User Name
Password
AppleNova Forums » General Discussion »

Apple publicly opposes California's Proposition 8 (Anti-Gay Marriage Amendment)


Register Members List Calendar Search FAQ Posting Guidelines
Apple publicly opposes California's Proposition 8 (Anti-Gay Marriage Amendment)
Page 1 of 2 [1] 2  Next Thread Tools
screensaver400
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
 
2008-10-24, 12:53

On their start page: http://www.apple.com/startpage/.

Quote:
No on Prop 8
Apple is publicly opposing Proposition 8 and making a donation of $100,000 to the No on 8 campaign. Apple was among the first California companies to offer equal rights and benefits to our employees’ same-sex partners, and we strongly believe that a person’s fundamental rights — including the right to marry — should not be affected by their sexual orientation. Apple views this as a civil rights issue, rather than just a political issue, and is therefore speaking out publicly against Proposition 8.
Political donations when made in a company's self-interest are one thing. But I'm not sure I like the idea of a company making an endorsement and major contribution on a social, non-company related issue.

I mean, let's be clear. This is Steve Jobs using Apple's money to push his own political agenda. This act won't benefit Apple as a company in any way.

That said, I won't be voting for Proposition 8 (nor will I be voting against it). I think California has much more pressing issues.
  quote
709
¡Damned!
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Purgatory
 
2008-10-24, 13:00

  quote
Luca
ಠ_ರೃ
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Minnesota
 
2008-10-24, 13:02

I agree with their stance but I also think it's a little weird for a big company like Apple to do something like this.
  quote
Dorian Gray
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Paris, France
 
2008-10-24, 13:12

Quote:
Originally Posted by screensaver400 View Post
I mean, let's be clear. This is Steve Jobs using Apple's money to push his own political agenda. This act won't benefit Apple as a company in any way.
Steve Jobs can't push any agenda with Apple's money. Neither does the board of directors think this won't help Apple; in fact, they believe it will help to the tune of at least $100,000. If the directors made a poor judgement the shareholders can turf them off the board.

… engrossed in such factional acts as dreaming different dreams.
  quote
RowdyScot
Ice Arrow Sniper
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Great Bay Temple
Send a message via AIM to RowdyScot Send a message via Skype™ to RowdyScot 
2008-10-24, 13:18

Kinda shocked Apple would make a contribution like that, but I do agree with their stance.
  quote
bassplayinMacFiend
Banging the Bottom End
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
 
2008-10-24, 13:29

To the OP, how do we know this is just Steve's agenda? If same-sex benefits were enacted before Steve came back as the iCEO then would this not be a general company stance as opposed to a Steve stance?

Also, if the ban went through, isn't it at least possible that Apple's benefits costs could increase dramatically if they were forced to self-insure same sex couple's partners as the insurance companies could easily use this ban as an out to providing partner benefits?
  quote
torifile
Less than Stellar Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Durham, NC
Send a message via AIM to torifile  
2008-10-24, 13:33

Google did the same thing.
  quote
pscates2.0
Mr. Katan
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2008-10-24, 13:45

Yeah, this isn't a personal, "just Steve" issue...he couldn't have swiped $100,000 from the company to give to something that only he supports or believes in (he's got his own money, I'm sure, for things like that). The board or whatever would all have to be on...uh, board for a company-wide, six-figure donation to a particular cause or program.

It's a progressive (is that the proper, non-push-button word we use? ) outfit, as is, and it's no shock or surprise to anyone, is it?

Doesn't bother me, I don't care.

I'd draw the line at maybe a few other things and get upset (but they're the kinds of things no prominent company is ever going to throw in with, so I think I'm pretty safe). But social matters like this, or who they support for President, etc. I don't give a damn. It doesn't affect me, one way or the other. Especially when you know their DNA, background and history.

And yes, just from a business perspective alone, as the bassman points out, it's smart and no surprise.

There could be just as many other public, highly-thought-of companies giving money and support to the opposite view in California (okay, there aren't; but we need to pretend there is, for a few seconds, for my point to stand or make any sense ).

But seriously, if this bothered enough people - and it won't - there are procedures and remedies in place for anyone wanting to make their feelings and thoughts known on the matter.

Nobody throws in with a company like Apple expecting them to cut checks to the NRA or the Heritage Foundation, right? And then getting all pissy-acting when you find out they don't?



