between being pleased that the two CEOs have used their weight to speak out against what is a retrogade and down-right wrong piece of legislation, and my concern that the CEOs may be trying to wield undue influence over a democratic process.

..

Ah fuckit - well done chaps.

[Philip Machanick]

Re: Torn

Peopl with no ethics throw money at the democratic process, like big polluters, tobacco, etc. So why not someone promoting rights?

[Craigness]

Re: Torn

"So why not someone promoting rights?"

The law does promote rights. It's just that it's rights some people don't want us to have.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Torn

> The law does promote rights. It's just that it's rights some people don't want us to have

Under US Law, there is no right - implicit or explicit - to discriminate aganist a class of people based on reasons having nothing to do with legal rights or ability.

There is no constitutional or statutory right today - in the USA - to refuse to sell flowers to gay people, just as there is no right to refuse to sell flowers to blond people, or to people who have green eyes., or to people who wear shoes size 10 1/2.

This is something the bigoted class - class that you appear to faithfully represent here - has never been able to comprehend: that the notion of "religious freedom" gives you the right to create a Tort. It does not.

Like it or not, the US - just like many other countries in the world - has a secular form of government. While the Constitutional System in the US prohibits the Government from creating favorite religions, it does not prevent the Government from enforcing its laws based on some nebulous and undefined religious freedom claim.

You may believe that religious freedom has no bounds. If you believed that, you would be wrong.

If this secular model does not fit your views, feel free to relocate to Saudi Arabia. In that country you can beat your wife to death, or you can behead people for being gay, or for posting on Facebook, all in the name of upholding your religious freedoms.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Torn

Really? No shoes, no shirt, no service comes to mind. It's perfectly legal to refuse to seat someone in a restaurant who's not wearing shoes or a shirt.

This logically extends to, to give an example, a Muslim-run restaurant that refuses to serve women not dressed to their requirements. A no shoes, no shirt, no hijab, no service kind of thing.

Otherwise, if you are compelled to serve everyone, there's nothing stopping a *straight* couple (never mind gay) demanding pics taken of their wedding night in graphic detail. Some photographers would find it objectionable on religious grounds -- are you also going to propose that the photographer is forced to take the assignment?

Again, I would like to point out that there is nothing stopping a frivolous lawsuit. If you have no witnesses to the contrary, a couple that was refused service can claim in court that it was on the grounds of them being gay, and not on an unreasonable service or demanded price. Who do you think the court, judge or jury will side with?

Note that these are all *private* businesses we are talking about. Not public services or venues. If business owners have no right to run their operation as they see fit, where is the economic freedom?

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Torn

But they're private businesses, exercising their freedom to discriminate against State governments belonging to a weird cult.

[Mark 85]

Re: Torn

You raise an interesting point. If next week, a law is passed to tell these two CEO's that they must do "something" that goes against their grain, such as (and I'll be off the wall) "pay the employees more equitably", do you think they would stick up for this? Right now, it's in their interest to be socially responsible, maybe next week... not so.

[Anonymous Coward]

Indiana, WTF?

Putting rich, egocentric, media hugging CEOs aside for a moment, if Indiana really has passed a law that legalizes discrimination against gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people, then what the hell were Indiana's lawmakers thinking of?

Do they honestly think a law like this could do anything but harm, could do anything but cause further divisions and unrest? Who actually benefits from this?

Not being a lawyer myself, are there any lawyers who frequent El Reg that could add a bit of insight here?

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Indiana, WTF?

The side effect of this is that there is a booming trade in stickers saying 'We serve Everyone' being sold to businesses.

Then those that aren't are going to start to suffer with reduced business.

Do they deserve it?

The words

you reap what you sow

Seems to be quite apt IMHO having had a few incidents in the US over the 40years I've been going there. Common Sense is almost totally absent in a large part of the US especially (IMHO) amongst those who watch Fox News.

[td97402]

Re: Indiana, WTF?

"Common Sense is almost totally absent in a large part of the US especially (IMHO) amongst those who watch Fox News."

I'm pretty sure that you've misspelled it, I believe it is FAUX NEWS.

[Sloppy Crapmonster]

Re: Indiana, WTF?

Shouldn't the booming business really be in "LGBT not welcome here" signs? It's more in keeping with the spirit of the law *and* doesn't cause an undue financial burden on those businesses that aren't excercising their new-found freedom, right?

[tom dial]

Re: Indiana, WTF?

If my business were making signs I would cheerfully offer both options.

[Voland's right hand]

Re: Indiana, WTF?

My exact thought.

Moral issues aside this creates a contradiction between contract, company code (something every large company has) and local law. This automatically raises a red flag for a large company in terms of operating there (as I said - this if we put the moral issues aside and look purely at the liability aspect).

Large companies have provisions to deal with this in on a country basis and they are quite expensive to maintain. If they have to do the same on a per-state basis they will scream murder. And in this case they did.

[tom dial]

Re: Indiana, WTF?

"[T]his creates a contradiction between contract, company code (something every large company has) and local law."

That does not appear to be correct. The law, as stated, limits what Indiana governments may do, but lays no requirement on any company. It is entirely consistent with a business rule that the company treats all actual and prospective customers the same and provides equal employment opportunity, however defined. The full text can be found at

http://iga.in.gov/static-documents/9/2/b/a/92bab197/SB0101.05.ENRS.pdf

It is not easy to see how it would conflict with reasonable company policies, although a company might reasonably consider holding back expanding in (or into) Indiana if they think it would be a hostile place for their employees.

[fruitoftheloon]

@Skydweller: Re: Indiana, WTF?

Skydweller,

yup, that is it in a nutshell, they really are that narrow minded, bigoted f'wits.

I can also relate to this as my (American) mother-in-law genuinely thinks that anyone that isn't married and doesn't have 2.24 kids is surely the spawn of the devil.

And if they are in any way at all A BIT QUEER, then OMG her reaction is a sight to behold.

As to who benefits, well the bigots probably take it as a reaffirmation that they are right (and therefore normal), and the rest of the world can figuratively (and to their minds, hopefully too) go to hell...

Of course ~7% of them and their kids are queer, not that they would acknowledge that of course...

Cheers,

j

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Indiana, WTF?

