^The one who has not sinned… We need to clean up our own acts on our own soil before we can tell the others how to behave. If we don’t protect our own people’s rights, it will be pure hypocrisy to go after LGBT rights in Iran.
What’s wrong with focusing effort where it can do some good, and avoiding futile effort? Notice that the pressure on Indiana was successful.
I feel that Apple should be consistent with Iran et al., or tell us why it won’t be. I don’t like that innocent people in Indiana will suffer financially over this law, which could include at least 49% of them who cannot do anything to change it.
^Then they should move! After all, that is often the response to LGBT community members who protest discrimination in their home states.
They should move? What does that solve? The law will still be intact.
The pressure was successful in Indiana. The law is going to be changed.
Then perhaps the CEOs should try it with Iran. I don’t see any hypocrisy in going after several offending countries simultaneously.
CF - your hypothetical with Jennifer and Emily and Godly Florist got me thinking. What if, instead, Jennifer was the only one dealing with flowers, went to Godly, placed her order - and in the day of, Godly comes to the venue with the bouquets and discovers it’s a gay wedding. Jennifer wasn’t hiding anything - she just said “I’d like these flowers for my wedding”. Would Godly be able to refuse to deliver? If not, would Godly be able to sue Jennifer for forcing them to “participate” in a gay wedding that they wouldn’t have otherwise done?
Apple doesn’t have stores in Iran. There are stores that operate as Apple stores but they aren’t part of the company. The same thing has happened in China and India, though they are being stamped out in China a bit at a time. Apple doesn’t even sell in Iran. Its products are sold in Iran but not through Apple. There have been reports of Apple meeting with potential distributors if sanctions are lifted but it is currently against the law for them to do business in Iran.
That took all of 2 seconds to check. The closest Apple stores to Iran, btw, are 2 in Istanbul.
Why would the Iran regime be unhappy if Apple withdrew? They’d probably be delighted. I don’t see this as a way to exert pressure.
Wow! I just googled and see the same thing.
Where did you get your info from, awctnb? I’m sure you’ll want to let your source know they are mistaken.
Lergnom, yes.
I can understand differing opinions, and using different facts to argue an opinion, but to get the facts wrong…
I remember hearing about American fast food restaurants and Starbucks franchises in Saudi Arabia. They typically have male only and “family” sections. The family sections are dirty, often have no restrooms, and have fewer tables and chairs.
For a country with no pubs, nightclubs, or movie theaters, coffee shops become a popular hangout. The only exception was Dunkin Donuts. They refused to segregate the sexes and everyone had their coffee together. Of course, it is against the law in Saudi Arabia for unrelated members of the opposite sex to sit together in a restaurant but at least DD was trying their best.
I wish Apple and other highly sought after American brands would operate in a similar fashion. People will do a lot for their iPhones! Apple really has some untapped power it could use.
Still, they are holding American jurisdictions to a higher standard and I have no problem with that. Maybe this will all make Indiana a better place and also make American businesses throw their weight around for good more often.
Bay, the comment about moving was sarcasm. Personally, I was told numerous times (before we got marriage equality in my state) that I should just move to a state that supported my “lifestyle” instead of “inconveniencing” others.
“I wish Apple and other highly sought after American brands would operate in a similar fashion. People will do a lot for their iPhones! Apple really has some untapped power it could use.”
Apple has no power over what is being sold in Iran, because, as several posters said, it has no official stores in that country:
I’ll assume that Jennifer and Emily live in a part of Indiana not covered by any anti-discrimination ordinance, so that Godly could refuse to take Jennifer’s order if they knew that she was marrying another woman. However, Jennifer didn’t mention that she was marrying Emily.
When Godly took the order, they made a contract. I’m not a lawyer, but I’m pretty sure that once they took the order, they were obligated to deliver, even if they discovered later that they didn’t like Jennifer’s choice of spouse. They can’t arrive at the venue and then break the contract they made. If they wanted to ensure that they didn’t provide services to same-sex weddings, and they were in an area where it was legal to refuse to provide services to lesbians, they should have inquired when they took the order. I say Godly has no cause of action, and if they fail to deliver then Jennifer can sue them for breach of contract.
Ahhh…I see the latest talking points are being circulated. Imagine the number of fwd fwd fwd fwd emails this is generating. 
Apple has every right to speak out against the Indiana law. If one believes they are being hypocritical by taking this stance then don’t buy Apple products.
Maybe middle eastern countries should export oil only to countries that follow their laws and customs on social issues.
I haven’t read the thread but I want to clarify something in my post #32. This may have already been addressed, so if it has, please forgive me. All of these examples about writing things on cakes implicate the baker’s first amendment right to free speech, the protections of which are extremely robust. I haven’t studied the issue, but I very much doubt that the anti-discrimination laws would be interpreted to compel a person to speak --deliver a message – whether by writing on a cake or by performing a wedding or making a sign or publishing a book. Since such an application of the anti-discrimination laws would violate the baker’s first amendment right to free speech, you wouldn’t even have to reach the issue of whether the religious freedom statutes would protect the baker (ie trump the anti-discrimination laws in this setting).
There are exceptions, of course, as where the medium is limited and subsidized by the government (ie tv airwaves), or where the private individual has created a semi-public forum (the shopping center cases).
But in general the government can’t force you to disseminate a message you disagree with.
“would Godly be able to sue Jennifer for forcing them to “participate” in a gay wedding that they wouldn’t have otherwise done?”
What is this “participate” nonsense? The baker, the florist, the caterer, the photographer are nothing more than hired help. Perhaps the people who don’t want to have gay people as customers should get out the wedding business and any other service industry where they might have to do business with people they hate.