
Tim Cook: Pro-discrimination ‘religious freedom’ laws are dangerous - AWolfAtTheDoor
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/pro-discrimination-religious-freedom-laws-are-dangerous-to-america/2015/03/29/bdb4ce9e-d66d-11e4-ba28-f2a685dc7f89_story.html
======
dang
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9287287](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9287287)

------
krisgenre
I am a strong believer of "With great power comes great responsibility" and
many times have been pretty disappointed that celebrities, CEOs and the super
rich have largely been silent.

Its great to see Tim Cook voicing his opinion on stuff that does not concern
Apple.

~~~
greglindahl
Laws that encourage discrimination against employees do concern companies.
Apple has historically cared about this stuff; here's an example[1] from 1993
of a Texas county getting upset about Apple's tolerant HR policies... Apple
stood their ground and won.

1: [http://www.nytimes.com/1993/12/08/us/texas-county-
retreats-o...](http://www.nytimes.com/1993/12/08/us/texas-county-retreats-
over-apple-s-gay-policy.html)

~~~
generic_user
I find wealthy public figures using there power and influence to push personal
vanity causes in the public square as rather cheap and selfish. Not just Cook
but in general. You do not magically gain moral or ethical credentials simply
because you have managed to become extremely rich selling cellphones.

The tone of the piece simply echoes the Anti-Religious Freedom talking points
that have made the rounds in the liberal press. Which have been rather cheap
and inaccurate. that ruined its authenticity. its calculated and agenda
driven. much like groups that try to sue little old lady bakers into
bankruptcy because they feel that baking cakes for homosexual 'marriages'
violates there religious vows. Its all rather cheap and hypocritical.

~~~
LargeWu
Civil rights is a "vanity cause"?

------
abalone
I'm curious what Cook's position is on the Israel/Palestine conflict. Apple's
making heavy investments in Israel and Cook has met with Netanyahu who's
extremely right wing. Netanyahu's party wants no Palestinian state west of
Jordan and for Israel to be an officially Jewish state. Gaza's essentially an
open air prison. Of all the things Apple's involved with, that seems to be the
most at odds with his expressed values of freedom, equality and human dignity.

~~~
jbob2000
There has to be a word for this phenomenon: no matter the conversation,
someone always finds a way to bring it back to israel/palestine.

~~~
FireBeyond
Maybe so, but this isn't so far fetched. Tim Cook is making public statements
on human rights and their infringement by the state. His company is making
substantial investments in Israel (in the hundreds of millions to billions
range) and has had meetings with Netanyahu as a result - a politician who
doesn't have a particularly subjective position - his position on Gaza and
such is fairly concrete and described above.

So yes, we could ask, is Tim Cook a champion of human rights violations by the
state against some or all repressed individuals?

------
harigov
I am not sure whether I should feel happy that someone higher in power took
their time to talk about something important, or feel disappointed that
someone actually has to talk about something that seems obvious. I guess we
all live in very different worlds.

------
hysan
Previous discussion of the same article from 2 hrs prior that was flag killed
(not sure why):
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9287287](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9287287)

~~~
EarthLaunch
I think the top comments there make it quite clear why it was flagged; they
weren't socialist. This one seems headed in the same direction.

------
allendoerfer
I think in general, businesses should be free to decide with whom they do
business, which many posters in this and the flag-killed earlier thread
already stated. Being a heterosexual white male doing business this right
comes to my mind first, because the right not to be discriminated mostly
benefits me only secondarily. Nevertheless you have to acknowledge when other
people's rights trump yours. I think it is undebatable that this should be the
case here, even if you are concerned with religious beliefs, which I am not.

I also think, that religion should get no special treatment by law. In Germany
we have § 166 StGB, which is highly in conflict with freedom of expression,
because it says, that you can be put in prison for up to 3 years if you hurt
somebody's religious feelings publicly. Courts mostly ignore the law anyway by
valuing freedom of press/art/etc. above it.

On the other hand if you join any big German party, you have to confirm, that
you are not a member of Scientology (what I totally support), arguing, that it
is not a religion, but a sect trying to get traction here. So religious laws
do not apply for everything you call your religion anyway, making them
senseless in a way, because the small ones do need protection more than the
big ones, but are effectively less protected.

I can rarely think of a religious rights law, that is not covered by a civil
liberty law or should not exists anyway.

If I could mix the perfect religious legislation i would choose the French
approach, Laïcité [0], and add the German right for children to get religious
education in school to prevent extremism by giving up the interpretation to
other groups.

[0]:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La%C3%AFcit%C3%A9](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La%C3%AFcit%C3%A9)

------
forrestthewoods
The text of the bill seems really.... non-offensive.

"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." [1]

That seems... pretty reasonable? The government can't limit exercise of
religious freedom unless they have a reason and they do so in the least
restrictive way possible?