As I understand it, they didn't pass a law that explicitly says that discrimination is legal. The law they passed was phrased as a means of allowing shop owners and employers to protect their religious beliefs. The enablement of discrimination is a loophole result (which may or may not have been the original intention of those that riased the bill) by not forcing them to serve people who's belief/lifestyle-choise/way-they-were-born offends the religious sensibility of the store owner.

Indiana is a very 'bible-belt' kind of state though. Pro-religion and pro-replublican, for the most part.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Indiana, WTF?

"As I understand it, they didn't pass a law that explicitly says that discrimination is legal."

An Indiana State lawyer interviewed on radio said that he thought any attempt to use it to discriminate against LGBT etc would not be upheld in a court as that would contravene other discrimination laws.

Apparently the Indiana legislators believe there are many other states with effectively the same law. They say it takes its precedence from a Supreme Court ruling on religious freedom. Not sure which one that was - possibly that companies on religious grounds could exclude contraception from their health plans for employees. Could blood transfusions also be excluded on those grounds?

[Craigness]

Re: Indiana, WTF?

@AC the Hobby Lobby case you allude to was not about contraception. They never excluded (female) contraception and never asked to be able to exclude (female) contraception. It was "abortifacients" they objected to, which is post-conception birth control. There was a lot of hot air generated by the fact what they objected to were not technically abortifacients, and they were alternatively labelled "contraceptives" by the left-wing media despite not being contraceptives.

[Yet Another Anonymous coward]

Re: Indiana, WTF?

The law allows private businesses to pick and choose their customers without the risk of being sued by publicity hungry political groups. essentially this is already the law in the UK

Should a synagogue be allowed to refuse to rent a room for a neo-nazi meeting?

Can a church hall turn down a booking from satanists?

Can a French restaurant turn away a UKIP member

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Indiana, WTF?

"Can a church hall turn down a booking from satanists?"

English churches have already been held up to public ridicule for turfing out Yoga classes from their church hall on the grounds of it being rooted in an alien religion.

IIRC one church denied the use of its hall to the local Girl Guides when the national organisation removed $(deity) from their membership oath.

[tom dial]

Re: Indiana, WTF?

There is, of course, a considerable difference between public shaming on one hand and implicit application of the government's lawful monopoly on the use of force. It is logically consistent, especially for those in the US who incline to first amendment absolutism, to favor one and oppose the other.

[Snake Plissken]

Re: Indiana, WTF?

>>>

Do they honestly think a law like this could do anything but harm, could do anything but cause further divisions and unrest? Who actually benefits from this?

<<<

There is an odd subset of politicians (mainly Right Wing) who seem to think that Bad Things can simply be legislated out of existence. The thought process seems to be that if you ban gays, then homosexuality (which they see as a choice) will some how disappear. Some of them have banned reporting on climate change, or even using the phrase "climate change".

You can judge how successful these campaigns to deny basic human nature are, because for many years we have had laws against murder and prostitution. And if you look around our society, you will surely agree that no-one ever gets murdered or becomes a prostitute.

[Craigness]

Re: Indiana, WTF?

They're not banning gays, they're banning the ban on freedom. Freedom does go away if you ban it.

[Mark 85]

Re: Indiana, WTF?

There is an odd subset of politicians (mainly Right Wing) who seem to think that Bad Things can simply be legislated out of existence

Actually both the left and the right believe that. But it's about different things, of course.

[John H Woods]

Re: Indiana, WTF?

"... homosexuality (which they see as a choice) ..." -- Snake Plissken

I've always found this truly weird. I would no more consider having sex with a man than my gay brother would consider having sex with a woman. Surely anyone who thinks there's any kind of element of choice must be at least a little bit bicurious. Is that why they are so hate-filled, because they worry that they might carry this "predilection" within themselves?

[Cpt Blue Bear]

Re: Indiana, WTF?

" Is that why they are so hate-filled, because they worry that they might carry this "predilection" within themselves?"

After literally seconds of consideration, I can only say, "yup".

People are, in general, not very good at deciphering the motives of others. Thus the tendency to accuse others of what they would do themselves in a given situation. Witness the fundamentalist obsession with sodomy...

(Cue jokes: dirty buggers, "carry within" fnah, fnah, etc)

[Swarthy]

Re: Indiana, WTF? @John H Woods

Surely anyone who thinks there's any kind of element of choice must be at least a little bit bicurious. Is that why they are so hate-filled, because they worry that they might carry this "predilection" within themselves?

Given that the prefix homo- means similar/same (IE: homophones are words that sound the same/similar, homosexual is one who is attracted to the same/similar gender) then I posit that a homophobe is one who is afraid of people like themselves.

"If you believe that same-sex marriage will ruin your marriage, then what you really fear is that you or your spouse is secretly gay." - I can't be arsed to look up attribution

[James O'Shea]

Re: Indiana, WTF?

"Putting rich, egocentric, media hugging CEOs aside for a moment, if Indiana really has passed a law that legalizes discrimination against gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people, then what the hell were Indiana's lawmakers thinking of?"

You _do_ know that Indiana was the state which passed a law making pi equal to 3.2, don't you? There is nothing too bizarre for Indiana to do. Nothing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana_Pi_Bill

Indiana lawmakers do not, cannot, think.

[tom dial]

Re: Indiana, WTF?

According to the linked Wikipedia article, while the Indiana House of Representatives passed the act, the Senate ridiculed and deferred it forever, so that it never became law.

[jai]

It's all a bit cyberpunk, isn't it, when Corporations can have a direct influence on political policy. Not even via the behind-the-scenes funding and lobbying, this is Big Corporations publically announcing the way they want the laws to be.

I'm not saying they're wrong in this instance.

But I wonder, in 10, 20 or 30 years, does government just become an administration office, responcible for managing and implementing the will of the top 20 Corps?

[mines the coat with Lo Tek scrawled on the back and with Dolphin spittle staining the sleeve]

[Yet Another Anonymous coward]

You think this is more true now than in the 1920s when Carnegie and Rockefeller ran thing?

Or the 1950s when "what was good for GM was good for the USA"

[Craigness]

There are usually loud voices arguing against corporate influence of government. They must have taken the week off.

[Shadow Systems]

@Jai: Is the Shiawase Corporation happening already?

