
Tim Cook: Pro-discrimination ‘religious freedom’ laws are dangerous - Doubleguitars
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/pro-discrimination-religious-freedom-laws-are-dangerous-to-america/2015/03/29/bdb4ce9e-d66d-11e4-ba28-f2a685dc7f89_story.html?tid=sm_tw
======
falcolas
A quick rational thinking exercise for everyone debating these laws: Anytime
you read or write discussions regarding this law and its goals, replace the
words "Gay" and "Transsexual" with the word "Black", "Interracial", or
"Woman". Would the arguments still hold water?

A few examples I cooked up quickly from a CNN article:

\- The law in Indiana, though, as well as the slew of other states it follows,
came after an outcry from social conservative circles over incidents where
business owners found themselves in hot water after refusing services to
_women_.

\- Supporters of these laws bring up the example of a florist who refuses to
sell flowers for a _interracial_ wedding or a baker who won't make that
couple's wedding cake -- and it's clear this law is aimed at fending off
lawsuits that florist and that baker might face.

\- One of those lobbyists, Eric Miller, explicitly wrote on his website that
the law would protect businesses from participating in " _interracial_
marriage."

\- A photographer in New Mexico used religious freedom as a defense for not
serving a _black_ couple in 2013.

Clips adapted from CNN coverage of this legislature:
[http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/27/politics/indiana-religous-
free...](http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/27/politics/indiana-religous-freedom-
explainer/index.html)

------
MCRed
The situation is more nuanced than the surface outrage I've been seeing.

Do you support freedom of expression? Do you think bigots should be allowed to
say stupid things? Well, freedom of association is also a right- its the right
that underpins gay marriage and the right that allows discrimination.

I'm bisexual, and I'm not a bigot. I don't discriminate against people based
on silly things like race, ethnicity, etc, --- hell I don't even discriminate
on the gender of someone, when choosing romantic partners, how many of you can
say that?!! -- but I do believe that discrimination is really just a form of
freedom of association. It's stupid and counter productive to be a bigot, but
it's still a basic right-- just as I don't have a right to force you to marry
me after one date simply because I think we're a good match, while you may not
be interested in marrying me because of my gender (or my beard.)

Literally, straight people not sleeping with members of the same gender is a
form of "discrimination" based on sex!

I don't like governments attempts at social engineering, but the basis of gay
marriage is that we have the right to associate (eg: get married to) whomever
we want. A right we have, by the way, without needing any government
permission! By that very same right, I have the right to exclude christians
from my place of business (or just bigots.) It's a basic human right who you
associate with.

There's an argument for a limitation on this right based on extreme or
extenuating circumstances... and I'm not going to argue against that, in the
same way that yelling fire in a crowded theater is debatably a limitation on
free speech.

The problem here is, christians are allowed to discriminate against gays, but
gays are not allowed to discriminate against christians-- because the
christians are a protected class (as are all other religions.)

If we were a society that really protected rights, we would recognize that the
freedom of association is fundamental, and yes, it has the downside of
allowing bigots to be idiots, just as the right of free speech is fundamental
and has the downside of allowing bigots to say stupid things.

~~~
adevine
You are leaving out the very important fact that we're talking about commerce
here, not just general freedom of association. The law has always made
substantial demands on people engaging in commerce that often override other
freedoms. I'm pretty sure the KKK doesn't let black people in, and that's
legal, but that doesn't mean the KKK can open up a whites-only hotel.

~~~
MCRed
I'm not leaving that out at all. I addressed it with the fire-in-a-crowded
theater analogy. But the fact that commerce is involved doesn't magically
eliminate the right. Commerce only creates a few edge cases, but is
effectively irrelevant (from a rights and logic point of view.) The fact that
government has used the existence of commerce to violate people's rights (and
it has done this extensively- you are correct) shows that government is not
interested in protecting people's rights as much as it is in benefiting
politicians and itself. It doesn't change the nature of human rights.

Further, understand that this law does NOT give religious people the right to
open a "straights only" hotel. They always had that right, and the law doesn't
change it.