Sexual orientation could be added as a protected class. That'd perhaps be the
best of both worlds? There's seemingly not been a lot of traction on that. I'm
not sure why exactly. Can anyone explain?

[1] [http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/indianas-religious-
freed...](http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/indianas-religious-freedom-
restoration-act-explained_900641.html?page=2)

~~~
tzs
Several cities in Indian have added sexual orientation as a protected class.
This law effectively overrides that if the person doing the discrimination
claims it is for religious reasons.

In other jurisdictions when their RFRA laws conflicted with their anti-
discrimination laws, the anti-discrimination laws have tended to win. The
anti-discrimination laws won because the RFRA laws were interpreted as
prohibiting government action that burdened the exercise of religion. They did
not provide a defense when a person was sued under an anti-discrimination law
by a person claiming to have been discriminated against, because government
was not a party to the lawsuit.

The Indiana law contains specific language that says it applies to lawsuits
even if no government entity is a party.

~~~
forrestthewoods
On your first point, it doesn't quite override that if they claim it's for
religious reasons. It simply sets the benchmark with which the law must be
judged. There must be a substantial burden. There must be a compelling
government interest. And the restriction must be the least restricting way to
achieve that interest.

That at bare minimum makes it not as apocalyptic as more than a few news
reports had led me to believe.

------
coldtea
However odious the law is, businesses meddling in politics is even more scary
and odious. Even if it's for the "good thing" (because of course everybody
defines thet "good thing" to be what he stands for).

------
smt88
Here's a hefty legal analysis of Religious Freedom laws. There's some
interesting history here that bears reading.

[http://volokh.com/2013/12/02/hobby-lobby-employer-mandate-
re...](http://volokh.com/2013/12/02/hobby-lobby-employer-mandate-religious-
exemptions/)

(Note that I'm not a lawyer and can't vouch for this interpretation, but there
are a lot of plain facts in the analysis that I hadn't known before.)

------
gotothrowaway
I don't like him citing that discrimation is "bad for business" as anecdotal
justification. Tim is the role model, not Apple.

~~~
shard972
But he says that's it's the consensus in the business community, who are you
to deny that?

~~~
gotothrowaway
The business community has figured out a lot of things great for business.
Non-Discrimination is on the list, but so is wage-fixing (on one hand) and
providing alcohol to minors (on the other).

Leveraging Apple's weight here just seems inappropriately selective to me.

~~~
kimdouglasmason
On this one, I think both shard972 and gotothrowaway are both equally correct.

Business isn't a monolithic entity, nor is the 'business community'. I'm not
sure arguing down this line makes much sense, as it's very very easy to
construct straw-men.

Remember that Tim Cook and Donald Trump are both in the business community. I
wonder how much they have in common...

------
firloop
I wonder if this piece is enough for Apple to become the next target of
boycotts from religious groups. There's many places of worship whom hold
different views and are Apple customers.

Personally, I'm on Cook's side. Just pointing out the line that potentially
may have been drawn.

------
IBM
Oh boy a lot of dumb comments to downvote already. Keep it coming.

~~~
Potando
Do you mean poorly thought out or just different opinions? If the latter,
perhaps you can show why you disagree?

------
notastartup
amazing. its like states are a different snapshots of America during different
time periods.

------
shard972
> A wave of legislation, introduced in more than two dozen states, would allow
> people to discriminate against their neighbors.

I would hate to live in such a world where such thing would be considered
illegal but ok.

> say individuals can cite their personal religious beliefs to refuse service
> to a customer or resist a state nondiscrimination law.

So? I don't see how this is a problem, as a business owner you are allowed to
discriminate against who you do and do not want to be your customers. It
happens all the time and to religious people themselves when they are
boycotted by LGBT groups.

> Legislation being considered in Texas would strip the salaries and pensions
> of clerks who issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples

If we start with the premise that we need to be afraid of every considered
bill then I don't know how you could ever not be afraid these days. Just
simply a bill being considered doesn't mean anything.

> They go against the very principles our nation was founded on, and they have
> the potential to undo decades of progress toward greater equality.

The US was founded on principles of freedom of expression and association. The
freedom to associate is also the freedom to not associate, only Tim skips over
all that.

> America’s business community recognized a long time ago that discrimination,
> in all its forms, is bad for business.

Really Tim? All forms of discrimination? What world do you live in?

> This isn’t a political issue. It isn’t a religious issue. This is about how
> we treat each other as human beings. Opposing discrimination takes courage.

Except it is political (legislation), it is about religion (Freedom of
association for religious reasons) and NO, it doesn't take courage to say what
apparently the whole business community believes according to you Tim.

~~~
pstuart
> The US was founded on principles of freedom of expression and association.
> The freedom to associate is also the freedom to not associate, only Tim
> skips over all that.

So freedom for a business to not associate with anybody who is not white is
ok?