I thought we still had a few years yet before that was due to come to pass? If they're getting an early start on that whole FusterCluck, I need to move hoop to stockpile as much APDS rounds, Panther rounds, MedKit Supplies, & Trauma Patches I can find.

Thanks for the tip Chummer, I'll find some PayData to sling your way in gratitude...

Mines the one with the NovaTech ComLink in the pocket... =-)p

[Mark 85]

I take exception. Corporates are not people, they are businesses. I don't believe any corporation should be involved in politics or interpreting the Constitution as to rights, etc. Just because it might be the right thing to do in this case, can anyone guarantee that for the next thing?

Part of the reason we're in the mess we're in now is due to politics and business and also politics and religion. Those mixes are bad news for those who get in the way and it's generally the people.

While I'm on a rant.... those who want to practice this discrimination, etc... are they really that much better than those who want Sharia Law? I see the same narrow-mindedness in both groups.

Yeah... I'm a dreamer.

[td97402]

@jal - "It's all a bit cyberpunk, isn't it, when Corporations can have a direct influence on political policy. Not even via the behind-the-scenes funding and lobbying, this is Big Corporations publically announcing the way they want the laws to be."

Well, as I recall this has been going on forever. Back in the 50s the chairman of GM was quite cozy with Eisenhower and when called out about it quite famously said "What is good for GM is good for the country and vice versa."

[Anonymous Coward]

> It's all a bit cyberpunk, isn't it, when Corporations can have a direct influence on political policy.

Who do you think pays for the billion dollar election campaigns. If you think US politics is not entirely "corporate" you need a head scanning. Companies do not stump up a billion of dollar in total unless they think they get something out of it.

[DanceMan]

"in 10, 20 or 30 years, does government just become an administration office, responcible for managing and implementing the will of the top 20 Corps?"

Doesn't exactly this happen now?

[Michael Wojcik]

It's all a bit cyberpunk, isn't it, when Corporations can have a direct influence on political policy.

Good lord, how naive can you be? Do they not teach critical thinking where you come from?

Corporations have had "a direct influence on political policy" since the concept of the corporate business was invented, just like every other organization with significant resources.

And that is as it should be, in a democratically-appointed republic, where the ostensible goal of the political system is to make decisions (by proxy) through deliberation. Now, opinions differ on the potential quality and rationality of deliberative democracy; some (I'm looking at you, Jurgen Habermas) have rather aspirational hopes for it, while others are more cynical. But you can't believe in any sort of democratic practice without acknowledging the essential nature of that deliberation, which is always and only rhetorical action.

And that, in turn, means the people who comprise organizations will make statements in the name of those organizations, and people who are prominently associated with an organization will speak under its aegis. Organizations are a source of ethos.¹

And we want that to be overt, because the alternative is to push it under another layer of indirection, with corporations and other organizations influencing the political sphere through proxies.

¹The traditional Aristotelian view of ethos as the audience's recognition of the speaker as "good" (moral, upstanding) is obviously too limited, and the term - where it's still found useful - is used for any sort of argumentative weight that comes from real or presumed credibility, reputation, or association.

[Mage]

Cook ... came out publicly as gay late last year And Cakes ...

Maybe as a sop to Apple Demographic?

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/mar/27/gay-cake-order-taken-to-avoid-embarrassment-court-told

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/bakers-felt-as-christians-they-could-not-write-pro-gay-slogan-1.2155800

There is a problem when different "freedoms" conflict.

I don't know what the answer is. There was an earlier case of Guest House / B &B prosecuted in England for refusing a Gay Male couple. Plenty of Men have shared bedrooms to save on hotel bills without being Gay, so was the couple deliberately making an issue?

It's acceptable to highlight Paedophile priests and teachers and scout leaders. But not apparently to suggest Lesbian and Gay people can be predators too.

Some people seem to be becoming MORE equal than others.

P.S. I'm a differently abled, lesbian, black jewish, transvestite with transgender issues. So you mustn't criticise me at all. I only happen to look like a fit white male.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Cook ... came out publicly as gay late last year And Cakes ...

You are posting on a Technology comment forum - I very much doubt you (or any of us) look like a "fit" anything

:)

[Craigness]

Re: Cook ... came out publicly as gay late last year And Cakes ...

@Mage the guest house couple were only refused after they had turned up in the evening expecting to be able to sleep in a bed. There are gay-only hotels and a gay resort, I've been refused entry to a club for being straight, refused a taxi ride and been excluded from parts of gyms for being male, so I support the general principal (it would be homophobic and misogynistic not to support discrimination!) but nobody should support them refusing service at such a late stage.

[Tromos]

What next in the name of religious freedoms?

Stoning of the blasphemous?

Human sacrifices?

Slaughtering the non-believers?

[fruitoftheloon]

@Tromos:Re: What next in the name of religious freedoms?

Tromos,

he's not the Messiah, he is a very naughty boy....

Sorry, couldn't resist.

J

[P. Lee]

Re: What next in the name of religious freedoms?

>Stoning of the blasphemous?

>Human sacrifices?

>Slaughtering the non-believers?

Probably. Which side are you talking about?

Christ was killed for "blasphemy" and human sacrifice is consistently mentioned as being a reason God brings sooner-than-expected judgement down on the heads of the "heathen" as well as his own people. The term "religion" is useful for bashing opponents with straw-man arguments without having to listen to what they have to say. Why listen to anyone's views when you can dismiss them as cannibals?

Does everything have to descend into soundbites? The law is to stop people being forced to aid and abet behaviour they disagree with. This isn't about the what people are, its about what they do. We don't expect National Geographic to accept advertising promoting creationism, it was explicitly created to evangelise evolution. We don't expect Environmental PR companies to promote Big Oil.

Just because I sell cakes commercially, why should I be forced to make them to promote things I disagree with? What if I'm asked to make a cake to honour everything Thatcher did, I could be prosecuted? How about one celebrating Blair's decision to go to war in Iraq? Do we so worship money that all else is rendered unimportant? Looking at Apple's cash-pile I can see what they worship. I don't berate them for their success, but I see no reason not to assess their character based on what they do with that success. If they (or even just TC) want to "do good" they could play less politics regarding who can have what opinions on sexual habits and spend a lot more cash on bringing clean drinking water to a very large number of villages where people are dying for lack of it.