I'd be stunned if Apple didn't make some sort of public move on this issue, or stayed silent/neutral. It's the state where they live and work, and it affects them.
  quote
Mugge
Thunderbolt, fuck yeah!
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Denmark
 
2008-10-24, 13:48

I fully agree with Apple and Google. In fact I see this as not as much them making a "yes statement" as them speaking up against discrimination. Why the hell is it anybody's business who other people marry?
  quote
ShadowOfGed
Travels via TARDIS
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Earthsea
 
2008-10-24, 13:51

They're also, I believe, speaking on behalf of most/all their employees. Not just Steve or the board. I'm very glad to see this finally go out publicly. The range of people I've met at work is incredible, and from a diverse employment standpoint, this makes sense. It takes all kinds to make a company like Apple run.

(Now, please forget about the dots I just connected. )

Apparently I call the cops when I see people litter.
  quote
torifile
Less than Stellar Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Durham, NC
Send a message via AIM to torifile  
2008-10-24, 13:52

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mugge View Post
I fully agree with Apple and Google. In fact I see this as not as much them making a "yes statement" as them speaking up against discrimination. Why the hell is it anybody's business who other people marry?
It's not anyone's business, but it's a wedge issue to drive people to the polls. Happens every 4 years.
  quote
chucker
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: near Bremen, Germany
Send a message via ICQ to chucker Send a message via AIM to chucker Send a message via MSN to chucker Send a message via Yahoo to chucker Send a message via Skype™ to chucker 
2008-10-24, 14:51

Quote:
Originally Posted by screensaver400 View Post
This act won't benefit Apple as a company in any way.
Not so. Like our friends at Google, Apple too certainly has political motivations behind this, but also very practical ones. A company that publicly speaks out for equal gay rights is far more attractive to potential gay employees. Why needlessly scare away potentially bright talent?
  quote
curiousuburb
Antimatter Man
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: that interweb thing
 
2008-10-24, 15:01

Dude, not just the rainbow logo... Apple made Flowered computers.
  quote
screensaver400
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
 
2008-10-24, 15:34

Quote:
Originally Posted by bassplayinMacFiend View Post
To the OP, how do we know this is just Steve's agenda? If same-sex benefits were enacted before Steve came back as the iCEO then would this not be a general company stance as opposed to a Steve stance?

Also, if the ban went through, isn't it at least possible that Apple's benefits costs could increase dramatically if they were forced to self-insure same sex couple's partners as the insurance companies could easily use this ban as an out to providing partner benefits?
Its conjecture. Steve is known as being left-of-center, and he's also known for running the company dictatorially. Theoretically, of course, the Board of Directors can tell Steve "no," but look what happened to Apple the last time that happened. If it takes $100k to a political campaign to keep Steve happy, I suspect they'd just give it to him.

Of course, when I phrase it like that, it does make it seem like this donation is good for Apple--what's good for Steve is good for Apple.

As to the medical benefits thing... I see your point, but would Apple be "forced" to insure the partners of employees in same-sex couples if Prop. 8 passes? I could see Apple wanting to insure them, but I don't think they'd be forced to. They could simply say, "Sorry guys. The voters passed Prop. 8, which means that our insurance providers no longer cover your partners." Not that they would--clearly, Apple supports homosexual rights--but they could.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chucker View Post
A company that publicly speaks out for equal gay rights is far more attractive to potential gay employees. Why needlessly scare away potentially bright talent?
I think Apple would do just as well when it comes to recruiting potential gay employees if they stayed neutral. As long as a company isn't anti-gay, I don't think gays will have any problem working for it.
  quote
ShadowOfGed
Travels via TARDIS
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Earthsea
 
2008-10-24, 15:38

Quote:
Originally Posted by chucker View Post
Not so. Like our friends at Google, Apple too certainly has political motivations behind this, but also very practical ones. A company that publicly speaks out for equal gay rights is far more attractive to potential gay employees. Why needlessly scare away potentially bright talent?
Also, in a more general sense, how is this different from newspapers endorsing political candidates? If anything, I'd say this is better, because they're backing a concept, not a person.

