Tim Cook: Pro-discrimination ‘religious freedom’ laws are dangerous | Hacker News Reader

Tim Cook: Pro-discrimination ‘religious freedom’ laws are dangerous

washingtonpost.com

82 pointsDoubleguitars62 comments

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...

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.

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.

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.

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

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

I disagree. I'm straight, but I'm not discriminating based on sex, I'm discriminating based based on attractiveness. Or actually, my body is - I don't get an erection for ugly women and men - it's just that, so far, all men I've seen were ugly.

> 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).

> 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.

>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.

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

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

People use the excuse "it's for the economy" in much the same way that people use the excuse "it's for the children", or "it's to fight terrorism". It's a lazy argument to shut up the opposition because how dare anyone do something to hurt the economy/children/help terrorists?

That being said, this law is insane, and it will be overturned or repealed. It's just a shame that people need to be discriminated against during this waiting period.

The benefits of inclusiveness are pretty well hashed out in the tech industry, which has long been among the leading industry sectors in accepting LGBT individuals. He's not proposing a theory. He is, as the leader of the largest tech company on the planet, conveying a lesson learned long ago that some people still don't get: Being inclusive makes more money, makes better products, and provides a better customer experience than being discriminatory. What's the "lie?"

Well, several large organizations have already announced they're suspending or canceling business events in Indiana, so I don't think the economic argument is deceptive. Obviously, Cook's expressing a predictive opinion rather than a fact, but one that seems pretty well grounded in reality to me.

How do you define "morality"? The folks backing this new law are basing it on their morals as well.

> How do you define "morality"?

As we are all adults here and know where to find definitions of words, I suppose you want to ask "on what principles do you ground your morality?" and then "on what things do you ground these principles?"

There is no good answer to that.

Kantian ethics say you ground morality on a "test": "if I cannot want all other people to do what I consider doing, it is wrong, I shouldn't do it". It works not so bad but has issues.

Utilitarianism say: "I should do it only if the overall sum of happiness will not decrease". This has even bigger issues, the lest of which is that you will be allowed to pee in the neighbour's flowers at night.

For me, morality is grounded on principles, which are not grounded on anything, and do not need to be.

Two points:

First, that was just one small part of the article. The rest talks in broad terms about equality, justice and fairness as to why the "religious freedom" laws should be opposed.

Second, when you say "No-one knows if a decision to discriminate is good or wrong for the economy", that's incorrect. Just Google something along the lines of "economic argument for diversity" and you'll get some good research. Here is one literature review: http://www.raeng.org.uk/publications/other/the-business-case...

Truth is it will hurt some jobs, and possibly help others, but you're correct in that the reasons for opposing this (or supporting it, even) shouldn't be reduced to dollars and cents.

>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

As a European, I agree. And we also consider justice above and non necessarily related to law.

I think most Americans would agree with you.

I doubt all Europeans are as sanctimonious.

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.

So if one owns a sandwich counter, should they be allowed to post a sign that says "no colored people?"

To disenfranchise a minority in a small town, all you would have to do is buy up all the businesses and refuse to serve them.

Of course, this is exactly how it used to be.

"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.

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.]

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".

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.

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

'"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.

I guess you kind of forgot why the United States was founded?

Freedom of religion is more core to the US then any other law or concept. Freedom of speech was written to ensure freedom of religion, not the other way around.

In any case freedom of thought is not the same thing, freedom of religion includes actions, not just thought. And in order to avoid making freedom of ANY action, we limit it to actions required by religion. (And yes, that causes problems when people invent new religions that have actions some object to. Nothing is perfect, these things are dealt with as they come up.)

If you'll allow something for religious people, why not allow it always? Oh, but it's a bad thing? Then why are you allowing religious people to do it? :/

Because things can become bad or good depending on the reason and intention for which you do it?

>I just don't understand why "freedom of religion" is a thing.

It exists because people want to to exist, and the US is a democracy.

Note that democracy means the rule of the majority (or plurality), and not necessarily equal rights for everybody, which would be an a-priori decision unrelated to the democratic process.

The constitution was not instituted democratically, really, it is, effectively a coup on the previous form of government. The bill of rights were part of what was added to it to clarify that rights pre-existed the constitution and that they did not require the constitution to defend them (read the pre-amble to the bill of rights some time) .... which means as far as the writers of the constitution were concerned, the first amendment (which defends freedom of religion) was redundant.

EG: These rights don't require democracy but are "god given".

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?

Because it is easier for people to segregate and discriminate those who are different from them then it is to find a common ground or to simply accept the differences.

Tim's closing line kind of hits this, "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".

I came into this article ready to roll my eyes, but I think Tim did a great job. Really well done piece.

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...). But it's also fairly natural to change your mind when you have a good reason: declining sales or bankruptcy.

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.

Yeah, that's an interesting point.

> What causes us to segregate and discriminate against our fellow humans?

Evolved psychology to a large extent. Discriminating against some group and wiping them out or taking their resources has been a big part of history. Doesn't make it right of course. "Nature, Mr. Allnut, is what we are put in this world to rise above"

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".

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...

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.

for example apps have been rejected for bearing news about U.S. drone strikes[1].

FWIW, the app was eventually approved, although under a different name: http://www.fastcoexist.com/3026320/your-iphone-can-now-alert...

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

If Apple prevented users from accessing this info at all I might buy this, but considering this info (in this specific case) is still available via the web (the Guardian site works fine on an iPhone), I can't agree with this. Unless you have evidence of some info/activity that is only available via an app and not accessible on the web?

Sorry this breaks down really quickly. Even though there is plenty of inconsistency in the App Store's decision, they are not saying "this app can only be installed by straight people." - They are just choosing not to run an app in their store.

A better analogy would be for a bakery to say "we will only sell vegetarian products since we believe in cute animals." - you're not discriminating against your customers. You're just choosing what to sell.

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.

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.

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

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.

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...

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.

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.

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

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.

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?

> 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.

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.

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.

My point is not about the charity, it's about the quality of the charity. You give charity to your own standards of quality, not what you think the other person is willing to accept. A sacrifice is meaningless if it's not painful. If it were really about making a better life for Chinese workers, they'd use their leverage against their manufacturing partners to insist quality of life be improved to Western standards. The cost of production wouldn't be a factor in the equation, because it's charity, right?

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

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

You mean apartment, right?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com