I guess talk is so much cheaper.

[Mark 85]

Re: What next in the name of religious freedoms?

Just because I sell cakes commercially, why should I be forced to make them to promote things I disagree with?

I wonder what kind of uproar would happen if someone wanted a cake with a Nazi symbol on it? I'd bet dollars to donuts that there would be no support for the people ordering the cake and unanimous support for the bakery. Or what about the "no shoes, no service" signs? Should those signs be taken down as it infringes on someone's lifestyle? This is headed into murky waters.

Either the business has the right to pick and choose customers or they don't.

Yeah.. I know.. I'll get downvoted for this.

[Colin Wilson 2]

Re: What next in the name of religious freedoms?

>> What if I'm asked to make a cake to honour everything Thatcher did, I could be prosecuted? How about one celbrating Blair's descision to go to war in Iraq?

No worries - go ahead and refuse.

The law prohibits discrimination based on religion and gender. Not on political views (yet!)

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: What next in the name of religious freedoms?

"Stoning of the blasphemous?

Human sacrifices?

Slaughtering the non-believers?"

You presumably work in ISIS's PR dept?

[Anonymous Coward]

Indianopolis

The BBC World Service had quite a long piece in their business programme last night.

They also had interviews with influential people in Indianopolis. They were very worried that their conference business is going to be hit very hard. They have already had a lot of conference organisers contacting them to say they are thinking about going elsewhere in future. The mayor was trying to do something legal to neutralise the effect of this State law in Indianpolis city itself.

One conference mentioned as being upset was IIRC "GeoCon" - which apparently is worth $6m a year to their local economy. Google says "GeoCon III has been postponed." - but whether that is down to other factors before this issue is not clear.

[Craigness]

Hypocrisy or stupidity?

Apple say they can't support a law which leaves people free to run their business as they like and face public censure rather than state sanctions if they offend common decency, but Apple is free to run their business in such a way that an entire state faces censure for offending common decency. They have proved the new law (which is really the overturning of laws restricting freedom) makes sense. If Indiana had banned boycotts then that would definitely be worth complaining about.

If you're gay and want to buy a wedding cake with a plastic man and woman on the top I'm sure a christian bakery would sell to you. They're not anti-gay. If you're straight and wanted a wedding cake with pentagrams and a goat's skull depicted on it, they'd probably refuse. But not because they're heterophobic.

The solution to the gay marriage "problem": get government out of marriage. Get it out of as much as possible, including telling us who we can trade with. Am I correct in my understanding that the US marriage license was introduced to prevent interracial marriages and was not intended to serve any useful purpose?

Incidentally, it's legal for a gay baker to refuse to sell to christians.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Hypocrisy or stupidity?

"Hypocrisy or stupidity?

Apple say they can't support a law which leaves people free to run their business as they like"

There are lots of laws in place to deny bosses the freedom to run their businesses as they like. The purpose of most of these laws is to force business owners to behave more decently: to permit workers to have holidays, to ensure that workers' safety is maintained, to prevent pollution, to ensure that businesses pay tax, and all sorts of other things conducive to society's overall benefit.

Denying business owners the freedom to run their businesses as they like is a Very Good Thing.

Government makes these laws, of course: government is how civilised people arrange their society for their benefit. Government in any given place might not work particularly well, but properly organized democratic government is simply we the people deciding how we want to run society and of course one of the points of government is to take away individual liberty for the greater good.

And yes it IS for the greater good that individuals should be denied the right to murder, rape, steal - and to be denied the right to break health and safety laws, pollute the environment, evade tax, or use their bigotry as an excuse to prevent someone enjoying a full part in society alongside everyone else.

The only thing wrong with anti-discrimination legislation in my book is that it doesn't protect enough people.

"The solution to the gay marriage "problem": get government out of marriage."

That is probably the silliest idea Craigness has put forward yet.

Because government regulates marriage, benefits result: married couples have legally enforceable rights and responsibilities towards each other and their children; married couples also have rights as a partnership which others are legally obliged to honour.

If you take government out of marriage, then all that useful social structure falls apart - and to be replaced by what, exactly?

A hodge-podge of a myriad different arrangements, with half the nation refusing to recognise the various marriages concocted by the other half? And no-one with any legally enforceable rights and responsibilities towards their partners and their children?

This is a solution, is it? I think not.

Governments do useful things and for now, though I am an anarchist in my soul, I'd rather live somewhere with a government than without.

[Philip Machanick]

not the first time

Indiana is the state that tried to legislate the value pf pi in 1897.

Perhaps the state legislature is still stuck on that conundrum.

[Boris the Cockroach]

Pehaps

we should replace the words 'Gay' 'Lesbian' and 'transgender' with the word 'Black' when reading this bill

Because then it would be rightly tossed in the garbage bin where it really belongs

Unless there really is a huge voter base thats racist, close minded, intolerant and bigoted, but love 'merica and freedom.....

[P. Lee]

Re: Pehaps

> Pehaps we should replace the words 'Gay' 'Lesbian' and 'transgender' with the word 'Black' when reading this bill

>Because then it would be rightly tossed in the garbage bin where it really belongs

No it wouldn't. Although perhaps prompted by aggressive "equality" legislation which does try to get involved with sex and the exercise of morality, it isn't about gays or lesbians or sex in general.

You could actually read it, rather than just retweeting or reading the opinions of those with an agenda or a need to generate news. I think this is it:

http://iga.in.gov/static-documents/9/2/b/a/92bab197/SB0101.05.ENRS.pdf

For a legal document, its very short and relatively easy to read. Probably shorter and easier to read than Apple's Terms & Conditions on their latest iTunes patch.

[TheSteve]

Re: Nazis in America?

> we should replace the words 'Gay' 'Lesbian' and 'transgender' with the word 'Black' when reading this bill

> Because then it would be rightly tossed in the garbage bin where it really belongs

Maybe you should actually read the bill instead of buying into the hype... those words do not appear anywhere in the bill.

http://iga.in.gov/static-documents/9/2/b/a/92bab197/SB0101.05.ENRS.pdf

[TheSteve]

Sorry about the title

I"m hoping that's not three thumbs down for "actually reading the bill". Sorry about the Nazis in the title, that was an unfortunate autofill mistake in my browser (based on the last thread I commented on, on some other article). Perhaps Godwin's Law has powers we have yet to understand...