Apparently I call the cops when I see people litter.
  quote
Swox
OK Mr. Sunshine!
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Toronto
 
2008-10-24, 15:39

Quote:
Originally Posted by 709 View Post
  quote
chucker
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: near Bremen, Germany
Send a message via ICQ to chucker Send a message via AIM to chucker Send a message via MSN to chucker Send a message via Yahoo to chucker Send a message via Skype™ to chucker 
2008-10-24, 15:41

Quote:
Originally Posted by screensaver400 View Post
I think Apple would do just as well when it comes to recruiting potential gay employees if they stayed neutral. As long as a company isn't anti-gay, I don't think gays will have any problem working for it.
It's not about "not having any problem". It's about being able to identify with a company. Both Apple and Google strongly benefit from the idea that employees love to work there.
  quote
screensaver400
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
 
2008-10-24, 16:05

Quote:
Originally Posted by chucker View Post
Both Apple and Google strongly benefit from the idea that employees love to work there.
Well, yeah. And I don't think gay employees of Apple would like their jobs any less if Apple had stayed neutral.
  quote
k squared
Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Verde Amarela
 
2008-10-24, 16:27

Quote:
Originally Posted by screensaver400 View Post
Its conjecture. Steve is known as being left-of-center, and he's also known for running the company dictatorially. Theoretically, of course, the Board of Directors can tell Steve "no," but look what happened to Apple the last time that happened. If it takes $100k to a political campaign to keep Steve happy, I suspect they'd just give it to him.
It's not conjecture. Jobs still has report to the BoDs.
  quote
709
¡Damned!
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Purgatory
 
2008-10-24, 17:59

as an aside...could one of you righties/lefties give me an indication of what "center" is?

Totally curious...mind you, for mathematical reasons.

In the meantime, watch my tight ass dance:





Erm. Yeah.

So it goes.

Last edited by 709 : 2008-10-24 at 18:13.
  quote
BuonRotto
Not sayin', just sayin'
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Durham, NC
Send a message via AIM to BuonRotto Send a message via Yahoo to BuonRotto  
2008-10-24, 19:22

there is no center position; it's a... nothing
  quote
remlemasi
Formerly “theelmerguy”
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Irvine, California
 
2008-10-25, 01:50

Quote:
Originally Posted by bassplayinMacFiend View Post
To the OP, how do we know this is just Steve's agenda? If same-sex benefits were enacted before Steve came back as the iCEO then would this not be a general company stance as opposed to a Steve stance?

Also, if the ban went through, isn't it at least possible that Apple's benefits costs could increase dramatically if they were forced to self-insure same sex couple's partners as the insurance companies could easily use this ban as an out to providing partner benefits?
Quote:
Originally Posted by screensaver400 View Post
Its conjecture. Steve is known as being left-of-center, and he's also known for running the company dictatorially. Theoretically, of course, the Board of Directors can tell Steve "no," but look what happened to Apple the last time that happened. If it takes $100k to a political campaign to keep Steve happy, I suspect they'd just give it to him.

Of course, when I phrase it like that, it does make it seem like this donation is good for Apple--what's good for Steve is good for Apple.

As to the medical benefits thing... I see your point, but would Apple be "forced" to insure the partners of employees in same-sex couples if Prop. 8 passes? I could see Apple wanting to insure them, but I don't think they'd be forced to. They could simply say, "Sorry guys. The voters passed Prop. 8, which means that our insurance providers no longer cover your partners." Not that they would--clearly, Apple supports homosexual rights--but they could.



I think Apple would do just as well when it comes to recruiting potential gay employees if they stayed neutral. As long as a company isn't anti-gay, I don't think gays will have any problem working for it.
Contrary, domestic partners in California already have virtually all of the same rights that married couples do including health insurance coverage. This would not change if Prop 8 is passed or not. The issue behind Proposition 8 is the "definition" of marriage. It would add, "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California," to the California Constitution.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domesti..._in_California

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Califor...ition_8_(2008)

Last edited by remlemasi : 2008-10-25 at 01:52. Reason: Fixed second hyperlink.
  quote
ShadowOfGed
Travels via TARDIS
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Earthsea
 
2008-10-25, 02:34

Quote:
Originally Posted by theelmerguy View Post
Contrary, domestic partners in California already have virtually all of the same rights that married couples do including health insurance coverage. This would not change if Prop 8 is passed or not. The issue behind Proposition 8 is the "definition" of marriage. It would add, "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California," to the California Constitution.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domesti..._in_California

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Califor...ition_8_(2008)
Even then, I would counter that Constitutions are not dictionaries. If the use of the word marriage is the true issue, what we need to do is purge "marriage" from government, as it is a religious institution, and leave civil unions to the state. As long as the government has any hand---if only semantic---in something other than civil unions, they should/must be vended with equal opportunity for all.

