Shouldn't we be more concerned that morality is now dictated by economics? Sure, it's great that these companies are helping the progressive cause, but it's a real problem that 'doing the right thing' now really means 'doing the thing that makes us the most money.' We should not act ethically because it is profitable, but because it's proper and just.
22
The haters will win.
1
Religious folks who refuse to mingle with others should not open businesses in the public square.
Business entities shouldn't have to supply health insurance to its employees. We need to have the Public Option. Let Hobby Lobby be in the business of crafts and only crafts.
Business entities shouldn't have to supply health insurance to its employees. We need to have the Public Option. Let Hobby Lobby be in the business of crafts and only crafts.
6
>
Big Business would do the exact opposite if it was in their financial interests.
Big Business would do the exact opposite if it was in their financial interests.
5
Can we pass a Freedom FROM Religion Act?
8
If "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" doesn't put a full stop to it, it is hard to imagine what will.
2
The problem these incidents highlight is the irresponsible American citizen. He and she do not vote. Politicians court voters and money. Big money tends to come from big business, votes, especially in off year elections, tend to come from persons with minority values who wish to impose their values on the majority. The legislators of Indiana and Arkansas had nothing to fear from public opinion because most of the public doesn’t vote. Corporations step in and say cut it out or else, and politicians change their minds overnight. So, America, we have ourselves to blame for our “broken politics.” If the crazies have too much power, it’s because we let them. If corporations have too much influence, it’s because we let them. We’re fools to let them.
7
Let's see the big corporations and all their political power stand up to the NRA and NSSF, every politician who is in their pocket, and every false "patriot" who wishes only to raise the revenues of every gun manufacturer under the guise of worshiping the 2A. I applaud the attack on IN and AK, and support all LGBT people globally, but people here in the United States— CHILDREN— are dying every day because of gun greed and the cowardice of politicians and corporate boards to stand up to the NRA and take back our Second Amendment back from their cold, greedy, white hands.
6
So it's not corporate political speech the NYT dislikes, rather the NYT only dislikes corporate political speech that it dislikes. Hypocrites.
6
Disliking bigotry, discrimination and unfairness is something all of us should do. Why don't you have a problem with those things?
2
We couldn't agree with you more!!!
Every day I kneel and thank god for the wondrous gift that binds us as human beings. The universal element that brings us together to solve our differences and see each other as mirrors of the self....money.
2
"The last temptation is the greatest treason:
To do the right deed for the wrong reason."
- Thomas a Becket in T.S. Eliot's "Murder in the Cathedral"
To do the right deed for the wrong reason."
- Thomas a Becket in T.S. Eliot's "Murder in the Cathedral"
3
The best ways to get hypocritical corporations like Apple out of the debate is for all moral religious Americans to start dumping their Apple stock and refuse to buy any Apple products. As Apple's valuation tanks they will be forced to sell more in such "enlightened" countries as Iran, China and Nigeria. Countries where homosexuals are punished much more severely than being refused a wedding Cake or a slice of pizza. So in other words Tim Cook, just shut up. Don't use the muscle of your corporation to push the homosexual agenda on moral Americans over their religious beliefs. Shame on you for being so intolerant.
2
You can take the name of God until you are blue in the face, but you will never win my respect by doing it.
1
Nobody is "pushing" the homosexual 'agenda." Homosexuals are born that way - and want to be treated with fairness. Morality has nothing to do with hate.
3
Another vivid example of corporate America controlling politics and culture.
1
So, where is their support for anti-religious nut laws? That is the real problem (that and the stupidity of too many here in the USA).
Corporations should not support any politicians or parties (read GOP) that are working hard to limit the voting rights of Americans. What they are doing is wrong and an insult to our founding fathers.
A "Big Hairy Audacious Goal" of big business might be to model and inspire a formidable reduction in discrimination based on color, creed, race, gender, and sexual orientation in both politics and business by the end of this decade not for profit maximization but because it's the right/moral/honorable and enlightened thing to do.
1
Apparently NYT and most liberals haven't read the two laws in Indiana and Arkansas. If a person is in business to sell anything, it must sell that anything to anyone. Those laws do not address that part, and this article is accusing big business of financing political campaigns of those the left disagrees with.
Then we come to specific cases of small time baker or photographer who sells cakes and takes photos of anyone entering their establishment. No one is turned down in such places. But when guys demand that they bake a cake for their wedding or take photos of their wedding, they are demanding the owner to participate in their ceremonies. None can be forced to participate in anyone's ceremonies, for whatever reason, and if they choose not to, neither the media nor government nor various activistis can deny them the right to their business.
Then we come to specific cases of small time baker or photographer who sells cakes and takes photos of anyone entering their establishment. No one is turned down in such places. But when guys demand that they bake a cake for their wedding or take photos of their wedding, they are demanding the owner to participate in their ceremonies. None can be forced to participate in anyone's ceremonies, for whatever reason, and if they choose not to, neither the media nor government nor various activistis can deny them the right to their business.
5
Taxpayer dollars pave the roads to business, pay the police and fire departments to protect it, and maintain a stable government that facilitates the smooth engagement of business transactions. That is why business owners don't get to pick and choose their customers. If you run a business open to the public, then you must play by the rules of the society that facilitates it, and one of those rules is that you don't get to practice bigotry.
7
The very law attacked here is the same one that allows Union spending. I would like less money in our campaigns. I'd also like fewer articles so early - the NYTimes publishes many each day; taking the eye off what is going on in DC today, April 2015!
However, let's agree that corporations are not just putting money into Rep coffers, they feed the Dems and many times, even more so. No more money from Soros, Unions, Media Matters, etc. And can we investigate all those non-profits that the IRS granted to Dems and progressives?
However, let's agree that corporations are not just putting money into Rep coffers, they feed the Dems and many times, even more so. No more money from Soros, Unions, Media Matters, etc. And can we investigate all those non-profits that the IRS granted to Dems and progressives?
3
The sad truth is, Senators, and others like Cotton and Cruz, seem barely human as they spread their doctrine of hate toward gay Americans. Cotton, in particular, seems virtually sociopathic, callous to the point of serious mental illness.
Would he have said that any other group of Americans are lucky the government does not execute them simply for existing? Could he have said that, laughingly, about any other section of America, say blacks or Jews, and not have been driven from office with torches and clubs? No, he could not.
The hatred endemic in some of these "Christians" is almost unfathomable in it's blind loathing. The Times is right; no American company should support these people. But it is also too timid. These men should not be in public office, period. They disgrace not only their constituents, their religion and themselves, but America itself. There is no place for them in a civil society.
Would he have said that any other group of Americans are lucky the government does not execute them simply for existing? Could he have said that, laughingly, about any other section of America, say blacks or Jews, and not have been driven from office with torches and clubs? No, he could not.
The hatred endemic in some of these "Christians" is almost unfathomable in it's blind loathing. The Times is right; no American company should support these people. But it is also too timid. These men should not be in public office, period. They disgrace not only their constituents, their religion and themselves, but America itself. There is no place for them in a civil society.
13
Ted Cruz wants to be our national celice. A more enabled twit is hard to imagine.
Like it or not, Big Business funds these politicians and therefor the politicians listen to them over all others. Big Business spoke and these pandering politicians backed off from their voting base. That's powerful! This is a highly instructive moment. The People's power over Big Business is our ability to shop or not, invest or not, with these companies. People do have a soul and a moral compass, therefor we have the ability to use our (purchasing, investing) power to manipulate Big Business. I suggest more of us challenge ourselves here on out to wield that power to our advantage.
2
One really has to ask whether: 1) this is a NYT parody editorial 2) whether the editorial board simply has no self-awareness or 3) whether the editors cannot remember how opposed to corporate speech a few years ago?
I'm fine with corporations entering the political fray, but the NYT was not at all fine with this in the January 2010 editorial excoriating the Citizen's United decision. Which is it, gentlemen and ladies--are you for free corporate speech or against it? I have completely lost track of your "deeply-held beliefs."
I'm fine with corporations entering the political fray, but the NYT was not at all fine with this in the January 2010 editorial excoriating the Citizen's United decision. Which is it, gentlemen and ladies--are you for free corporate speech or against it? I have completely lost track of your "deeply-held beliefs."
7
Just so we're clear then, we now favor corporate speech and influence in the political process? Alright then. So, I'm assuming we'll see no more complaining and moaning from Left about Citizens United and the influence of big business on elections. Because apparently we've all now accepted that corporations have free speech rights just like individual people. (Or does this new love of corporate free speech only apply to the gay stuff?)
5
You would look a whole lot smarter without your speech.
1
For the first time, I have seen the power of big corporations when they stand up for an oppressed minority. This is truly surprising and, I must admit, impressive.
1
Now can we get an editorial about the truly worsening position of women in America? Will all you exploitive corps out there please withdraw your support (money) from politicians who pass laws restricting a woman's right to make her own reproductive health decisions? You let the SCOTUS HL religious right to oppress women decision pass with nary a peep, nary a care about how that decision oppresses 70% of the consumers of your goods? I can only conclude that corporations & their political lackeys don't respect or even care about women's rights, just not on the religious radar screen.
1
Guess what. This is America. This is a land that was a haven for people being persecuted for their religious beliefs. No more. America is back to persecuting people because of their religious beliefs. Now the NYT Editorial Board insists that laws designed to protect religious freedom are really laws that have the intent of denying Wedding Cakes and Wedding Pizzas to Gays. In other words - Anti-Gay Laws. It is my belief that the NYT Editorial Board then must believe that Abortion Laws are really Anti-Life Laws. I don't think I ever read that the NYT has characterized an Abortion Law as being Ant-Life which have the real intent of ending or preventing a life.
3
"Guess what. This is America. This is a land that was a haven for people being persecuted for their religious beliefs. No more. America is back to persecuting people because of their religious beliefs."
Guess what again. Amerika was always and is now a land or persecution against one particular religious minority: freethiners (atheists). Madison, Wisconsin just passed a law outlawing discrimination against atheists. No other government has such a law and many agencies have laws encouraging such discrimination. So God Bless Amerika. At least in Madison.
Guess what again. Amerika was always and is now a land or persecution against one particular religious minority: freethiners (atheists). Madison, Wisconsin just passed a law outlawing discrimination against atheists. No other government has such a law and many agencies have laws encouraging such discrimination. So God Bless Amerika. At least in Madison.
2
Sorry NYChap (and others), you're completely wrong. Freedom to practice your religion, meaning equal protection regardless of belief - that is the principle America was founded on. That principle lives only if everyone regardless of creed, sex, sexuality or ethnicity is being treated the same way in public life, i.e. by the state, those providing essential services and for profit organizations.