[Swarthy]

Re: Read the bill

So.. All Rastafarians and Native American Church members should move to Indiana? Because hey, if the Gov't cannot place a burden on their exercise of religion...

[tom dial]

Re: Pehaps

The words 'Gay' 'Lesbian' and 'transgender' do not occur in the enacted Indiana law. In essence, the law prohibits, within Indiana, any government action that burdens an individual's free exercise of religion unless the government can demonstrate that the burden is the least restrictive way to further a compelling state interest. It could equally be used as defense by a business whose owner followed a religion that dictated that Blacks or Jews or Muslims or Christians were not to be dealt with.

The law likely will be used by a small number of businesses to discriminate against gay, lesbian, or transgender customers by declining service to them. Most businesses are conducted for the purpose of earning money, however, and will not concern themselves with the sexual orientation of their customers as long as the latter pay promptly. Some will announce, as an earlier poster noted, that they proudly serve all. They are likely to gain business at the expense of the discriminators but may lose some who are offended by that. The net effect, but for decisions by angry convention organizers and non-Indiana businesses to punish the state and its people, probably would be all but invisible.

[albaleo]

Re: Pehaps

"Most businesses are conducted for the purpose of earning money, however, and will not concern themselves with the sexual orientation of their customers as long as the latter pay promptly."

But they may well concern themselves with any vociferous campaign along the lines of, "they serve gays".

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Pehaps

"we should replace the words 'Gay' 'Lesbian' and 'transgender' with the word 'Black' when reading this bill"

Surely they can just add it in?

[Pawl]

I have to laugh

at all the negative comments about the United States. Because then I read the British news, and if I didn't laugh, I would despair for the future.

[Gerry 3]

It's just the hallmark of a Good Employer

The issue is quite simple: if Apple required any of their GLBT employees to travel to such an officially backward, bigoted dump as Indiana, Apple would be condoning discrimination against them.

Apple believes in treating all its employees fairly, so it had no choice but to delete Indiana from its list of acceptable destinations.

All good employers should follow Apple's lead. As well as being the right thing to do, treating all employees fairly is VERY good for business.

[tom dial]

Re: It's just the hallmark of a Good Employer

The law, as written, does not establish or endorse any discriminatory action by the State of Indiana. It does permit a probably quite small number of people or businesses to discriminate on the basis that serving some customers (by assumption those who are gay, lesbian, or transgendered) is a religious conflict. It also is worth noting that the law covers only actions taken by Indiana government entities or by individuals based on Indiana government action. In particular, it does not apply to protections established by the federal government.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: It's just the hallmark of a Good Employer

Tom, that's just pure sophistry - the purpose and effect of the bill is to allow anti-gay bigots to hide behind religious freedom laws. You don't need to spell out in law what every sex-obsessed fundamentalist in the US seems to think is the central tenet of the religion, viz., denial of homosexuality.

Hmmm. Maybe if a scientist published research correlating rises in global warming with rises in homosexuality, we could harness this bigotry for the powers of good...

[tom dial]

Re: It's just the hallmark of a Good Employer

While I am not in the least religious I am (especially in Utah) aware that there are a great many people who, for whatever reason, sincerely believe things I and others may think quite absurd. However, the first clause of the US Bill of Rights reads "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" and the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution extends that limitation on legislative action to the states: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States" and continues: "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Irrespective of the motivation, the government of Indiana enacted a law that is consistent with the First and Fourteenth Amendments and with existing federal and probably Indiana civil rights law. It also would be consistent with a law, should they (or the federal government) choose to enact it, that deemed it a compelling government interest to require that any business offering services to the public do so without consideration of sexual orientation. This law about which there is so much indignation almost certainly does not permit, in Indiana, anything that was not entirely legal before it was enacted. Its actual legal effect probably is nearly nonexistent.

[gkroog]

Re: It's just the hallmark of a Good Employer

"delete Indiana from its list of acceptable..."

I do believe that you'll find that to be a case of discrimination itself...

[I am a machine (says Turing test)]

Ban Craigness for freedom's sake

I think The Reg should exercise the freedom to ban Craigness from this forum because he is against our religion. I am sure Craigness will have no objection.

[TheSteve]

Re: Ban Craigness for freedom's sake

I expect Craigness would support The Reg's freedom to ban him. The real irony, though, would be when you trumpet it as a victory for tolerance.

[Mark 85]

Re: Ban Craigness for freedom's sake

Hmm.... on the one hand, everyone wants tolerance. On the other, banish for expressing a viewpoint. If you don't like what he says, either refute it or don't read it. Sort of like dealing with trolls.... but in this case, I'm not sure he's trolling.

[tom dial]

Re: Ban Craigness for freedom's sake

Of course! The Right Way to ensure Right Thinking always has been, and is, to suppress Wrong Thinking.

[I am a machine (says Turing test)]

Re: Ban Craigness for freedom's sake

I suppose my irony got lost. I was just trying to point out that calling discrimination "freedom" is absurd.

[TheSteve]

Re: Ban Craigness for freedom's sake

Maybe your irony got lost because your point is misguided. Freedom to discriminate may be a freedom that should be curtailed in business settings, but it is a freedom nonetheless---arguably it's the necessary flip side of freedom of association. The whole point of this debate is how do we balance one person's freedoms vs. another person's rights.

[Anonymous Coward]

This is why the law is needed

The reaction by some businesses, groups and people to the new Indiana religious freedom act is exactly why it is needed. When some demand tolerance they often are unwilling to give it to others.

[Handy Plough]

Re: This is why the law is needed

So what you are saying is that society should shut up and just accept bigotry?

[W. Anderson]

industry move out of Indiana

One of the most potent challenges to the idiotic law recently passed in Indiana would be for very large independent shareholders of Subaru Automotive, maunfactured in that State to threaten or actually sue Subaru for remaining there with harsh treatment and detrimental effects on company's gay employees in public services.

Only with this type potential strong action, of Subaru or other large manufacturer moving completely out of Indiana to jurisdiction like Mexico and devastate economy of the state, will Indiana and all the other homophobic and hateful states realize their stupidity.