Personally, I'm a fan of removing "marriage" from all things government, thus clarifying the distinction between church and state. However, Prop 8 goes entirely against this and cements the definition of a word in the California Constitution. Constitutions are to outline structure and procedure, not define words. So on those grounds alone, I oppose Prop 8.

Apparently I call the cops when I see people litter.
  quote
chucker
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: near Bremen, Germany
Send a message via ICQ to chucker Send a message via AIM to chucker Send a message via MSN to chucker Send a message via Yahoo to chucker Send a message via Skype™ to chucker 
2008-10-25, 03:34

Quote:
Originally Posted by theelmerguy View Post
Contrary, domestic partners in California already have virtually all of the same rights that married couples do including health insurance coverage.
On the CA state level, yes. But not on a federal level. If I'm not mistaken, you don't get to file joint taxes.

Only when the federal government stops distinguishing between marriage and domestic partnerships / civil unions altogether will this problem be smoothly resolved.
  quote
Swox
OK Mr. Sunshine!
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Toronto
 
2008-10-25, 03:41

Nooo!!! Don't legalize the gay marriage!!! Our country has turned into a HELLHOLE since we did it!!! Now I'm gay married to a guy because Paul Martin forced me to do it!!! I'm not sexually attracted to mens!1! I want my wife back!!!

Do not be oppressed by the forces of ignorance and delusion! But rise up now with resolve and courage! Entranced by ignorance, from beginningless time until now, You have had more than enough time to sleep. So do not slumber any longer, but strive after virtue with body, speech, and mind!
  quote
Koodari
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
 
2008-10-25, 04:21

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShadowOfGed View Post
Even then, I would counter that Constitutions are not dictionaries. If the use of the word marriage is the true issue, what we need to do is purge "marriage" from government, as it is a religious institution, and leave civil unions to the state. As long as the government has any hand---if only semantic---in something other than civil unions, they should/must be vended with equal opportunity for all.

Personally, I'm a fan of removing "marriage" from all things government, thus clarifying the distinction between church and state. However, Prop 8 goes entirely against this and cements the definition of a word in the California Constitution. Constitutions are to outline structure and procedure, not define words. So on those grounds alone, I oppose Prop 8.
My thoughts exactly.

Well, I think civil unions shouldn't exist in law either, but that is much tougher change than simply separating marriage the religious construct and civil union the legal construct. It would be reasonable to do the latter first.
  quote
_Ω_
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Send a message via AIM to _Ω_  
2008-10-25, 06:13

I visited California and caught the Gay. Bad aids. Woe is me.

  quote
remlemasi
Formerly “theelmerguy”
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Irvine, California
 
2008-10-25, 17:25

Quote:
Originally Posted by chucker View Post
On the CA state level, yes. But not on a federal level. If I'm not mistaken, you don't get to file joint taxes.

Only when the federal government stops distinguishing between marriage and domestic partnerships / civil unions altogether will this problem be smoothly resolved.
Yes, I think you're right. But as to Prop 8, it's only on the California ballot.
  quote
Robo
Formerly Roboman, still
awesome
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Portland, OR
 
2008-10-25, 18:33

My gut reaction? Apple donated the money (and then put it on their front page, for all to see) for the same reason they talk about how environmental all their products are, and for the same reason IKEA goes out of their way to include same-sex couples in their catalogs and advertising, and the same reason Volvo creates edgy ads just for the GBLT magazines. It's an image thing.

I'm still glad they did it, mind. But for those of you who are wondering why it was done with Apple's (and not Jobs's) money, well, there you go. It's essentially a big "Apple cares!" to the GBLT community.

For people who disagree with it: their logo is a rainbow fruit. Come on.

*waits for inevitable American Family Association boycott*

And yes, I did say GBLT. I know the traditional abbreviations are LGBT or GLBT. It's an old in-joke-turned-habit.

and i guess i've known it all along / the truth is, you have to be soft to be strong

Last edited by Robo : 2008-10-25 at 18:43.
  quote
ShadowOfGed
Travels via TARDIS
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Earthsea
 
2008-10-25, 21:11

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roboman View Post
And yes, I did say GBLT. I know the traditional abbreviations are LGBT or GLBT. It's an old in-joke-turned-habit.
Is that a Gay BLT? Sandwich?
  quote
Posting Rules Navigation
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Page 1 of 2 [1] 2  Next

Post Reply

Forum Jump
Thread Tools

« Previous Thread | Next Thread »

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 16:34.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2020, AppleNova