You are free to believe that something is a sin, but if you offer services to the community for profit you still have to serve those sinners just like you would a member of your own church. Otherwise in the name of religious freedom people should be able to stop serving you because your faith is false in their eyes… Now that is religious persecution.
You are free to believe that something is a sin, but if you offer services to the community for profit you still have to serve those sinners just like you would a member of your own church. Otherwise in the name of religious freedom people should be able to stop serving you because your faith is false in their eyes… Now that is religious persecution.
3
Methinks your stigmata drip too much. I'm amazed you think your religion is good for you.
2
I'm confused...I thought that corporations aren't people and therefore cannot have "personal" opinions?? I recall the NY Times Magazine as stating pretty matter-of-factly that claim not very long ago, and was pretty adamant that viewing them as such was fairly dangerous. Dangerous, that is, when corporations make claims about some issue the Times takes offense with such as the "Hobby Lobby ruling" on making contraceptive care available to one's employees.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/27/magazine/what-the-hobby-lobby-ruling-m...
Apparently that doesn't apply when the Times thinks that corporations have much to say that they agree with.
Hypocrisy for sure!!
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/27/magazine/what-the-hobby-lobby-ruling-m...
Apparently that doesn't apply when the Times thinks that corporations have much to say that they agree with.
Hypocrisy for sure!!
5
These corporations weren't seeking exemption from having to obey a law because of the religious beliefs of some owners. They were threatening politicians with economic penalties, instead. In the former case they sought government permission, in the latter they announced business plans. Hardly similar behavior. What is offensive about the Supreme Court's fiction is some persons get to have it both ways. On the one hand, they can incorporate in order to reduce their personal liability for debt and corporate activities, and on the other hand, they can claim exemption from laws based on personal beliefs of certain corporate officers. That's having it both ways, reduced responsibility and undiminished privileges. Nice work if you can get it, but you shouldn't be allowed to get it.
Religion and politics do not mix.......never have, never will. This country is based on the separation of church and state. Let's keep it that way and stop trying to confuse the issues at hand. Discrimination is discrimination, no matter how you slice it. Whether a conservative or liberal, we are better than this. To force one's beliefs on another, is sure to end in discontent.
Instead of yelling and screaming at each other, it would be wise to calm down and listen to the other side of the issue. The truth and the way probably lie somewhere in there. We may not get everything we want, but we may get what we can live with.
Instead of yelling and screaming at each other, it would be wise to calm down and listen to the other side of the issue. The truth and the way probably lie somewhere in there. We may not get everything we want, but we may get what we can live with.
1
Biggest mistake was back in Ike's administration when "In God We Trust " was put on our money.
1
It seems to me the Editorial Board is advocating the kind of single-issue politics that the right has leveraged to its advantage, just applying the tactic to the other side of this issue. Might it not be that the best thing the corporate moguls could have done was to oppose actions by people they otherwise supported when those people crossed an important line? Such actions by all of us could help encourage discussion and compromise rather than diatribe and brinksmanship.
3
Proponents of this kind of legislation are typically only interested in discussion if it goes their way. Indeed, this legislation flies in the face of the larger discussion that has been going on in America for the last few years as more and more states decide to recognize Gay marriage. Corporate moguls, as you call them, certainly did the right thing this time. But their continued financial support of America's increasingly rigid political right wing suggests that they will act only when to do otherwise would be embarrassing. That's the equivalent of doing the right thing but only when someone is watching. It's a shame that's as high as we can expect corporate America to set the bar.
1
This issue can bring down the whole stinking pile of faith based legislation rotting this country. None of it is constitutional.
As I'm reading the comments, one thing always pops back into my mind.
SCOTUS made corporations people via Citizen's United - absurd as that may be. Corporations weighing in on this issue should surprise no one. Moreover, politicians bowing to corporate pressure as quickly as they have shows where the real power is government today.
SCOTUS made corporations people via Citizen's United - absurd as that may be. Corporations weighing in on this issue should surprise no one. Moreover, politicians bowing to corporate pressure as quickly as they have shows where the real power is government today.
2
Discrimination works both ways. Singling out LGBT groups for favorable treatment is inherently discriminatory. Such favorable discrimination violates equal treatment under law.
2
Please explain to me, a gay man, what favorable treatment I am receiving that you are/cannot.
3
I agree. If I were a florist, a photographer, or a baker, then I would gladly sell anyone who wanted to buy an already made item whatever they chose. On the other hand, I would not want to be compelled to use my talent to creatively make a new product such as a bouquet, a wedding cake, or a photo album for a gay ceremony. Your rights end when you start trampling on mine!
Nobody is saying homosexuals should have "favorable treatment." FAIR treatment. Do you see the difference?
2
Hypothetical: I am a Rastafarian who, as part of my religion, grows marajuana in my own home and smokes it as part of my religious ceremony to get closer to god. Under this law couldn't I claim that the government's classification of marajuana as an illegal drug cause undue harm to me and my religion and is discriminating against me and my religion. Not sure it would pass the test of "a compelling governmental interest" but anything can be brought to court. A good lawyer might be able to argue that a law criminalizing marajuana is not "the least restrictive means of furthering the compelling governmental interest".
Just another left field example of how this law could be twisted.
Just another left field example of how this law could be twisted.
This religious protection law entitles Native Americans to use peyote in religious services. I am amazed it isn't invoked to legalize cannabis nationally.
1
"If corporations and their executives care about civil rights..." Who said they care about civil rights?
I would suggest that Business did not call for the rejection of the "Religious Freedom" laws because business "believes" that all people deserve equal treatment. Business called for rejection of the laws because, once business has the legal right to choose to deny someone service, then others will demand that business make the choice.
Can't you see the evangelical community storming a national chain store, and demanding that the corporation do the "right thing" and refuse to let gay couples sign up on the bridal registry? Business can see that coming, and wants no part of it. It would be bad for business. Better not to give business the choice. Then the corporation can stand at the sidelines and say "sorry, we can't help you in your crusade. We have no choice in the matter."
So don't ascribe to Business any kind of social consciousness. It has none. Nothing personal, you understand, it is strictly business.
I would suggest that Business did not call for the rejection of the "Religious Freedom" laws because business "believes" that all people deserve equal treatment. Business called for rejection of the laws because, once business has the legal right to choose to deny someone service, then others will demand that business make the choice.
Can't you see the evangelical community storming a national chain store, and demanding that the corporation do the "right thing" and refuse to let gay couples sign up on the bridal registry? Business can see that coming, and wants no part of it. It would be bad for business. Better not to give business the choice. Then the corporation can stand at the sidelines and say "sorry, we can't help you in your crusade. We have no choice in the matter."
So don't ascribe to Business any kind of social consciousness. It has none. Nothing personal, you understand, it is strictly business.
3
Big business does not have to pander to they ultra right Republican base. To business a customer is a customer and a dollar spent to a gay is no different than any other dollar. Money talks. Who should know that better than the GOP. Becoming the party of discrimination will make GOP candidates un-electable and business may want to move some of its political investments. This anti-Gay legislation shoes how out of step the GOP is with America in 2015.
3
When you force a Muslim publisher to publish a book full of cartoons mocking the prophet Mohammed, or force a woman into involuntary reproductive servitude as a surrogate to a gay couple wanting a baby, get back to me.
Until then, freedom of religion is our first and founding liberty and muck with it at your peril.
Until then, freedom of religion is our first and founding liberty and muck with it at your peril.
4
Regarding your "force a woman into involuntary reproductive servitude...", I believe the Republicans in general, and your Religious Right specifically, are already doing that with the flood of state abortion limiting laws. Get back to me on that.
3
Cujo - with the exception of rape cases, and many of the laws do exclude them, the reproductive servitude mentioned was voluntary on the part of the woman. It may have been unintended, but not involuntary.
Sorry to be even a little more skeptical about the corporations' motive than most of the other commenters, but ....
Why do these corporations make a point of saying the right thing in this case when they've had so many missed opportunities in the past. My guess is that companies like Walmart are concerned that these laws will disrupt their ability to manage their staff. If a Walmart associate refuses to serve someone based on a "religious" objection to someone's sexual preference Walmart would have little recourse to discipline that employee under this law. And that could really start having a negative affect on the bottom line because they are paying staff who can legally refuse to do their job and alienating customers at the same time.
Why do these corporations make a point of saying the right thing in this case when they've had so many missed opportunities in the past. My guess is that companies like Walmart are concerned that these laws will disrupt their ability to manage their staff. If a Walmart associate refuses to serve someone based on a "religious" objection to someone's sexual preference Walmart would have little recourse to discipline that employee under this law. And that could really start having a negative affect on the bottom line because they are paying staff who can legally refuse to do their job and alienating customers at the same time.
2
Senator Cotton: White Protestsnt males have it real good here in the USA. In some countries around the world, they'd be shot. Say your blessings Senator.
8
I'm going to disagree with some of the comments suggesting corporations should have less political power than they currently have.
Although it'd be great if more Americans were both politically astute and politically active, that's just not the case. And if the LGBT community were to wait for the Government and their fellow voting Americans -- many of whom check off the R or the D without knowing anything about the person -- to make some forward motion on equal rights, they'd be waiting a very long time.
So, if it takes the likes of Apple or Walmart to put a fire under those reluctant Legislators to just hurry up and do the right thing, I'm all for it. In the absence of educated Americans consistently doing their civic duty and voting with forethought and intelligence, it looks like corporations with deep pockets, an awareness of the power of diversity and an unapologetic willingness to pack up and hit the road if a State turns to hate will have to do the heavy lifting.
Although it'd be great if more Americans were both politically astute and politically active, that's just not the case. And if the LGBT community were to wait for the Government and their fellow voting Americans -- many of whom check off the R or the D without knowing anything about the person -- to make some forward motion on equal rights, they'd be waiting a very long time.
So, if it takes the likes of Apple or Walmart to put a fire under those reluctant Legislators to just hurry up and do the right thing, I'm all for it. In the absence of educated Americans consistently doing their civic duty and voting with forethought and intelligence, it looks like corporations with deep pockets, an awareness of the power of diversity and an unapologetic willingness to pack up and hit the road if a State turns to hate will have to do the heavy lifting.
4
What I find curious is how they differentiate "discrimination" from "religious conscience". So I don't wish to serve you because you're a gay couple, but I don't hate you... Is that the test? So I won't serve you lunch because you're black because my religious beliefs teach that black people are inferior to whites, but I don't hate you, so that's OK. And then you have the converse: I hate everything you represent, but the law forces me to bake your wedding cake.