[Anonymous Coward]

"This is why this law is needed": industry move out of Indiana

Look at this response from @W.Anderson to understand the attitude this organized effort has to achieving their goals. If they do not received what they want they wish upon and want to impose any and all punishment. They have no tolerance for a person whose faith says decide they should not be a party to something. Like it or not, this is the result of the "Gay Agenda" being pushed down everyone's throat. You wanted to call man-man & woman-woman unions marriage although for thousands of years its been between a man and a woman. You had to have the validation and used the courts and not the lawmakers to achieve it. If you would have come up with "your own word" for this civil union there would be more support. But, this bill isn't just about homosexuals, it is about a business deciding who it wants to do business with, without that business being harassed by government like seen in the District of Columbia and other cities where they pay laws requiring businesses to not discriminate. There are ridiculous comments all throughout the comments for this article like "replace the word gay with black" and now the religious zealots will discriminate against them. These comments are grounded in ignorance and the writers are probably deceived. If you knew the Truth which is God's word, saved by the blood of Jesus Christ so the word was in you and your actions were born out of this Truth then you wouldn't make these statements. Jesus Christ is God and God is pure and Truth. God judges the unsaved but the saved are to judge the saved so these constant statements of "Don't judge one another" is an ignorant understanding of Gods word used by the unsaved or deceived to manipulate others by misquoting Gods word. God judges the unsaved and the saved are not to because by being unsaved you are lost (God says this, not me). They will go to hell no matter if they were girl scouts and boy scouts, no matter if they lived their lives doing good things (as you hear at every funeral along with the proclamation they are in heaven) - if they, if you don't accept Jesus Christ as your savior you WILL go to hell. Now, for the saved, you can be deceived. Ah yes, this is a tricky one. One way to see who is following God's word (picking up his cross, dying to self and follow Jesus) is by the fruit they produce. God is Love but He is also Justice and Pure. You can be gay, a thief, an adulterer, into pornography, selfish, and any other sin where you fall short of God's glory. God loves you as you are His but He will hold you accountable for these shortcomings. I don't know how this is played out in our lives nor in heaven. The bible isn't clear (at least to me) but we do know that God disciplines his children. Christians should limit association (be unequally yoked) with the unsaved and those who want to live in their sin. Jesus told the prostitute to "Sin no more". She was forgiven of her sin but God said to go forward living for Him. This prostitute, along with all of those I listed above who sin are (should be) welcome by Christians and by churches as we all (those who are saved) fall short.

[W. Anderson]

Re: "This is why this law is needed": industry move out of Indiana

In USA and Indiana, when business applies for license to serve "the Public", it undertakes the responsibility to abide by and honour that license conditions.

If the business owner really feels obliged not to serve Gays or blacks for example according to their religion, they have no right for acquiring such "Public Service License"

They can always start a religious "retreat" with food service and other services for non-gays, non-blacks and any other despised persons according to their religion.

Do that instead.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: "This is why this law is needed": industry move out of Indiana

@W.Anderson, you know your argument is weak because you keep trying to insert race into it...to gain an ally. Maybe you can create "your" Ferguson in Indiana. Businesses don't apply to serve the "Public". A business opens up to make money. Just like you the consumer can choose to select what business you will patronize, a business should be able to make some decisions based on their values. Just because you want it doesn't mean a business should sell a product to you at the price you want, stay open the hours you desire, carry the products you wish, etc. If a business makes decisions based on their constitutional rights they may also suffer the consequences which is the person they deny service to may go tell a friend who tells a friend, etc and they all decide to not patronize them. You continue to demonstrate the hate and bigotry you claim the IN lawmakers are making. You also are demonstrating the very intolerance you are claiming the same IN lawmakers are making - hypocrite.

[Dylbot]

Re: "This is why this law is needed": industry move out of Indiana

I've got to appreciate your commitment here, but boy are you preaching to the wrong crowd. We've read enough terms of service to know not to let your actions be dictated by a lengthy work of fiction.

[Anonymous Coward]

"This is why this law is needed-Part 2": industry move out of Indiana

I'll step back from the sermon as that wasn't my intent but it just happened and say that it the above that I believe and if I choose to turn down business that is me denying to self but giving God glory because He says marriage is between a man and a woman and that homosexuality is an abomination. What you do in your house is not my business. If you want civil unions for tax and other financial benefits along with legal access to each others life should be easily accomplished. But, the comments in this article show there is no tolerance for my beliefs while you demand I tolerate yours. Some day I will deny and answer to my Lord. I will have many things to answer for but Jesus died on the cross for me which is my Hope and my Salvation. What is your Hope? God's word doesn't change. You can re-write the bible and replace words if you want but if we destroyed ALL bibles in the world, it wouldn't matter as Gods word is infallible. By the way, there are many Christians to include the Disciples of Christ, Presbyterian, Methodist and the Episcopal churches who are acting on emotion and not in adherence to Gods word.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: "This is why this law is needed-Part 2": industry move out of Indiana

"[...] giving God glory because He says marriage is between a man and a woman and that homosexuality is an abomination."

Why quote the Old Testament Leviticus when you probably don't observe its contiguous proscriptions eg you probably eat shellfish and pork, wear clothes of mixed fibres, cut your hair short and shave, don't kill people for working on the Sabbath etc? You might be circumcised - but not for a religious reason.

Jesus Christ said nothing about homosexuality - but did insist on loving each other without reservations. He was especially damning about adultery. So why is adultery so commonplace in western Christian heterosexual communities?

The early Roman Christians deliberately distanced themselves from the proscriptions of Judaism. They ate shellfish and pork, they cut their hair and shaved, circumcision was a major offence to them, it is said they even had same-sex relationships.

Civil marriage is a legal contract between people and their State. In the West any religious marriage ceremonies are not legally binding - only a State civil contract makes it legal. A Church may inflict mental pain on its congregations who want a divorce - but the State has lets people have another chance in their pursuit of happiness.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: "This is why this law is needed-Part 2": industry move out of Indiana

You speak of the OT and its subsequent law. Are you a Christian who has accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior, publicly professing this? I am asking because even Demons know Jesus is Lord even though they serve Satan. That fact you are trying to set a trap to trip up a Christian is quite telling. Jesus said "It is not what enters into the mouth that defiles the man, but what proceeds out of the mouth, this defiles the man.". Jesus came to atone for Sin...for you and I; all sinners. This atonement though, only happens if you have accepted Christ. You don't get to choose from a buffet to follow Christ as HIs word is true, unchanging and infallible.