Only certainly classes are protected at a federal and state level. Religions
are, sexualities aren't. This law doesn't change that.

~~~
DonHopkins
People patronize commercial establishments a lot more often than crowded
theaters burn down.

------
gbog
> these bills under consideration truly will hurt jobs, growth and the
> economic vibrancy

I hate discriminations, especially those made for so-called religious reasons,
but I also hate lies, even those made for "good reasons", and I think this is
a lie.

No-one knows if a decision to discriminate is good or wrong for the economy.
And would one be 100% sure discrimination is good for economy, it would still
be 100% morally wrong. I think it is dangerous to let people believe that the
reason to avoid discrimination is economical.

(I discussed this with an American friend and we failed to agree. I'm European
and I consider this disagreement one of the most salient difference between US
and Europe: we consider morality and justice above and unrelated to economy).

~~~
TazeTSchnitzel
> No-one knows if a decision to discriminate is good or wrong for the economy.

I can't really see how that would be the case. Denying <minority> the right to
purchase things in some stores is most likely a bad thing for the economy. The
less people buy, the more the economy suffers. It's rather straightforward.

Now, sure, economic benefit should not be the primary or only reason why
people would oppose this. But it is a way to get through to those who
otherwise don't care: a similar bill is stalling in Georgia because of
economic concerns.

~~~
coldtea
> _The less people buy, the more the economy suffers. It 's rather
> straightforward._

I don't think it's that straightfoward.

Economy is not "people buying things", it is the management of resources and
money in a state.

On top of the abstract notion of economy, you need to have a goal, e.g. what
you want to achieve with this management. (Of course a lot of people think
there can be only one goal, or that it's something like a physical law, where
people have no say, etc).

Make more people on aggregate richer might be one such goal. More equality
might be another. Or raising the standard of living. Keeping buying power
stable. etc etc.

So, some people not buying stuff might be "bad for business" but bad for
business is not necessarily bad for the economy.

And even if it was, those people might be forced to buy other things, or
others might be encouraged to spend more in their place, or there could be
lots of other complications.

~~~
DonHopkins
What about his point that the economic arguments are made to get through to
people who don't care about morality and justice?

~~~
coldtea
It's an interesting point, and I agree in part, but not directly related to my
observation about them (economic arguments).

------
ars
Forget religious freedom.

I don't think any private service provider should ever be required to serve
anyone, for any reason.

The only exception should be government, public companies, and publicly
supported companies (i.e. tax dollars), interpreted in the broadest way
possible.

~~~
kimdouglasmason
"Juden werden hier nicht bedient"

There have been very large wars fought over this. Be careful what you wish
for.

The right to be a bigot, and to have one's bigotry projected by a company one
creates, a company whose rights are enforced by the state, is not worth
defending.

~~~
xnull2guest
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law)

(Are you implying there was some large war fought over the mistreatment of
Jews?)

"The right to be a bigot, and to have one's bigotry projected by a company one
creates, a company whose rights are enforced by the state, is not worth
defending." \- kimdouglasmason

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to
say it" \- Hall to Voltaire

"If we do not believe in freedom of speech for those we despise we do not
believe in it at all." \- Noam Chomsky

[This not to invoke the authority of these fine individuals, but to reference
their bodies of work (too long to include in this post) which are carefully
articulated.]

------
MichaelGG
I just don't understand why "freedom of religion" is a thing. Freedom of
thought gathering/etc subsumes any religious freedom and makes it redundant.
The only use of religious freedom is to provide strange exceptions to other
rights and create conflict. It's as silly as having a "freedom to play boggle"
or "freedom to be wrong about weather predictions".

~~~
Afforess
It exists because the original settlers of America were persecuted for their
religious beliefs. The Puritans were essentially ostracized from mainline
Anglican Christianity. The new government didn't want religious persecution to
happen again, just after having moved thousands of miles away to get away from
it. Freedom of Religion makes plenty of sense when you consider that for most
of history, all peoples were religious.

~~~
bkurtz13
The story of original settlers of this country being Puritans escaping
persecution, while trite, had nothing to do with the men who actually wrote
and signed the Constitution.

"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law." \- Thomas
Jefferson

~~~
tim333
'"legislature" should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation
between church and State.' Thomas Jefferson

Jefferson had to deal with the settlers of the America being of a mix of
religions, Catholic, Puritan, Quaker and others. And also he was aware that
declaring one faith official and persecuting the others had caused problems in
Europe. This had a lot to do with bringing in the separation of church and
state. And with preventing the government prohibiting freedom of religion.