I'm not sure there's a good answer here, but I think I agree with David Brooks, who said on the PBS News Hour last night, let the market settle this, if the baker says no, based on religious grounds, then fine; we'll go to a more welcoming baker and let our family and friens know that the baker we used was good to us, we don't even need to denounce the baker who turned us away. That one might welcome the advertising of their religious purity. Let it go and move on. I'm not sure I want a reluctant baker making my wedding cake anyway. They'll figure it out when their competition thrives and their business dries up.
I'm not sure there's a good answer here, but I think I agree with David Brooks, who said on the PBS News Hour last night, let the market settle this, if the baker says no, based on religious grounds, then fine; we'll go to a more welcoming baker and let our family and friens know that the baker we used was good to us, we don't even need to denounce the baker who turned us away. That one might welcome the advertising of their religious purity. Let it go and move on. I'm not sure I want a reluctant baker making my wedding cake anyway. They'll figure it out when their competition thrives and their business dries up.
7
We cannot return to separate but equal lunch counters. Gays will not go back in the closet, blacks will not go to the back of the bus and women will not go back to the kitchen and the bedroom. If you advertise a product for sale in the public marketplace, you cannot decide to whom you will sell it.
22
This solution simply trades one form of fundamentalism for another, blind faith that market forces will deliver us from rigid adherence to scripture.
The problem with free-market fundamentalism is it doesn't take externalities into account and it is blind to short-term consequences.
While market fundamentalists have their sights set on a future when the invisible hand makes everything right, the rest of us - same-sex couples and their allies - have to endure a present in which society permits ongoing discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation right here and now.
That isn't how we've chosen to respond to race and sex discrimination. What on earth makes this situation any different?
The problem with free-market fundamentalism is it doesn't take externalities into account and it is blind to short-term consequences.
While market fundamentalists have their sights set on a future when the invisible hand makes everything right, the rest of us - same-sex couples and their allies - have to endure a present in which society permits ongoing discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation right here and now.
That isn't how we've chosen to respond to race and sex discrimination. What on earth makes this situation any different?
2
So those of us in groups that have traditionally faced discrimination, women, people of color, the disabled, religious minorities and people in the LGBT community should then be patient? We are talking about issues not just pertaining to purchasing a cake but factors relating to basic needs for being a functional and contributing member of society - housing, employment, medical care, education. I can assure you that there were more than a few reluctant teachers in Greenville County (SC) public schools when I attended elementary school there shortly after desegration was implemented. It was quite obvious even to me, a 3rd grader. Make no mistake, discrimination continued to occur, most notably evidenced by the way black children were permanently assigned in many cases to special education, but integration was the law, with legal recourse for breaking the law. The community today is a better place for the codification of such anti-discrimination measures. I was able to attain advanced degrees, work professionally and support myself for years as s single woman because of similar protections for women (athough they are being whittled away at). David Brooks is a white, and yes, privileged male, and he is wrong. It is easy for him to argue for patience and politeness when he has nothing to lose from the status quo.
8
I have been a Christian most of my adult life and have yet to find other Christians who HATE homosexuals. We as a nation have turned disagreement with others into HATE. If someone opposes someone on a policy issue, rather than hear each other out we just say the other person HATES the people involved in the issue. Example, accountability on welfare, you HATE poor people. Secure borders, you HATE immigrants. If this continues, we all become HATERS of something. There is no longer the idea of, "Let's sit down and reason together". I think it's easier to just get a bunch of people with the same narrow view like same sex marriage, everyone has to agree with me about MY sexual habits, etc, etc,etc and get out in the street and demonstrate. I've lived all of my life without once getting any favors because I am a heterosexual. Get my point?
10
Er, you never got any favors because you were heterosexual? You had the right to marry. You could have sex without violating the law. You could walk down the street holding hands without getting uncomfortable stares or being beaten up. You weren't at risk of being fired or evicted from your home, and no one told you you were going to go to hell.
Has it never occurred to you that the reason you didn't get out in the street and demonstrate is because you didn't have to?
Has it never occurred to you that the reason you didn't get out in the street and demonstrate is because you didn't have to?
15
You also haven't lived all of your life with discrimination because you are heterosexual, and you still won't experience discrimination when gay people live with less of it.
5
@ Will.Swoboda - "Get my point?"
Not many will because of the intolerance and lack of respect for diversity from the very people who demand tolerance and respect. We have entered an era of liberal progressive exceptionalism where everything they believe must be correct and everyone must acquiesce to their demands or they will viciously attack you and your business.
Not many will because of the intolerance and lack of respect for diversity from the very people who demand tolerance and respect. We have entered an era of liberal progressive exceptionalism where everything they believe must be correct and everyone must acquiesce to their demands or they will viciously attack you and your business.
1
There is an Italian proverb called "the Hunchback's Shirt" and it goes like this: just because the shirt fit the hunchback doesn't make it a well-made shirt.
The Corporate Frankensteins opposed the anti-gay laws because it might have hurt the bottom line, not out of any moral pique. If the bottom line was that being anti-gay was good for business we would have seen them singing a different tune.
The whole idea of the great novel, Frankenstein, was whether a creature made of parts without an inborn soul could ever have a sense of morality. What we see with Corporate America is that it is a Frankenstein creation that has no higher morality than the whims of the marketplace.
The Corporate Frankensteins opposed the anti-gay laws because it might have hurt the bottom line, not out of any moral pique. If the bottom line was that being anti-gay was good for business we would have seen them singing a different tune.
The whole idea of the great novel, Frankenstein, was whether a creature made of parts without an inborn soul could ever have a sense of morality. What we see with Corporate America is that it is a Frankenstein creation that has no higher morality than the whims of the marketplace.
12
When a business owner refuses to serve a same sex couple but will serve an adulteress (number seven on the top ten). I don"t think you call it religious freedom, you just call it discrimination.
22
This is a widespread misconception. Christians don't separate people into "sinners" and "nonsinners", but into "repentant" and "unrepentant". The difference between an adulteress and a homosexual (usually) is that the adulteress knows that what she is doing is wrong, while the homosexual asserts that he is not sinning ("usually", I said.) Second, there is a difference between "serving" someone and participating in their sin. Refusing to serve an adulteress a cheeseburger is way different from refusing to let her use the backseat of your taxi for her tryst. The cheeseburger has nothing to do with her sin, while the taxi is an important supporting role for the sin. A florist is an important supporting role in a commitment ceremony, and forcing someone to act against their conscience is nothing but jack-booted thuggery.
1
Oh come on. Homosexuals are born that way. It's the idiocy of Christians who insist that ones sexuality is a choice that makes reasonable people angry.
Seems to me the big corporations only care about money, money, money.
Gay couples tend to be better educated, professionally employed and have a lot more disposable income. "Gay marriage" is a whole new marketing niche for photographers, musicians and DJ's, caterers, rental halls and on and on.
It's all about money, money, money not freedom and equality.
But if you want to protest and take a moral stand against gay marriage
that is "discrimination". No it is not discrimination---it is religious persecution---people being persecuted and compelled to act against their morals and religious beliefs because of the Great God Money.
The "ayatollahs of political correctness" want their money and they want it now---no matter what people of faith might think.
So much for "freedom" and "equality" in America.
Money counts for everything and faith counts for nothing.
Gay couples tend to be better educated, professionally employed and have a lot more disposable income. "Gay marriage" is a whole new marketing niche for photographers, musicians and DJ's, caterers, rental halls and on and on.
It's all about money, money, money not freedom and equality.
But if you want to protest and take a moral stand against gay marriage
that is "discrimination". No it is not discrimination---it is religious persecution---people being persecuted and compelled to act against their morals and religious beliefs because of the Great God Money.
The "ayatollahs of political correctness" want their money and they want it now---no matter what people of faith might think.
So much for "freedom" and "equality" in America.
Money counts for everything and faith counts for nothing.
3
Pretty bizarre to claim that people are being discriminated against because they aren't allowed to discriminate!
1
Sounds like the old 1950s cries against equality for black people: who is next to discriminate against?
Let's get it clear: no one is forcing anyone to become gay, black, have an abortion. You are free to believe whatever you want; you are NOT free to impose your view on the majority of Americans who disagree with you. And you should not be free to use your beliefs as legal cover for otherwise biblically sanctioned acts of hate- against anyone.
Let's get it clear: no one is forcing anyone to become gay, black, have an abortion. You are free to believe whatever you want; you are NOT free to impose your view on the majority of Americans who disagree with you. And you should not be free to use your beliefs as legal cover for otherwise biblically sanctioned acts of hate- against anyone.
3
Let's get real! The primary reason alot of these businesses spoke out against these 2 laws was their fear of losing money.
10
Talk about hitting the nail on the head. Bravo!!! Corporations, like politicians, are always eager to appear enlightened when the ugly face of bigotry shows itself for all to see. But when it hides behind a less obvious facade, those same corporations and politicians are nowhere to be found.
3
Will social media such as Facebook &Twitter implement policies that users cannot deny a "friend request" based on requestors sexual orientation?
1
This is about non-discrimination in public commercial transactions, not the right to choose our friends.
1
Who cares? Will you ever meet that person?
If you are gay, don't think that big business is your friend. You can be laid off and see your job head overseas, just like everyone else.
I think you just missed the point: that the corporations now call the shots. It wasn't public sentiment or public outrage that changed the mind of Indiana's governor, it was WalMart. The story here is not that you have perceived a change in corporate attitudes, the story is that we are now in a country where what the giant corporations think is are all that matters to our elected officials...
79
Wouldn't a majority of us also like at least some type of gun control to be enacted? I suppose it has now come down to writing a letter to your corporation rather than to your legislator...meh.
1
What exactly did Senator Tom Cotton learn at Harvard?
9
The bigger question that really shapes the future is
What did Barack HusseinObama learn at Harvard? No ones seems to know.
As editor of Harvard review,Obama writings ,musings etc, are not disclosed documents.....
What did Barack HusseinObama learn at Harvard? No ones seems to know.
As editor of Harvard review,Obama writings ,musings etc, are not disclosed documents.....
1
Judge a person by his/her words and actions. The President scores highly by my accounting if not yours.
Everything is relative. President Obama is a far worthier man that the two stooges the Republicans ran against him in presidential elections.