God does address homosexuality in the New Testament in several places. Encourage you to read it in 1Cor 6:9-11; Romans 1:26-28; 1 Tim 1:10; 1 Cor 7:2; Mark 10:6-9; Romans 1:27. I'm surprised you didn't know this since you chose to quote Leviticus. Are did you leave it out intentionally hoping you would add fuel to other readers in case your errant post was not challenged?

Looks like you answered how homosexual unions should be handled, as a civil contract. There we go - everybody can go home and calm down. Men and women have marriage while the homosexuals have civil unions. I'm happy, you?

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: "This is why this law is needed-Part 2": industry move out of Indiana

"I'm surprised you didn't know this since you chose to quote Leviticus."

It was you who was originally quoting the stock "abomination" phrasing associated with the King James Version's Leviticus. I was merely interested if you observed all its other proscriptions too - particularly the other violent ones.

The Church of England has removed references to the Devil or Satan from its baptismal liturgy as they are considered outdated.

Men wrote the New Testament to suit their own agenda.

Civil Partnerships do not convey the same legal protections as Civil Marriage outside of a specific jurisdiction. The international Marriage Reciprocity Convention only recognises State Marriage as providing the automatic rights of next of kin, inheritance, etc.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: "This is why this law is needed-Part 2": industry move out of Indiana

There you have it. The Devil, Satan, the Enemy is outdated; just a fairy tale. You go with that. Wish you well with your gnashing of teeth. You demonstrate you do not appreciate God's inspired word which we call the Bible. 2 Timothy 3:16 "All scripture is inspired by God". Does God lie? I'm asking you? If he does please cite where, if he does not then men did not write the Old or New Testament to suit their agenda but were inspired by God to suit His!

You cite an example between CP and CM. Seems easy enough to grant the same rights to CP as CM to accommodate both but that isn't really what you want is it...that's not the agenda. Even all of this hating on Indiana isn't the agenda per se. It is to drive the Lefts agenda, the Demoncrats (oops, did I misspell that) agenda, the homosexual agenda to make themselves a victim and sympathetic...drive donations to their cause and eventually to get what you want. Again, another reason for this law to protect what is becoming a minority view of people who hold a certain belief to not be compelled to participate in something they fundamentally disagree with.

[Sloppy Crapmonster]

Re: "This is why this law is needed-Part 2": industry move out of Indiana

Dude, you have a state-sanctioned lock on crazy, or didn't you read this article? One of the few groups being discriminated against are athiests; we don't get to take the worst parts of ourselves and say our overlords made us this way. You'd think y'all would be happy to put your businesses on a list so that us heathen scum wouldn't waste our time or yours trying to do business with you.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: "This is why this law is needed-Part 2": industry move out of Indiana

I missed the part in the article about athiests. Wouldn't think you would have a dog in this fight...just sit back and laugh at everyone. Why are you inserting your lack of belief into our strong belief? Are you just wanting to be heard? Hopefully you aren't wasting your time at Christian businesses like Chick-fil-a, Hobby Lobby and many, many more. Shorter lines for me.

[earl grey]

get government out of marriage

What a great idea. And while we're at it, let's have the government STOP subsidizing religions and churches by letting them skip on property and income taxes; let's have them become the equal to any other business. The whole thing of Apple (and other large corporations) hiding their income is because this is allowed by the bought congresscritters (they write the laws that allow this type of bad behaviour. In fact, let's have the morons fix the laws so that large corporations can't pay less tax that i'm forced to pay. Now we're headed in the right direction.

[xanadu42]

In the context of historical "black rights" and modern "LGBT rights" in relation to "religious freedom" the wording contained in the document

http://iga.in.gov/static-documents/9/2/b/a/92bab197/SB0101.05.ENRS.pdf

appears (in its generalisations) to apply equally to "black rights" and "LGBT rights" (AND potentially "Womens rights" and most other rights various minorities have gained since 1776 in the US - First Amendment)...

A lawyer would need to check this (as I am sure they will, or have already done) but I feel the generalisations I've noted are valid

[tom dial]

What you say appears correct, but is overridden by the fact that federal civil rights law supersedes Indiana law in the matter of discrimination against black people and women. I am not, however, a lawyer.

[Anonymous Coward]

Why stop with blacks? You are clearly trying to stir the pot. Let's include the Asians, Hispanics, all Africans, Middle East descent (Persian & Arab), Indians (India), Gypsies from Romania, oh and the American Indian. You can surely get your "Ferguson" like reaction from one of these groups can you not?

[Mark Quesnell]

I find the arguments that discriminating is wrong in and of itself very compelling. I also find the comparison of racial discrimination vs. LGBT discrimination semi-correct. But I also feel that, since the US Federal government has the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and several states already have laws very similar to this one, that it is not the terrible, horrible world destroying thing all these commentators describe. None of those laws have resulted in any sort of massive discrimination against LGBTs. There is no proof of discrimination, just a bunch of feelings and opinions. And, unlike the comparison to racial segregation - where it was very widespread and unavoidable, this is small and confined to the minor group that feel their religion requires it of them (however misguided that is). This does not result in the group being denied access to a service - for every 1 business that uses their religion to deny service there are hundreds of others that don't. If it is such a big deal then the forces of economics will eventually cause these businesses to disappear.

And the Constitution of the US specifically protects the right to practice your religion without excessive government intrusion (the 1st Amendment). That makes any claim of being forced to violate your religious beliefs by the government very compelling in US courts - hence the Supreme Court decision in the Hobby Lobby case.

Based on the existence of the 1st Amendment to the Constitution, the existence of multiple pre-existing similar laws (including at the federal level), no valid evidence of any kind that these laws actually created any sort of high-level discrimination (or low-level for that matter), and the existence of a large number of competing businesses who will gladly accept the business that was denied by the "religious views" ones, I think all this "oh my God, the sky is falling and the LGBT people are all going to be put into internment camps" to be a bunch of overreacting - some if it natural, and some of it planned in order to make a mountain out of a mole-hill.