~~~
xnull2guest
It is not okay.

But it's also not something that is (ought to be) under the juris prudence of
the law.

~~~
ubernostrum
Fun story:

There's a thing you can do with real estate called a "restrictive covenant".
Basically this means that as part of the agreement to sell a piece of
property, you attach a rider like "but the purchaser isn't allowed to do _X_
with the property, and must pass this restriction on to future purchasers".

This is pretty basic and pretty well established to be legal. For example,
people sometimes use restrictive covenants on land they want to ensure is
preserved/undeveloped.

Back in the day, though, many people used this to enforce racial segregation.
There would be a restrictive covenant along the lines of "Purchaser agrees
never to sell the property to a black person, and to pass this restriction on
to future purchasers".

This came up in court eventually during the era of the civil rights movement,
and the US Supreme Court took an interesting approach ( _Shelley v. Kraemer_ ,
for anyone interested in the full details): restrictive covenants which
restrict sale according to race are _legal_ , but _unenforceable_. Private
individuals are free to discriminate as much as they want, but the
_government_ , which is legally bound not to discriminate, cannot intervene to
enforce it, since doing so would require the government to take part in the
discrimination (which is illegal/unconstitutional).

~~~
xnull2guest
That is a fun story, and a great example of a deeper analysis of the sort you
aren't going to get from Cook. Thank you for sharing it. :) It would be
interesting to see whether there is an application of this to hiring practices
(I don't see a clear way this could be done).

~~~
kimdouglasmason
"a deeper analysis of the sort you aren't going to get from Cook"

It's nice to see that you're now putting words into (or removing them from)
people's mouths. How presumptuous.

~~~
xnull2guest
This is a prediction - Cook can prove the statement wrong. I did not add nor
remove words from anyone's mouth.

------
Josiah_Brook

      > That’s why, on behalf of Apple, I’m standing up to oppose this new wave of
      > legislation — wherever it emerges. I’m writing in the hopes that many more will
      > join this movement. From North Carolina to Nevada, these bills under
      > consideration truly will hurt jobs, growth and the economic vibrancy of parts of
      > the country where a 21st-century economy was once welcomed with open arms.
    

This is bizarre. In what way does a 21st-century economy depend on same-sex
marriage?

Am I too cynical for thinking this probably has more to do with PR and/or
company morale?

~~~
emsy
Simple example: Your new gay employee needs to move to a new city to start his
job, but is denied any service from realtors after they asked for his sexual
orientation. Still he manages to find a new apartment but has to drive 30
miles to the next super market, because the local ones decline to serve him.

------
Potando
He seems to mainly be talking about discrimination against gays, though
doesn't say it directly. I wonder if he really means it that Apple won't
discriminate against pedophiles, incestuous couples or the grey areas on the
boundaries of age of consent? Or is it like the old "universal suffrage" that
turned out only to be universal to men, and not women?

~~~
b08aa8b0dcfce
what

~~~
Potando
What sexualities do you think he's talking about? Surely not all of them. But
he doesn't explicitly say which groups, if any, he supports discrimination
against.

------
xnull2guest
What are Tim Cook's credentials here? Did he say anything that hasn't been
said by others? Is his take novel or particularly developed?

This is an incredibly complex issue. As a left-leaning person who wants to see
discrimination eradicated, but as a person who also wants to see it eradicated
without it being the purview of some constellation of legal obligations, I
recognize deep rooted conflicts.

Take for example the ACLU's (IMO correct) defense of Neo Nazi groups to march
in solidarity. This is the type of freedom that our country is based on. It's
not something I personally affirm, but I have to defend the right on
principle.

Tom Cook talks up one side of the issue. His credentials have nothing to do
with the topic. If we were in a critical thinking class we would recognize
this as a cut and clear case of an appeal from authority.

Can we get something more substantive?

~~~
threeseed
Tim Cook is the CEO of one of the world's largest and most influential
companies.

This alone makes him absolutely qualified to comment.

~~~
coldtea
...on his industry...

~~~
threeseed
Business leaders have every right to comment on issues that affect their
employees for whose health and safety they are legally responsible for.

~~~
xnull2guest
Yes they do.

It doesn't mean that their comments are interesting. The headline is an
implication that Cook's ideas on the issue are interesting. They aren't - they
are mundane. But Cook is looked up to. So it is an appeal to authority - it is
his authority that gives his ideas weight; not his ideas that give themselves
authority.

~~~
kimdouglasmason
You keep saying this over and over... that they are not 'new', or that they
are 'mundane'. I don't see a whole lot of explanation from you as to how they
are wrong.

Edit: as for your 'appeal to authority' idea, it's an opinion piece, and
clearly marked as such by WaPo. By your standard, every opinion piece ever
written by anyone powerful or popular is an appeal to authority.

~~~
xnull2guest
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9288099](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9288099)