1
GOOD CORPORATE CITIZENSHIP VERSUS GREED So the big corporations backed down the bigots and those who would destroy the constitutional rights of other citizens, including the governors of Indiana and Arkansas. Not because of any sense of morality or ethics, but because it might hurt their bottom lines. Doing the right thing for the wrong reason is better than doing the wrong thing for the wrong reason. But not good enough. Where are all the so-called "conservatives" who make a lot of noise about personal freedoms and family values of caring and self-sacrifice? They're out bloviating about why discriminating against LGBT people represents religious freedom. The big corporations as well as the so-called "conservatives" will have to do far better than that if they're going to convince anybody that they have any morals, conscience or ethical standards at all. It's not surprising that when the so-called "conservatives" show their true colors they reveal themselves as hateful, abusive, and treacherous. Yes, they're traitors. They carry on about how much they believe in the USA while draining us dry with corporate welfare and trying every trick in the book so they don't have to pay any taxes. That's just for the middle class jerks who are not menbers of the 1%--because they didn't try hard enough. The corporations need to hear what Roosevelt said--that paying taxes is a privilege and is the patriotic duty of all citizens. They are the cost of a civil society. True words!
4
This editorial is quaint bordering on naive. Controlling public policy is exactly why corporations buy our politicians. Do you think politicians will listen to the voters? The voters are irrelevant. Follow the money.
2
We owned a small business and my daddy always told me that everybody's money was green. You cannot give to the church if you don't make any profit.
3
You commend corporations for boycotting people with they disagree with while denying that right to small businesses who disagree with gay marriage. That's hypocrisy.
1
Not at all. Withholding political contributions doesn't constitute a boycott; if it did, most of us would be boycotters, since we generally contribute only to the candidate we support! And when a small business refuses to serve a gay customer, that isn't a boycott, its discrimination, which, unlike a boycott, is unethical.
1
Not surprisingly, the editors are way out in front of the people on this issue.
The building popular resolve to protect gays from discrimination, whether it’s seen in business leaders or the general population, is an astonishing development for the speed with which it’s developed. I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that it represents a 180° reversal from the social realities that obtained when the vast majority of the NYT’s readers of this editorial were very young. But it’s a close call for many, because it requires for that protection that individuals be FORCED under penalty of law to provide services. We limit the liberty of some in order to protect the liberty of others.
I support the protections, and the building acceptance in our society of both same-sex anything and non-traditional gender identity. But it’s not an easy re-balancing of liberties that we seek. And I certainly disagree that the statements that business leaders made recently were “relatively easy and actually [don’t] provide protection against discrimination” – I’m sure they weren’t easy and they clearly were determinative in getting governors to reverse their positions.
Yet what this editorial calls for is that corporations (and by inference individual voters) give higher priority to this issue than to any other when considering whom to support in political campaigns. This wouldn't be wise. It’s an important issue that should be weighed, but others are important as well.
The building popular resolve to protect gays from discrimination, whether it’s seen in business leaders or the general population, is an astonishing development for the speed with which it’s developed. I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that it represents a 180° reversal from the social realities that obtained when the vast majority of the NYT’s readers of this editorial were very young. But it’s a close call for many, because it requires for that protection that individuals be FORCED under penalty of law to provide services. We limit the liberty of some in order to protect the liberty of others.
I support the protections, and the building acceptance in our society of both same-sex anything and non-traditional gender identity. But it’s not an easy re-balancing of liberties that we seek. And I certainly disagree that the statements that business leaders made recently were “relatively easy and actually [don’t] provide protection against discrimination” – I’m sure they weren’t easy and they clearly were determinative in getting governors to reverse their positions.
Yet what this editorial calls for is that corporations (and by inference individual voters) give higher priority to this issue than to any other when considering whom to support in political campaigns. This wouldn't be wise. It’s an important issue that should be weighed, but others are important as well.
I don't see the rebalancing of liberties as difficult. After all, we did the same thing with African-Americans, Jews, and women -- indeed, with the more than half of the population that had been subject to legal discrimination! The principle I think is very simple: in commerce, one must provide equal service to members of all groups. That's not very difficult to do, even if you personally believe that these folks are the spawn of Satan.
As to the editorial suggesting that businesses give this a higher priority than other causes, well, yes, it did. And I don't think there's anything wrong with that. It says, and rightly so, that there are some moral wrongs that are so egregious that make a candidate ineligible for support under almost any circumstance. Should a company support a candidate who favors discrimination against black people? I think most of us would immediately say no. Well, this is no different.
As to the editorial suggesting that businesses give this a higher priority than other causes, well, yes, it did. And I don't think there's anything wrong with that. It says, and rightly so, that there are some moral wrongs that are so egregious that make a candidate ineligible for support under almost any circumstance. Should a company support a candidate who favors discrimination against black people? I think most of us would immediately say no. Well, this is no different.
Is the movie Rollerball, where corporations control the world, coming true? America seems to be moving in that direction.
3
Anti-gay laws in the US are the low hanging fruit for big business. Easy to condemn with no downside. When the companies mentioned, especially Apple, take on anti-gay laws in other countries then they will deserve some credit. Anti-gay laws in Muslim countries- think Malaysia, Nigeria and Saudi Arabia for example- have real penalties including death sentences and jail time, not a refused photo or cake. If Tim Cook, to name a prominent opponent of Indiana's law, is truly against conducting business in anti-gay states he will withdraw from those countries ASAP. Don't hold your breath.
34
These political responses to possible economic Tsunamis demonstrate that, even in the Bible Belt, many among the so-called "Religious Right" care more about their DOLLAR that they do their DOGMA.
3
"Senator Tom Cotton, Republican of Arkansas, who suggested on Wednesday that gays have it pretty good in the United States because they are not executed here as they are in Iran."
Instead, of striving to being better people everyday, Senator Tom Cotton and others that think like him are happy to being just slightly above the scum of humanity. That's a subtle way to tell gays to keep their mouths shut.
What's next, women have it pretty good here because they are not made sex slaves here as they are in Boko Haram controlled territory? That would be another subtle way of telling women to go back to the kitchen.
Sen. Cotton has it pretty good here too. He'd have been executed if lived ISIS territory. I'm not going to be so subtle - Sen. Cotton, shut up.
Instead, of striving to being better people everyday, Senator Tom Cotton and others that think like him are happy to being just slightly above the scum of humanity. That's a subtle way to tell gays to keep their mouths shut.
What's next, women have it pretty good here because they are not made sex slaves here as they are in Boko Haram controlled territory? That would be another subtle way of telling women to go back to the kitchen.
Sen. Cotton has it pretty good here too. He'd have been executed if lived ISIS territory. I'm not going to be so subtle - Sen. Cotton, shut up.
28
If corporations are serious about democracy they should stop running the country. They were on the right side this time, but too often they are not.
What happened to by and for the people? That's the elephant in the room. You guys are just whistling Dixie.
What happened to by and for the people? That's the elephant in the room. You guys are just whistling Dixie.
4
Etched into the lintel above the Supreme Court portal are the words,
Equal Justice Under Law.
Which part of EQUAL is so hard to grasp?
Equal Justice Under Law.
Which part of EQUAL is so hard to grasp?
2
I think you're having trouble with the "justice" part.
On the "News Hour" tonight, NY Times columnist David Brooks lamented about the backlash that Mike Pence and the Indiana Republicans faced from opponents of the "Freedom to Discriminate" bill. Then in the discussion "Market Forces" were brought up as a possible solution to the issue, and David wholeheartedly agreed.
Well David you got your wish. "The Magic of the Marketplace" AKA Walmart and other big businesses have spoken. I'd think David would be happy!
Well David you got your wish. "The Magic of the Marketplace" AKA Walmart and other big businesses have spoken. I'd think David would be happy!
3
Funny thing about hypocrisy: When you agree with it, it's not hypocrisy any more.
Question to the cons and GOPers;
What if the baker himself you are buying the cake from is gay?
What if one of a straight baker's suppliers is gay?
What if the driver of the suppliers truck is gay?
What if the photographer at YOUR wedding is gay?
You guys haven't thought this through. You have a lot of reconciling and purification left to do.
What if the baker himself you are buying the cake from is gay?
What if one of a straight baker's suppliers is gay?
What if the driver of the suppliers truck is gay?
What if the photographer at YOUR wedding is gay?
You guys haven't thought this through. You have a lot of reconciling and purification left to do.
2
No, you haven't thought it through. The issue isn't whether one can or should do business with gays, but whether the government should force you to participate in events which one believes to be a sin. What's so hard about this? What does baking or supplying or trucking have to do with being gay?
Nothing. What does a commitment ceremony have to do with being gay? A lot.
Nothing. What does a commitment ceremony have to do with being gay? A lot.
Dream on. This was a business and PR decision.
When your cause has been taken up by big corporations and your lifestyle is being portrayed on TV situation comedies, you know you have been coopted and used. When Apple CEO Tim Cook, who is one of the richest men in the world, recently came out as gay as if he is so morally brave, I knew it was all over for the gay civil rights movement. While it might be a thrilling development for some, for me it was just another instance of corporate overreach which cynically turns the human struggle for equality into a marketing ploy.
14
I very much disagree. Those sitcoms have probably done more than almost anything else to change public attitudes towards gay people. And Cook's decision to come out has to be seen in the context that, traditionally, top corporate executives didn't do so for fear of harming business.
As it has always been. My own French ancester only pressed Louis XVI to increase taxes on the arostocracy to feed the poor class because he anticipated the upheaval. I would like to think he did this because of moral character but it is more likely that his efforts, which ultimately went unheeded and were in fact underminded by others, failed and his fears later realized. I don't really care the motive behind the message and we should not kid ourselves that the same thing cannot happen here.
Nevertheless, I wish Tim Cook could come out as a woman. We will be the last group to be treated as equals, with dignity.
Oddly that those leaning left to center are now praising Walmart....
So for some issues that impacts few in reality, they use the power of BB... but will lash out against them quicker than a New York minute on just about anything else....
So for some issues that impacts few in reality, they use the power of BB... but will lash out against them quicker than a New York minute on just about anything else....
If Walmart does the right thing, we praise it. If not, we condemn it. What's so strange about that?
I'm a Democrat, so, with very rare exceptions, I never like Republican candidates and office holders. However, it is obvious that big business HAS stood up for LGBT rights, and the next step is to demand that states where they do business have non-discrimination laws protecting the LGBT community, and also to refuse to back bigoted candidates.
Speaking of bigotry - the State of Indiana with its amendment to its religious freedom act which supposedly cured the discrimination problem, has pulled a "fast one" on the public and the media. Before it passed its controversial religious freedom act, the State of Indiana passed a law that made it illegal for any county or city to provide more protection against LGBT discrimination than is provided in Indiana state law. Indiana state law provides NO protection against freedom from LGBT discrimination. This means that the Cities of Bloomington and Indianapolis, which had enacted LGBT non-discrimination laws, no longer have such laws; and IT IS LEGAL TO DISCRIMINATE AGAINST LGBT PEOPLE EVERYWHERE IN INDIANA. Anywhere in Indiana, any landlord or business can simply say: "you're gay, get out!" They will face no legal liability for doing so.