------
interpol_p
I scrolled into the comments on that article and I really wish I hadn't. Some
incredibly bigoted people disagreeing with the article. ("Gay people can just
find another bakery, it's not a big deal.")

Are there many who think like this? What causes us to segregate and
discriminate against our fellow humans?

~~~
msandford
So I'm not as strongly opposed to this law as many other. Here's my reasoning:

1\. I don't feel any great desire to patronize bigots

2\. Universal service laws mean that bigots can't out themselves

3\. That means I have a very hard time telling who is who

4\. If enough people stop patronizing a business owned by a bigot it will do
damage where it really counts; bank account

5\. This might actually be a VERY STRANGE way to dissuade people from their
backwards views

Of course, it might not go that way at all.

But seeing as how people are talking about not hosting events and not doing
business in Indiana, I am pretty optimistic about the possibility.

It's fairly natural to try and defy laws you disagree with
([http://niemann.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/11/the-legend-of-
th...](http://niemann.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/11/the-legend-of-the-potato-
king/)). But it's also fairly natural to change your mind when you have a good
reason: declining sales or bankruptcy.

~~~
Zakharov
I think that in areas where bigotry is a serious problem, not being bigoted
might be more likely to drive off customers than being bigoted.

~~~
msandford
Yeah, that's an interesting point.

------
kozak_
You have the right to use coarse language, but if you take advantage of that
right in some businesses, they reserve the right to ask you to leave.

Same thing here, you have the right to pick your sexual orientation, but this
law codifies the right of the business to say "we reserve the right to not
serve you because it deeply offends us".

You might not agree with them but understand that for some folks and the
deeply religious, this goes against their conscience and against their
beliefs. This law is meant to allow them to say "NO".

------
ccvannorman
Despite the fact that I agree with him, I scoff at Apple for raising flags
about this.

Apple is well known for discriminating against applications due to the type of
information shared, for example apps have been rejected for bearing news about
U.S. drone strikes[1].

In fact, I would argue Apple is causing more damage than a state here or there
allowing discrimination, due to their >1Bn install base.

[1] [http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/30/apple-rejects-
app-t...](http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/30/apple-rejects-app-tracking-
drone-strikes/)

~~~
SEJeff
I normally wouldn't mention this, but have a distinct feeling you weren't
aware that Tim Cook is public about being gay. As a straight man, I actually
applaud the CEO of one of the most valuable companies in the world speaking up
against bigoted laws like this.

If he doesn't, who will? Imagine what would happen if Apple started moving a
lot of their business / jobs / stores out of Indiana. It wouldn't wreck IN,
but it would make a measurable and noticeable impact.

------
rasengan
I called the office of the governor in indiana and spoke about how dangerous
this was last week -- and he ignored or took no action rather.

------
yuhong
As a side note, I do think the current US anti-discrimination laws are
probably flawed, not because discrimination is not bad but because of problems
with enforcement. I am thinking of removing them completely (not just to
create exceptions) and allowing regulators to impose anti-discrimination
conditions on specific companies instead.

------
zhanwei
Businesses are now free to refuse services to Apple because of their CEO Tim
Cook. good luck with that.

------
jgalt212
I can't support any of Tim Cook's efforts, no matter how noble, until Apple,
the most profitable company in recorded history stops dodging taxes.

I realize I am confusing signals with signifiers here, but f Tim Cook. Pay
your taxes.

------
vaadu
Ironic since the first RFRA was a 1993 federal law that was signed into law by
Democratic president Bill Clinton. It unanimously passed the House of
Representatives, where it was sponsored by then-congressman Chuck Schumer, and
sailed through the Senate on a 97-3 vote.

[http://www.weeklystandard.com/print/blogs/indianas-
religious...](http://www.weeklystandard.com/print/blogs/indianas-religious-
freedom-restoration-act-explained_900641.html)

~~~
Anechoic
And similarly Illinois passed an RFRA in 1998 with Barack Obama voting for it.
However I think the White House spokesmen had a point in saying that "if you
have to go back two decades to try to justify something that you’re doing
today, it may raise some questions about the wisdom of what you’re doing."
It's not an axiom but it's worth consideration.