[Anonymous Coward]

Presumably employees of any enterprise are also allowed to discriminate against whomsoever they please by the rights of religious freedom?

You can't get on the bus of which I am the driver? You can't swim in the community pool because I'm the ticket seller? At the checkout I won't ring up the bottle of wine because my religion forbids me to handle it? I won't teach kids about evolution because my religion doesn't believe it? As a teacher I expect to beat kids because my Bible says do not "spare the rod"?

[tom dial]

The degree to which an enterprise would allow individual employees to discriminate based on sexual orientation would depend on company policy, as limited by the law. Indiana's new law does not change that. In fact, it changes almost nothing beyond giving those who choose to discriminate for religious reasons a legal defense and recourse they may not previously have had available. In particular, it does not legalize discrimination going forward that before was illegal.

For example, a public school teacher's refusal to teach evolution may be a violation of Indiana law. If so, and if the teacher is punished she may offer the defense that it "substantially burdens" her exercise of religion. The school board, in turn, may argue that teaching evolution fulfills the "compelling government interest" of properly educating the students and that requiring the teacher to provide the instruction is "the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest". The outcome would depend on whether there is a compelling government interest and whether, if so, requiring the particular teacher to provide the instruction against her religious belief is the least restrictive way to fulfill it (as against, say, reassignment to a different position).

Again, corporal punishment in schools is covered most places by laws, and states could be expected to argue that forbidding it - compelling teachers and administrators to spare the rod - furthers the compelling government interest of ensuring child safety in schools. It is likely that laws restricting corporal punishment contained such a statement when drafted.

[Anonymous Coward]

You are creating these straw men examples because you feel you have something to say and like to see your name online? If that is the case, great. Otherwise you sound irrational.

[tom dial]

The examples were not "straw men", but rather responses to the immediately previous AC comment (maybe yours) in which they were offered as what appeared to be intended to represent absurd consequences of the law. I intended the expansion to suggest a bit about how the law might actually work in practice, as opposed to the uninformed opinions of those who seem not to have read and thought about the Constitution, the applicable amendments, the legal environment in which the law in question will operate, and finally, the law itself.

A clear majority of the comments appear to be made based on emotional reaction and an unanalyzed and somewhat restricted and somewhat absolutist moral position. It is important to be mindful of the fact that democratic regimes tend to get into trouble when various groups, however identified, can reasonably think they are being subjected to demands with which they cannot comply or some degree of punishment for things they cannot change. While that certainly applies to blacks, who cannot become unblack, and gays or lesbians, who cannot change their innate characteristics, it also applies to sincerely religious people who believe some types of behavior to be sinful. It is appropriate in a highly diverse democratic republic to be equally considerate of all and to avoid as much as reasonably possible coopting of the government by one group to enforce its rights upon others.

[Six_Degrees]

It's not for nothing that Indiana bears the title of Trailer Park Capitol of the World.

[Equitas]

Does Six_Degrees not mean "trailer capital"?

[Six_Degrees]

This law will be yanked the instant a muslim-owned business refuses service to christians.

[Sloppy Crapmonster]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_in_Islam

Jesus is considered a prophet in Islam. The only Muslims that would deny service to a Christian would be those that were as stupid as the Christians pushing for this law thinking it allows them to use it as a shield for their own prejudices.

[Mark 85]

You're right.. But lately the application has been, shall we say, misguided. Go wander about certain places in the middle east and profess to be a follower of the prophet Jesus and see what happens. Discrimination is applied rather harshly there.

[menotu]

Timmy ( ESCOBAR ) Cook is simply the equivalent to a drug cartel leader only in the tech world... prove me wrong /s

[PoliTecs]

Rhe We rhe Consumer Declare War on Crapple!

Never will buy, never have bought a Crapple product because this company and its Nazi approach to PCs, business and marketing is and always has been a joke! At its core it is rotting.

[Conundrum1885]

RE. We rhe Consumer Declare War on Crapple!

Samsung are going down the Apple route, S6 = glued in battery and locked memory.

OK so it saves 2mm in case design BUT adds to e-waste AND makes HTC and Huawei very happy.

(cough 128GB microSD = £65, S6+128GB = +£170 on base price /cough)

[gkroog]

Sure about that?

"thoughts and pronouncements are coming from people who have considered the topic in depth before speaking, rather than relying on their instant prejudices, insecurities, and self-importance."

I highly doubt people so driven by money will be immune from aligning themselves with a popular agenda for personal or financial reasons...

[gkroog]

It seems the Agenda has permeated even this El Reg comment thread...

...how else to explain the downvotes on comments posted and replying with just the plain statement of what the legislation actually says?

[forcing_you_to_think]

When Tim and Mark stop doing business with Muslim countries because of their horrendous murdering of suspected homosexuals in the streets.....then I'll listen to what they have to say.

Until then, stop acting like condescending pricks.

[Breen Whitman]

Apple needs to do this from a business perspective.

Given that most owners of Apple products are gay, and hence, showing an Apple device broadcasts that fact, it could be a safety issue in any state law that encourages anti homosexual feeling.

Homosexuals will buy Android devices so as to blend in. Apple do not want that.

[Equitas]

I think that the real problem lies when service providers are forced not merely to serve members of the LBGT community but to serve them in a manner which involves promoting the views of the LBGT community. It is one thing obliging a baker to sell a wedding cake to anyone who is willing to purchase it -- but it is another matter to compel the same baker to produce a wedding cake decorated so as to promote gay marriage. Or for that matter to produce for satanists a cake promoting satanism.

Perhaps it's a good thing that Apple have taken the position they do -- owning Apple products has always been largely an image statement. -- now ownership of Apple products involves an element of promotion of the views of the LBGT movement.

[Henry Wertz 1]

Yeah...

I don't really care what CEOs think about issues. But, you do have activist investors who invest or not based on the actions of companies; so, now, you have activist CEOs who will (if they go through with it) take actions. I mean, if I was CEO of a company, I'd make sure nobody had to go to Texas.

[Old Handle]

Apple Open?

I stopped reading right there.