This news needs to be spread far and wide, and the boycott of Indiana needs to stay FIRMLY in place. This bigoted immoral state does not deserve anyone's business.
Speaking of bigotry - the State of Indiana with its amendment to its religious freedom act which supposedly cured the discrimination problem, has pulled a "fast one" on the public and the media. Before it passed its controversial religious freedom act, the State of Indiana passed a law that made it illegal for any county or city to provide more protection against LGBT discrimination than is provided in Indiana state law. Indiana state law provides NO protection against freedom from LGBT discrimination. This means that the Cities of Bloomington and Indianapolis, which had enacted LGBT non-discrimination laws, no longer have such laws; and IT IS LEGAL TO DISCRIMINATE AGAINST LGBT PEOPLE EVERYWHERE IN INDIANA. Anywhere in Indiana, any landlord or business can simply say: "you're gay, get out!" They will face no legal liability for doing so.
This news needs to be spread far and wide, and the boycott of Indiana needs to stay FIRMLY in place. This bigoted immoral state does not deserve anyone's business.
4
Senator Cotton is unapologetic and vocal in his support for discriminatory legislation. Paraphrasing - "Gays have it pretty good in the good old exceptional US of A. They need to be thankful we don't hang them like they do do in godless Iran."
Tom, why do I get the feeling you would if you could?
Tom, why do I get the feeling you would if you could?
4
Apparently tom is taking a page from the ISIS playbook: my "religion" says you are an infidel so i can oppress, bully, and even kill you & yours with impunity, with god on my side. Tom the point is that we don't live in Iran.
"Big corporations like Walmart, Apple, Salesforce.com and General Electric and their executives have done the right thing by calling on officials in Indiana and Arkansas to reject “religious freedom” laws designed to give businesses and religious groups legal cover should they deny service to gay couples."
They didn't need to laws to deny service.
In Michigan there is no religious freedom law yet take a look at the following video taking in Dearborn Michigan. A guy asks Arab-American bakery owners for a same-sex wedding cake. This is in a predominantly Muslin Arab-American area. The responses are, well to summarize: "go to Krogers".
I haven't heard any requests for a boycott of Dearborn Michigan the location of the Ford Motor Company's world headquarters.
What says the NY Times' Editorial board?
But Indiana, well it's Indiana so you know...
http://louderwithcrowder.com/hidden-camera-gay-wedding-cake-at-muslim-ba...
They didn't need to laws to deny service.
In Michigan there is no religious freedom law yet take a look at the following video taking in Dearborn Michigan. A guy asks Arab-American bakery owners for a same-sex wedding cake. This is in a predominantly Muslin Arab-American area. The responses are, well to summarize: "go to Krogers".
I haven't heard any requests for a boycott of Dearborn Michigan the location of the Ford Motor Company's world headquarters.
What says the NY Times' Editorial board?
But Indiana, well it's Indiana so you know...
http://louderwithcrowder.com/hidden-camera-gay-wedding-cake-at-muslim-ba...
2
Constitution, what constitution? Illegal immigrants. Politicians. Most people in power. ...... There are exceptions to the most basic laws in America. Obviously.
The Constitution? I say....legalize it!
The Constitution? I say....legalize it!
JP, the difference is that Indiana passed a law that makes it *legal* for businesses to discriminate. That's very different than an individual businessin a state discriminating.
“The Battle Hymn of the GOP”
[Based on a true story found here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/03/us/indiana-religious-freedom-bill.html
about how the GOP has finally acknowledged that the ultimate arbiters of Rawlsian fair play for the Social Contract in the U.S. are … Walmart and the NFL.
Adapted from a hitherto unknown poem that didn’t make it into the “Lyrical Ballads” because the printer was reportedly a Tory homophobe.]
Mine eyes hath seen the horror of wrath of Rog Goddell.
We'll have to let in gays if we want the NFL.
And not so very smart to be offending Walmart,
"That true," says the Chamber of C.
Glory, glory GOP, ee!
Glory, glory, GOP, ee!
Glory, glory GOP, ee!
Asá tries marching on!
We'll now turn down the spigots
Of those homophobic bigots.
And make them also bake,
If you’re LGB, or T
For you a wedding cake,
Including delivery that is free!
But no need to worry,
And comply in a hurry,
Evangels need not care.
’Cause no SCOTUS threat is there!
Tee, hee, hee, hee, hee,
hee, hee, hee, heeeee!
Glory, glory GOP, ee!
Glory, glory, GOP, ee!
Glory, glory GOP, ee!
Mike Pence, he marches on!
[Based on a true story found here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/03/us/indiana-religious-freedom-bill.html
about how the GOP has finally acknowledged that the ultimate arbiters of Rawlsian fair play for the Social Contract in the U.S. are … Walmart and the NFL.
Adapted from a hitherto unknown poem that didn’t make it into the “Lyrical Ballads” because the printer was reportedly a Tory homophobe.]
Mine eyes hath seen the horror of wrath of Rog Goddell.
We'll have to let in gays if we want the NFL.
And not so very smart to be offending Walmart,
"That true," says the Chamber of C.
Glory, glory GOP, ee!
Glory, glory, GOP, ee!
Glory, glory GOP, ee!
Asá tries marching on!
We'll now turn down the spigots
Of those homophobic bigots.
And make them also bake,
If you’re LGB, or T
For you a wedding cake,
Including delivery that is free!
But no need to worry,
And comply in a hurry,
Evangels need not care.
’Cause no SCOTUS threat is there!
Tee, hee, hee, hee, hee,
hee, hee, hee, heeeee!
Glory, glory GOP, ee!
Glory, glory, GOP, ee!
Glory, glory GOP, ee!
Mike Pence, he marches on!
Who besides big business has clout about anything in the US?
3
Woo! Go NYTimes Editorial Board for throwing down the gauntlet, challenging large corporations to put their money where the mouth is.
1
" They certainly shouldn’t back lawmakers like Senator Ted Cruz, Republican of Texas, who is running for president and has been a vocal supporter of the Indiana and Arkansas laws, and Senator Tom Cotton, Republican of Arkansas"
Sorry but regardless of how you feel about Cruz and Cotton, life is not a one-issue play, and politics is not single issue. There may be other reasons for people to donate to Cruz or Cotton or anyone else independent of religious freedom acts.
Sorry but regardless of how you feel about Cruz and Cotton, life is not a one-issue play, and politics is not single issue. There may be other reasons for people to donate to Cruz or Cotton or anyone else independent of religious freedom acts.
1
What might those reasons be?
2
So you would support a candidate who thinks black people should ride in the back of the bus because you agree with him on other issues?
I think what the Times is saying here is that support of legal discrimination is so odious that these candidate are just not worthy of support and I completely agree.
I think what the Times is saying here is that support of legal discrimination is so odious that these candidate are just not worthy of support and I completely agree.
So I guess the NY Times does support Citizen's United, as long as corporations spend money in accordance the thinking of the NYTimes.
No, the Times opposed Citizens United. But given that the Court has handed the country over to corporate governance, it would be silly not to ask that corporations use their power in the interest of the public good.
Religious freedom laws. What a joke. Like all the other ALEC/Koch brothers/Sheldon Adelson/radical religious right/nra/major media corporate conglomerate's supposedly non-profit corporations like Americans for religious freedom, Freedom Works, Americans for Prosperity, Heritage Foundation and any other group that starts with American, Freedom and other patriotic or environmental protection sounding names this is just a smoke screen by the wealthiest to control and enslave the rest of us. All these laws must be stricken from state and federal law and WE must elect people who agree.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_H._Koch
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Weyrich (ALEC founder)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_H._Koch
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Weyrich (ALEC founder)
6
The photo accompanying your editorial is a desecration of the flag, which is a symbol of the Republic. Yet your selection of the flag is consistent with your editorial stance the gay rights trump all others, including those protected by the First Amendment. The NYT's new version of the flag symbolizes the rejection of 200 years of an honored tradition, that we are one nation-not a collection of factions. Tell me: Would the NYT print a photo of the US flag with the cross imprinted in place of the red white and blue? I should hope not.
1
I applaud all the businesses who stood up to these insane laws which are clearly designed to foster anti-gay hate. BUT the only way we are going to permanently get rid of homophobia shrouded under the cloak of religion is to vote these Republican fools like Cruz and Cotton out of office. When lawmakers realize they will no longer win elections if they espouse homophobia, they will abandon it. Personally, I don't care if Tom Cotton doesn't like gays, but I do have a problem with him being in power and putting my tax dollars in his bank account while he tells me I have it good in this country because I haven't been executed yet. That was an appalling, insulting and ignorant remark that he should not be allowed to get away with.
3
It's clear the NYTimes position on corporate spending in politics, spending for conservative issues is evil, spending for liberal issues is wonderful.
1
So Tom Cotton suggested "that gays have it pretty good in the US because they are not executed here as they are in Iran". Welcome to "The Land of Cotton" where those "old times "(sodomy laws, homophobia etc) are certainly not forgotten.
I truly believe the Supreme Court will declare banning gay marriage unconstitutional. However, I may be wrong and I will vote to side with gay people by voting.
However, can we please address one of our other favorite punching bags (WOMEN.)? How any laws to you need to introduce in regard to our vaginas? Stay out of all of our bedrooms or we'll start focusing on yours. Night out with a lady who's not the misses? Men jamming dollar bills in g strings (totally fine) but deny women young and not so young birth control. We actually don't need a law stating when, where and how we will have sex. Every time a minority group makes headway, the freaks always revert to women's lady parts. I'm going to guess there just might be a few xx chromosomes in the families of those Fortune 500s. Give us a shout out too.
However, can we please address one of our other favorite punching bags (WOMEN.)? How any laws to you need to introduce in regard to our vaginas? Stay out of all of our bedrooms or we'll start focusing on yours. Night out with a lady who's not the misses? Men jamming dollar bills in g strings (totally fine) but deny women young and not so young birth control. We actually don't need a law stating when, where and how we will have sex. Every time a minority group makes headway, the freaks always revert to women's lady parts. I'm going to guess there just might be a few xx chromosomes in the families of those Fortune 500s. Give us a shout out too.
1
"They certainly shouldn’t back lawmakers like Senator Ted Cruz, Republican of Texas, who is running for president and who has been a vocal supporter of the initial versions of the Indiana and Arkansas laws, and Senator Tom Cotton, Republican of Arkansas, who suggested on Wednesday that gays have it pretty good in the United States because they are not executed here as they are in Iran."