~~~
redblacktree
Two important differences between Illinois' and Indiana's laws:

1) Indiana state law does not make LGBT a protected class.

2) Other RFRA laws specifically targeted government action, not the action of
private persons and businesses.

------
Gigablah
We should not be calling it "religious freedom". "Freedom" to restrict and
discriminate is simply doublespeak.

~~~
kolev
This is not true. It's about the "freedom" not to change canons that have
lasted thousands of years just to be politically correct, which is not
freedom, but arm-twisting.

So, pick your religion carefully, folks. At least in America you have many
denominations to pick from.

------
moron4hire
While I agree with the central thesis, why are we listening on any social
subject to the CEO of a company that exports its manufacturing labor to a
country that apparently has a much lower standard of living for its workers
than ours, all for he sake of making expensive trinkets and baubles?

~~~
ars
> exports its manufacturing labor to a country that apparently has a much
> lower standard of living for its workers than ours

Well that's a stupid argument. That's exactly what we SHOULD be doing. The
BEST kind of charity is finding someone a job.

~~~
M108
Well we have to look at why the standard of living is much lower. What you
would find is horrible working conditions with very little pay. Just barely
enough to survive, and if you get sick, you just get fired and have to fend
for yourself.

That leads to the other part of the discussion. We say giving jobs is
charitable but never talk about what the jobs are and what they entail.

~~~
moron4hire
Right, that's my point. Are we sending good jobs that are actually increasing
the quality of life for people overseas, or is it all just a post-
rationalization and we are really just exporting slave labor to get cheaper
stuff?

This article isn't about the issue. This article is about congratulating Tim
Cook. And that's why I have a problem with it. If he wants to come off as such
a great guy, let him start within his sphere of influence.

If they cared about the people, they'd be giving them jobs at "Western"
working standards, regardless of whether or not those standards are reflected
in the rest of their local economy. I would think that would have the biggest
impact on overall quality of life, because it should cause competition over
the employment pool, forcing the domestic companies to improve their own
working conditions as well, in order to retain their labor force.

But the things I have read make it sound like even Amazon warehouse workers
have it easy compared to Foxconn employees (NB: it appears things at Foxconn
have changed in recent years, but the only stories I see are about relative
change, leaving the absolute condition uncertain, which makes me think it's
still bad. Also, Foxconn isn't the only company in China).

Don't get me wrong, I'm not just wilting away from anything that is not a
cushy office job. Factory work and warehouse work are not easy. I know,
because I've done it. To certain people of more delicate sensibilities, even
what I did (packing groceries for shipment in a large grocery-chain
distribution center) was "bad". It certainly wasn't sitting in an office
chair, typing for a living. But as far as manual labor goes, it was ok. The
work is the work, it needs a person to hump heavy things off of shelves and
onto motorized carts. At least at the place I had worked, it was a safe
environment with fair expectations and incentives.

Incidentally, even the base-pay was significantly better than my first
software development job. There were some guys who took it very seriously,
even worked out to make themselves very strong with lots of stamina, ate very
healthy, to be able to improve their production rate and they made
significantly more. I did the job during college, so once I got my degree, I
wanted to pursue a career in my field, but if I had stayed, I probably could
have ended up as a floor manager making about as much as I ever made working
as an employee (I freelance now, which is definitely better). And I've been
treated far more poorly _as a person_ at several different software
development offices in the last 10 years. It's one of the few places I've been
in that was a true meritocracy.

I don't care who makes the stuff. Just treat them well. By your own standards,
not conveniently by their lower, local standards. No, that doesn't make for
cheaper products, but I don't care, I'm "rich" now. I wasn't, and now I am. If
_I_ don't pay more to make life for other people better, nobody will.

------
ccvannorman
If gay or minority people are being discriminated against in their own
hometowns, by zealots so bigoted they are trying to enact it as law, they
should move here (and take their dollars with them). It's waaay better. :-]

Sincerely,

San Francisco

~~~
sergiotapia
If only it didn't cost $20,000/month for a shitty house.

~~~
SEJeff
You mean apartment, right?

