Sunday, November 02, 2014

The huge advantage of having "correct" opinions

Today, in an article for Bloomberg BusinessWeek, Apple CEO Tim Cook makes an announcement: "I’m proud to be gay, and I consider being gay among the greatest gifts God has given me."

"The company I am so fortunate to lead has ... taken a strong stand in support of a workplace equality bill before Congress, just as we stood for marriage equality in our home state of California."

While he "doesn't consider himself an activist," Cook has personally lobbied on gay rights issues in his home state of Alabama and at the United Nations.

All of this sounds familiar—haven’t we heard this story before?

A southern-born CEO invoking religion regarding his views on homosexuality, lobbying for what he believes in, and using his company to financially and publicly support those views?

Indeed, we have a heard a story like this before.

Before Tim Cook, this perfectly described another CEO and son of the south: Daniel Truett Cathy of Chick-fil-A.



Anonymous said...

They always apeal to "equality" when they refer to marriage. No one seems to have noticed that in fact EVERYONE had the same rights before the promotion of gay "marriage". Everyone had the right to marry someone of the opposite sex and no one had the right to marry someone of the same sex. Therefore we all had the same rights. There is not currently more equality but instead a new definition of marriage. They can sell it however they want but it has nothing to do with equal rights.

Anonymous said...

12:48 Your argument is flawed or disingenuous, because the "equality" is referring to different rights - the restricted equal right to marry someone of the opposite sex, and the wider equal right to marry regardless of gender.

Anonymous said...

9:39 Should there also be a right to marry siblings, offspring, underage children ?
How about the right to marry your sheep or some other animal ?

Anonymous said...

5:37 Do you ask about such bizarre rights because you would like to have some of them?! Perhaps you are a shepherd living with your teenage sister/daughter -?

Anonymous said...

Anon 12:48 & 5:37......Don't expect the permanently clueless to understand the ironclad logic of your position. The left always favors the bizarre over the normal and derive a special glee in forcing their perverse behavior into the mainstream. If this guy wants to marry his mommy or kid sister who are we to judge, or so his argument would seem to go.

In anticipation of the predictable response, "that's not what I'm talking about," I'll point out that's where it will end up and it won't take long either.

Anonymous said...

5:53 Do you ask about such bizarre rights etc.
No, they are just as stupid as same sex "marriage". It does not have anything to do with equality; it is about special privileges for perverse behavior.

Anonymous said...

11:48 They would not be special privileges, since they would be an equal right for everyone to have whether used or not.
At times there was an equal right NOT being allowed to marry people of a different race. And still there is an equal right in most places NOT being allowed to marry people of the same gender.
Where there is an equal right to marry people of the same gender it is open to everyone and therefore not a special right.

Anonymous said...

To get back to the original point - people are just as free to express their outrage about Apple and Tim Cook's views as they were about Chick-fil-A.
They can organise boycotts of Apple and harrass supporters if they want...
but we all know it won't happen because one side of the argument is content to let the other speak, and the other side will not rest until their opponents are silenced.

slinky said...

11:48 - why the hell do you give a fuck about it? How doses HURT you?

Anonymous said...

Some people here seem rather dumb. If their was a huge upswell of public opinion, such as to give women the vote, then there would be a democratic reason to change the law to allow it. If there were similar pressure to allow people to marry regardless of race or religion, that would also justify a change in the law to permit it. If there was one to allow adults to marry regardless of gender, that would also justify a change in the law as has now happened in many countries.

If there was a similar popular demand to allow legally marrying sheep and other animals, or underage blood relatives, then that would have to be considered but that has not yet happened and the liklihood of that ever happening is so remote and academic, so not wth considering (except by silly persons such as 5:37 AM !).