Interesting quandary big business finds itself in. How can they continue to get the tax and regulation treatment they want from Republicans while facing public backlash on social issues like we've seen this week?
Both decisions are based on money of course, on corporation's interest in profits. It's fascinating to watch a commercial reaction to a discriminatory law in Indiana right before a huge sporting week, while remembering that these same businesses voted with their money to back the right.
Wouldn't it be ironic if gay rights and other social issues pushed business into the arms of the Democratic party? It wouldn't be so impossible if more folks woke up to what the Republican agenda truly represents: a widening of the gap between rich and poor and a reduction in the number of people who can afford the products of big business.
Interesting quandary big business finds itself in. How can they continue to get the tax and regulation treatment they want from Republicans while facing public backlash on social issues like we've seen this week?
Both decisions are based on money of course, on corporation's interest in profits. It's fascinating to watch a commercial reaction to a discriminatory law in Indiana right before a huge sporting week, while remembering that these same businesses voted with their money to back the right.
Wouldn't it be ironic if gay rights and other social issues pushed business into the arms of the Democratic party? It wouldn't be so impossible if more folks woke up to what the Republican agenda truly represents: a widening of the gap between rich and poor and a reduction in the number of people who can afford the products of big business.
1
Only when corporations have one issue to contend with and politicians only have one position they favor, will this opinion piece make any sense.
Corporations do not support candidates based on one social issue. They consider a broad range of issues and support candidates that they believe will best represent those issues. Unions, associations and editorial boards do the same thing.
Similarly, out of fairness, generosity, confusion or maybe just as a hedge, corporations will donate to both liberal and conservative candidates at the same time, frequently in the same election.
Corporations do not support candidates based on one social issue. They consider a broad range of issues and support candidates that they believe will best represent those issues. Unions, associations and editorial boards do the same thing.
Similarly, out of fairness, generosity, confusion or maybe just as a hedge, corporations will donate to both liberal and conservative candidates at the same time, frequently in the same election.
1
It'd be so much better if the best option were to invest in their businesses, workers, and then by golly, the communities around the world would benefit.
Instead we have see a major dumping of $billions into the Main Stream Media, the mouthpiece of the Dem/ Rep Party.
I guess when people call for getting the money out of politics, the benefits would surge away from Wash., DC and various state capitals and back into local economies.
How best to capture these funds, our own money?
Instead we have see a major dumping of $billions into the Main Stream Media, the mouthpiece of the Dem/ Rep Party.
I guess when people call for getting the money out of politics, the benefits would surge away from Wash., DC and various state capitals and back into local economies.
How best to capture these funds, our own money?
And what do they commit to when the next issue is all about religion? These are not anti-gay laws, and are not intended to be. However extreme progressives say it is, and therefore it becomes an issue. An issue that ignores intolerance of of situation that rarely happens. What happened to free will? How about free association? Indiana is not a bad place, but many places these corporations sell in are, especially arcane Muslim nations in the Middleeast. Oops, you're not suppose to say that. Ironic.
1
States that pass anti-gay business laws will naturally see an overall decline economically that will be difficult to reverse and will take decades to undo as their reputations are damaged. A few individual politicians are playing a fast and loose irresponsible game to benefit themselves at the expense of their citizens in the short term over this discriminatory actions. These States will now be deemed backwater place to do business and become pariah.
This issue is not about bigotry against gays nor even religious freedom but freedom of conscience; that most basic liberty without which you aren't free in any meaningful sense. If you can't refuse to cooperate with someone or something you believe to be deeply wrong even in the private sphere (which, after all, is where a private business is) then you are not a free country any longer.
There is a high price to pay for liberty, but losing it is unthinkable. It's been a bizarre experience for us international observers to be seeing the US go in this direction. And the UK. These are the two countries that were the mother and father of liberty and its price. Here they are dumping it under the emotional blackmail of 'discrimination' and 'bigotry'.
And let's examine bigotry for a moment. A Christian flower seller may be willing to sell flowers to gays but not a gay wedding, because it's the gay wedding that's wrong not the gay persons themselves. They can't be said to be bigoted. Afterall the Bible doesn't condemn gays but rather gay sexual acts. As for discrimination, it's basic to conducting daily life. It's unreasonable discrimination that's wrong; but even then who is to be the judge of that? You? The State? Are you an infallible Catholic-style magisterium? But even Catholic doctrines and rules are not coercive. No Catholic is forced to abide by them.
And where is the need for all coercion? If one shop won't serve you then another will.
There is a high price to pay for liberty, but losing it is unthinkable. It's been a bizarre experience for us international observers to be seeing the US go in this direction. And the UK. These are the two countries that were the mother and father of liberty and its price. Here they are dumping it under the emotional blackmail of 'discrimination' and 'bigotry'.
And let's examine bigotry for a moment. A Christian flower seller may be willing to sell flowers to gays but not a gay wedding, because it's the gay wedding that's wrong not the gay persons themselves. They can't be said to be bigoted. Afterall the Bible doesn't condemn gays but rather gay sexual acts. As for discrimination, it's basic to conducting daily life. It's unreasonable discrimination that's wrong; but even then who is to be the judge of that? You? The State? Are you an infallible Catholic-style magisterium? But even Catholic doctrines and rules are not coercive. No Catholic is forced to abide by them.
And where is the need for all coercion? If one shop won't serve you then another will.
2
Whether you realize it or not, the victims of bigotry suffer real & terrible consequences. Business activities are conducted in the public sphere and are subject to the law; even "private" businesses (for example drug dealing) are subject to the law.
"they should make clear that they will not donate to or support the campaigns of politicians who back such regressive legislation." But what if the opponents include those who supprot higher business taxes, more regulation, easy access to lawsuits, employee diversity demands, union favortism, and on and on - hallmark actvities of the Democrats and the Obama administration?
What should they do then? As a corporate shareholder I'd much prefer that the ones I'm invested in do not deal in advocacy on socilal legislation and issues. When doing so it's unavoidable they will alianate many - and judging by the comments - those predeposed to be anti-corporate will still not alter their negative opinions of American businesses. So why bother?
What should they do then? As a corporate shareholder I'd much prefer that the ones I'm invested in do not deal in advocacy on socilal legislation and issues. When doing so it's unavoidable they will alianate many - and judging by the comments - those predeposed to be anti-corporate will still not alter their negative opinions of American businesses. So why bother?
To the Editors,
The ONLY thing that matters to big business is the "bottom line". If Aadvarks spent money and where "discriminated" against by state legislatures, all these corporations would be screaming about the Anti-Aadvark Blue Laws.
Walmart's threat to the governor of Arkansas had little to do with the "morality" of lawful discrimination; it was predicated on the concept that the LGBT community has tons of money to spend so why not spend it freely?
Your call for them to stop buying influence is just but useless. How about telling both major parties to stop accepting "donations" from these benefactors? We would all find out quite quickly why 1/2 of Congress is made of millionaires and why someone would spend millions for a job that pays $180,000.00.
Sure Walmart, Apple, G.E., etc. did the "right thing" but for all the "wrong reasons". The net result is the same but don't expect these corporations to change how they do business in the "big leagues", the United States Congress and Presidency.
The cash register is still ringing down in D.C. and won't be stopping anytime soon.
The ONLY thing that matters to big business is the "bottom line". If Aadvarks spent money and where "discriminated" against by state legislatures, all these corporations would be screaming about the Anti-Aadvark Blue Laws.
Walmart's threat to the governor of Arkansas had little to do with the "morality" of lawful discrimination; it was predicated on the concept that the LGBT community has tons of money to spend so why not spend it freely?
Your call for them to stop buying influence is just but useless. How about telling both major parties to stop accepting "donations" from these benefactors? We would all find out quite quickly why 1/2 of Congress is made of millionaires and why someone would spend millions for a job that pays $180,000.00.
Sure Walmart, Apple, G.E., etc. did the "right thing" but for all the "wrong reasons". The net result is the same but don't expect these corporations to change how they do business in the "big leagues", the United States Congress and Presidency.
The cash register is still ringing down in D.C. and won't be stopping anytime soon.
2
"Corporations and their executives have long supported right-wing lawmakers who back their favored economic policies; the businesses looked the other way when those politicians pursued divisive culture-war campaigns against marginalized groups. This marriage of convenience has been extremely beneficial for both sides."
Such insight! Do you think the businesses and politicians each consider the other to be useful fools?
More fool us.
Such insight! Do you think the businesses and politicians each consider the other to be useful fools?
More fool us.
From the editorial: "If corporations and their executives care about civil rights, they should . . . " There's a conceptual error there: Corporations don't "care" - they are legal entities. Thinking of corporations as people brings on other problems. Corporate executives don't care much either. They are guided mostly by self-interest but, on this issue, self-interest can nudge them to favor gay rights. The editorial writers would do better to emphasize self-interest than "caring".
2
Your editorial board seems to seek to nudge corporations toward actions consistent with their statements. What?? You want to end hypocracy??
Corporations are completely in synch with their prime directive: make money. Pay the lowest possible wage, seek the largest possible markup and biggest customer base, then enrich the directors and owners of the corporation in the hope the workers will not figure it out. Buying political influence is just the grease to keep these rapacious economic juggernauts running.
Until corporations understand we are all in this Lifeboat Earth together and all workers' wages ultimately are the company's earnings and we do ourselves harm to despoil our only home, it will always stay as it is.
Corporations are completely in synch with their prime directive: make money. Pay the lowest possible wage, seek the largest possible markup and biggest customer base, then enrich the directors and owners of the corporation in the hope the workers will not figure it out. Buying political influence is just the grease to keep these rapacious economic juggernauts running.
Until corporations understand we are all in this Lifeboat Earth together and all workers' wages ultimately are the company's earnings and we do ourselves harm to despoil our only home, it will always stay as it is.
1
Oddly enough that a "collective" conscience of any group of people must fit the liberal mold of thought to be valid....
That seems to be the "collective" agreement by most NY Times readers to champion the protection of the individual, but oddly in real world situations like the incident with the Uber driver in NYC and the NYPD detective, the passenger in the car sat back somewhat quietly and took a video. This situation reminds me of a documentary about the Golden Gate Bridge and how the bridge attracts many to commit suicide. In the documentary there is a segment in which a person is contemplating to jump and a photographer is filmed taking photos of the person, rather than trying to help. This could also be said of the camera person filming the situation. The photographer eventually tries to stop the person and grabs that person, but my point is that most people tend to want to stand on the side and watch and now capture a tragic event on their smartphone...or if they could take a "selfie " with the incident going on in the background... Some conscience these people have....
That seems to be the "collective" agreement by most NY Times readers to champion the protection of the individual, but oddly in real world situations like the incident with the Uber driver in NYC and the NYPD detective, the passenger in the car sat back somewhat quietly and took a video. This situation reminds me of a documentary about the Golden Gate Bridge and how the bridge attracts many to commit suicide. In the documentary there is a segment in which a person is contemplating to jump and a photographer is filmed taking photos of the person, rather than trying to help. This could also be said of the camera person filming the situation. The photographer eventually tries to stop the person and grabs that person, but my point is that most people tend to want to stand on the side and watch and now capture a tragic event on their smartphone...or if they could take a "selfie " with the incident going on in the background... Some conscience these people have....
Republicans want it both ways. They champion "the market" when it suits them and run to the government when it doesn't. Pandering to the crazies has been devastating for our country; it seems Republicans are figuring out it isn't working out well for their party, either. I've never been much of an advocate for a market solution but in this case it's working beautifully.
1
Big business has looked at the numbers and realizes that America is turning blue. Walmart supports gay marriage and a penny a pound for tomatoes for the Cesar Chevez's farmworkers. A company can't get much bluer than that.
We are returning to a country run on the principles of science and reason and away from religion and superstition.
We are returning to a country run on the principles of science and reason and away from religion and superstition.
2
Corporate America has also been helpful to all states, never allowing them to pass very strong and conspicuous labor rights laws that incentivised high wages, good conditions and a good work-life balance for workers. Good work.
6
Your article asks literally for the impossible, for corporations to act in the best interests of everyone instead of their shareholders and the bottom line. We should applaud Walmart and Apple and the others who called the law what it was; discrimination. Without the implicit threats behind their message the crazies win and discrimination becomes a " religious freedom". We cannot get people to do the right thing and you expect and demand that of big business? This was a victory for what was right and stopped a disgusting law from hurting those who need protection . It also exposed the total hypocrisy of those who enacted the law. Disparage and nit pick against big corporations motives but bottom line is they spoke up and made a difference.
10
Booker T Washington advocated the approach of African Americans acquiring economic power to advance their causes for civil and political and social rights. Mainstream corporations like Walmart, Apple or others speak have not appeared to speak out against against current day discrimination against African Americans in employment or in other arenas as they are doing in this context here. The fact that Walmart and Apple are speaking out for LGBT rights here could show that speaking out for African American rights is less popular than speaking out for LGBT rights. If African Americans have not adopted Booker T Washington's approach generally -where does this lead them - only in a fight for "civil" rights, without the economic base backing?
7
Sad to say that appears to be the underlying truth....and if you are an Afro-American Christian that may just be a double whammy....
What is ironic here is the "pile-on" to see who can be more "gay friendly" and "rainbow coalition", when there is still widespread discrimination against black Americans, hispanics, poor people in general, etc. -- and of course as a group, gays & lesbians are wealthier, whiter, more educated and privileged than Americans in general (let alone black Americans).
Who can come up with a SINGLE instance of gay customers being denied service at a McDonalds or Walmart? or being thrown out of restaurant? forced to sit at the back of the bus? who remembers "gay only" drinking fountains? Oh -- right -- that would be no one. Because it never happened.
Who can come up with a SINGLE instance of gay customers being denied service at a McDonalds or Walmart? or being thrown out of restaurant? forced to sit at the back of the bus? who remembers "gay only" drinking fountains? Oh -- right -- that would be no one. Because it never happened.
1
I don't know what the LGBT community can do to make the African American community understand that it is not us vs. them, discrimination is discrimination no matter who it is directed against. In the early days of what was then called the Gay Rights movement there was strong support for towards the Black community. This support has become less as we (LGBTs) have received little or no support back and actually have had much non support from the African American Churches. Support for LGBT causes now is not taking away support from other righteous causes.
Business is about supply and demand, nothing else. Take Apple, the leader in double standards, given its selling its products in places where gays are put to death. As for 'anti-gay' laws, there are none, its that simple. This article is another in The Times driven agenda of creating a problem that does not exist.
3
Legal experts would disagree with you. I'll take their word for it over yours.
Money talks. It always has. And after the Citizens United decision money's role in politics has been embalmed.
7
Money talks and hate pays well!!
The "poor" little Irish Pizzaria , Memories in Walkerton, In. that won't make pizza for a gay marriage, has raked in over $800,00 since the publicity.
Too bad those good Christians didn't donate that to feed hungry children!
The "poor" little Irish Pizzaria , Memories in Walkerton, In. that won't make pizza for a gay marriage, has raked in over $800,00 since the publicity.
Too bad those good Christians didn't donate that to feed hungry children!
Thank whatever gods there be that big corporations aren't bowing down to fundamentalist-evangelical right wing politicians who pander to voters who want a Christian theocracy imposed on America. It's about time to stop bending the knee to religion in public policy.
Instead we should honor Thomas Jefferson's great wall of separation between church and state because good fences make good neighbors.
Baking cakes, arranging flowers, and taking photos of gay couples is not participating in their ceremonies, it's just supplying goods and services to the general public. Gays are part of our families, friends, neighborhoods, and communities. Live and let live.
Instead we should honor Thomas Jefferson's great wall of separation between church and state because good fences make good neighbors.
Baking cakes, arranging flowers, and taking photos of gay couples is not participating in their ceremonies, it's just supplying goods and services to the general public. Gays are part of our families, friends, neighborhoods, and communities. Live and let live.
31
It is most definitely participating in a ceremony, if you provide the cake or flowers or music or venue.
If it was a gay baker refusing to decorate a cake intended for a fundamentalist church's gay "re-education" camp, you would all up in arms defending their right to refuse to provide service for something they consider hateful or insulting.
If it was a gay baker refusing to decorate a cake intended for a fundamentalist church's gay "re-education" camp, you would all up in arms defending their right to refuse to provide service for something they consider hateful or insulting.
1
That is one thing the Christian boko haram can't do. That allows people to think and they know deep in their hearts that those who think won't stay with their ugly, threadbare version of Christianity.
2
Business made a Faustian deal with the devil ever since it supported Goldwater, Nixon, and Reagan in their post Civil Rights Legislation era "Southern Strategy". It was a strategy built on Southern hate and pandering to religious ignorance.
Perhaps the problem they are learning is that when you build a nation based on hate for the sake of a few dollars more in profits that's the world you have to live in.
Isn't it time we put behind us all hate and discrimination against all racial, gender, and religious minorities. Isn't it time we put behind us the war against civil rights, woman's rights, worker's rights, consumer rights, human rights, and the right to a clean and decent environment.
In the same way "business" just helped end these thinly veiled "right to discriminate in the name of religion laws" virtually overnight, that's how easy it could be to end all discrimination of any kind against anyone for any reason. Overnight it could all be gone if we wanted it.
Think about it.
Perhaps the problem they are learning is that when you build a nation based on hate for the sake of a few dollars more in profits that's the world you have to live in.
Isn't it time we put behind us all hate and discrimination against all racial, gender, and religious minorities. Isn't it time we put behind us the war against civil rights, woman's rights, worker's rights, consumer rights, human rights, and the right to a clean and decent environment.
In the same way "business" just helped end these thinly veiled "right to discriminate in the name of religion laws" virtually overnight, that's how easy it could be to end all discrimination of any kind against anyone for any reason. Overnight it could all be gone if we wanted it.
Think about it.
12
They made a Faustian Bargain that is blowing up in their faces.
In a recent article, Scientific American pointed out, "The top 20% of US households own more than 84% of the wealth, and the bottom 40% combine for a paltry 0.3%. The Walton family, for example, has more wealth than 42% of American families combined."
I am thrilled that several corporations (including Walmart) spoke out against discrimination ... thrilled! However, someone... anyone...everyone needs to speak out about the gross inequities in wealth in this country. Money does indeed "talk." If people don't have it, they are forced to listen. Wealth should not decide our candidates nor should it prevent those who don't have it from being heard.
I am thrilled that several corporations (including Walmart) spoke out against discrimination ... thrilled! However, someone... anyone...everyone needs to speak out about the gross inequities in wealth in this country. Money does indeed "talk." If people don't have it, they are forced to listen. Wealth should not decide our candidates nor should it prevent those who don't have it from being heard.
22
Its no coincidence that gay-rights and abortion dominate in the media before elections.
Its the best method to get conservative voters to the voting booth.
It would be interesting to see how Arkansas and Indiana legislate on helping the poor, homeless, healthcare, unemployed, raising the min. wage. issues that should be centre stage in Christian politics.
The cynical politicians behind the religious legislation in both states just use these laws to get the conservative religious vote.
Gay rights activists should consider building bridges to other social action groups, lets see how 'Christian' the law-makers are spending government money.
Gays, unemployed, wage slaves, healthcare are all issues of people that are marginalised, join forces and lay bare the hypocrisy of phoney Christians that worship greed.
Its the best method to get conservative voters to the voting booth.
It would be interesting to see how Arkansas and Indiana legislate on helping the poor, homeless, healthcare, unemployed, raising the min. wage. issues that should be centre stage in Christian politics.
The cynical politicians behind the religious legislation in both states just use these laws to get the conservative religious vote.
Gay rights activists should consider building bridges to other social action groups, lets see how 'Christian' the law-makers are spending government money.
Gays, unemployed, wage slaves, healthcare are all issues of people that are marginalised, join forces and lay bare the hypocrisy of phoney Christians that worship greed.
11
The worst enemies of gay rights are gay rights leaders. No other equal rights champions have ever focused on marriage rights. As this editorial suggests, the greatest harm caused to gays results from incessant discrimination backed by right wing politicians, who come up with whatever excuses they can to make it miserable to be gay. So why are gay leaders making little effort to take up this cause while focusing almost exclusively on marriage rights? Granted, there are substantial benefits to marriage rights. But spousal benefits help the wealthier far more than the rest. Wealthier gays, who lead the gay rights movement, have sold out the majority for their own narrow interests. It's time for new leadership in the movement.
3
I'm going to respectfully disagree. Take a look at how public opinion has changed on this issue during the last few years. The issue of marriage got people thinking and talking and finally coming to the realization that they think gay people should receive equal treatment.
2
A good marriage is good for wealth, too.
I think, perhaps, you miss the importance of marriage here. There are over 1,000 legal rights and privileges that apply to couples who are legally married, including such basic rights as medical decision-making when a spouse is unable to speak for themself and the right to hospital visitation. Also, the right to spousal insurance benefits. And these are important, but may not seem so until your partner's family swoops in and usurps decision-making privileges when your partner is gravely ill.
In addition, and here gay rights leaders were late in coming to the party - read the history of the marriage rights movement - marriage bestows societal recognition and acceptance. The fight against AIDS kick-started the process; marriage rights will pretty much complete it. Yes, there will always be reactionaries, but their population is shrinking.
In addition, and here gay rights leaders were late in coming to the party - read the history of the marriage rights movement - marriage bestows societal recognition and acceptance. The fight against AIDS kick-started the process; marriage rights will pretty much complete it. Yes, there will always be reactionaries, but their population is shrinking.
1
I agree it’s about PR but the old saying any ship in a storm is relevant here. So what if they did it for Public relations reasons it worked last week. Just think if they spoke up on other issues and used their clout to change minds of elected officials. In a perfect world I would love to change hearts and minds but since it is not I am willing to accept minds. Now that business has flexed its power for one issue they have opened a door that can't be or should not be closed. Today we let rich donors dictate our politics our political leaders make decisions favoring these donors for fear of losing their support and their jobs on the public's dole. Now the little guy may have a champion and that is where he spends his money. Even the casino owner who have so many of our representative doing his bidding can't compete with the folks who shop at the Super Walmart. These folks should vote with their pocket books So as to finding a reason for these big businesses to get involved I could care less what is wonderful is the fact that they are involved. The demonstrations in Ferguson did little to change the outcome there but it sure has made a lot of people in authority nervous nationwide. Things that were normal are not normal anymore. Actions that normally got a wink and a nod are now getting a camera and a suspension or firing. Change very seldom happens drastically more often It starts with the first step. What we saw in Indiana and Arkansas is the first step in right direction.
3
It's easy for big business to defend rights of gays. as customers of business. But they will never give up big money influence on our elected lawmakers. That now defines America, with the most big business influence on elections of any democracy.
This case happens to favor civil liberties, and over half of Americans seem to agree with it. But suppose it's about economic policy that's detrimental to the mass of average earners. As we have seen. Who calls the shots in America?
Big business has long aligned with rw politicians using religous fundamentalism to win votes. The Gop chorus line of candidates supports the 2 governors in this.
This case happens to favor civil liberties, and over half of Americans seem to agree with it. But suppose it's about economic policy that's detrimental to the mass of average earners. As we have seen. Who calls the shots in America?
Big business has long aligned with rw politicians using religous fundamentalism to win votes. The Gop chorus line of candidates supports the 2 governors in this.
1
Years ago, I read a pamphlet advising social activists on how to run a campaign against a corporation. The basic message was, "take the leader's reputation hostage and then ransom it back to him in exchange for what you want." A secondary message was "keep moving the goal post."
Corporate leaders would do well to stick to their fiduciary obligations to create value for their shareholders. Unfortunately, too many corporate leaders have been seduced by the quest for public (more prominently, social media) approval and have jumped onto the slippery slope of causes entirely outside the scope of their businesses. They want to be rock stars, or statesmen, or visionaries or humanitarians. However, they will soon learn that the applause they seek will never come, that the activists will never be satisfied, and that all of this will simply divert attention from the business of business. When these guys have board meetings resembling a Net Roots conference or, worst yet, an Occupy Wall Street rally, they will see what all of this egoistic self-congratulation has brought down upon their companies.
Corporate leaders would do well to stick to their fiduciary obligations to create value for their shareholders. Unfortunately, too many corporate leaders have been seduced by the quest for public (more prominently, social media) approval and have jumped onto the slippery slope of causes entirely outside the scope of their businesses. They want to be rock stars, or statesmen, or visionaries or humanitarians. However, they will soon learn that the applause they seek will never come, that the activists will never be satisfied, and that all of this will simply divert attention from the business of business. When these guys have board meetings resembling a Net Roots conference or, worst yet, an Occupy Wall Street rally, they will see what all of this egoistic self-congratulation has brought down upon their companies.
2
While the New York Times is praising corporate influence in the political process where it involves the special interests of special people, they routinely disparage it when businesses and corporations are attempting to influence opinion with respect to their own economic interests, the interests of their stockholders and employees. This is the classic double standard the Times has become famous for.
Bringing down the massive oppressive power of the enforcement power of the government in cooperation with the private economic and social power of the corporate apparatus is the classic definition of fascist corporatism where the state and capital combine to regiment the behavior of citizens. This practice has no place in a free society.
Disproportionately powerful minorities are absolutely insensitive to the rights of religiously observant Americans, even in cases where their interests would not be significantly impacted. In a country where religious freedom is institutionalized in our founding documents and where it has been widely observed we are now seeing a demonizing, stigmatizing and hostile attempt to criminalize its application.
I am not religious but I recognize that most Americans are, and that their civil liberties and First Amendment rights are at risk. We need to pay close attention to what is going on here.
Bringing down the massive oppressive power of the enforcement power of the government in cooperation with the private economic and social power of the corporate apparatus is the classic definition of fascist corporatism where the state and capital combine to regiment the behavior of citizens. This practice has no place in a free society.
Disproportionately powerful minorities are absolutely insensitive to the rights of religiously observant Americans, even in cases where their interests would not be significantly impacted. In a country where religious freedom is institutionalized in our founding documents and where it has been widely observed we are now seeing a demonizing, stigmatizing and hostile attempt to criminalize its application.
I am not religious but I recognize that most Americans are, and that their civil liberties and First Amendment rights are at risk. We need to pay close attention to what is going on here.
3
We are deprived of freedom from religion by this unconstitutional crusade to make God a perfect defense from secular law.
Pro religion laws only encourage liars and con artists to take the name of God in vain.
Pro religion laws only encourage liars and con artists to take the name of God in vain.
It is a lie that liberals want to interfere with practices of worship, and it is a lie that harassing people in public is religious worship.
If you actually acquaint yourself with the laws in question, including the original law supported by President Clinton and supported by 97 U. S. Senators, you will see there is no threat to homosexuals. The primary purpose was to protect religious people from an oppressive government.
The Republican Party used to be pro-business. Now it's anti-science. It's anti-education. It's anti-separation of church and state. It's anti-gay. All of these sum up to being anti-business because all reduce sales, reduce competitiveness, and reduce productivity. They all cost money and profit. Big business understands that.
Big business has many overseas clients who rightfully consider the GOP stand against gays as frankly, barbaric. It doesn't want to lose them either.
Big business also has many highly productive and valuable employees with differing sexual orientations. It doesn't want to lose them as employees or as customers. It doesn't want to lose their friends and loved ones as customers.
This is all about money, not a sudden epiphany of social conscience. Their outcry is greatly welcomed by all reasonable people, no matter what the true motivation is. Now if we can just get big business to realize that Democrats are not anti-business. They just don't want people to live on starvation wages, not be able to go to the doctor, or live on the street. Those are all pro-business desires.
Big business has many overseas clients who rightfully consider the GOP stand against gays as frankly, barbaric. It doesn't want to lose them either.
Big business also has many highly productive and valuable employees with differing sexual orientations. It doesn't want to lose them as employees or as customers. It doesn't want to lose their friends and loved ones as customers.
This is all about money, not a sudden epiphany of social conscience. Their outcry is greatly welcomed by all reasonable people, no matter what the true motivation is. Now if we can just get big business to realize that Democrats are not anti-business. They just don't want people to live on starvation wages, not be able to go to the doctor, or live on the street. Those are all pro-business desires.
117
You forgot anti-woman. However, those at the top have already stripped their corporations and fleeced the public. So, whatever happens, they have theirs. Why would they have any intrinsic concern about such abuses, in their hallowed halls, or in the public sector?
It' also anti-straw man, which doesn't bode well for every single argument you Leftists make against it. And by the way, specifically what GOP politician has come out against Boyle's law, plate tectonics or the conservation of energy, etc? (Little hint for you, science actually entails more than a few statistical models developed by climatologists.) Also, please name a Republican politician who has stated he favors poverty and starvation? Thanks.
Thank you, well said.
In the debate about the Indiana and Arkansas laws, the focus was almost exclusively on gay people. There was a bigger issue at stake and businesses realized this fact more than legislators did.
The proponents of the religious freedom laws argued that a baker or a florist should not have to bake or sell flowers to gay people who married. They argued that the proprietor's religious beliefs should be the determinant in business transactions and wrapped that argument in a "freedom" context.
So let's go further down that road: (1) if I believe that Catholicism is evil and that the Pope is the anti-Christ should I have to sell cakes to Catholics for their First Communion celebrations? (2) If I believe that inter-racial marriage is sinful, should I be able to refuse to sell dozen roses to interracial couples? (4) If I believe that having a child outside of marriage is a sin, should I refuse to sell a birthday cake for a child born out of wedlock? (4) If I believe that gay marriage is wrong and hold that cake making is a first amendment exercise, should I have to sell the couple cookies? Bread? In other words, where does the first amendment end and the baking begin?
The American way is that all who sell must do so to any who want to buy provided that reasonable business terms are met (i.e. price and payment). Should we stray from that path, we will wind up creating a balkanized economy. One look at the Shia and Sunni should convince us that this is not the way to go.
The proponents of the religious freedom laws argued that a baker or a florist should not have to bake or sell flowers to gay people who married. They argued that the proprietor's religious beliefs should be the determinant in business transactions and wrapped that argument in a "freedom" context.
So let's go further down that road: (1) if I believe that Catholicism is evil and that the Pope is the anti-Christ should I have to sell cakes to Catholics for their First Communion celebrations? (2) If I believe that inter-racial marriage is sinful, should I be able to refuse to sell dozen roses to interracial couples? (4) If I believe that having a child outside of marriage is a sin, should I refuse to sell a birthday cake for a child born out of wedlock? (4) If I believe that gay marriage is wrong and hold that cake making is a first amendment exercise, should I have to sell the couple cookies? Bread? In other words, where does the first amendment end and the baking begin?
The American way is that all who sell must do so to any who want to buy provided that reasonable business terms are met (i.e. price and payment). Should we stray from that path, we will wind up creating a balkanized economy. One look at the Shia and Sunni should convince us that this is not the way to go.
You have grossly misinterpreted the problem. NOBODY has refused to sell gay people cookies or flowers. They have ONLY ever refused to participate in gay WEDDINGS. Not gay bar mitzvahs or gay reunions or gay cotillion balls. JUST gay marriage ceremonies.
In fact, it has nothing to do with gay customers. My stepdaughter married last year. I ordered and paid for the cake, as part of our contribution and a present. She was not involved (except to ask for chocolate cake with green & blue frosting!). So a straight person could theoretically be ordering a cake for a gay wedding -- and would be refused. Not because of their sexual orientation, but because they were being asked to participate in a ceremony that is a violation of their religious beliefs.
In fact, it has nothing to do with gay customers. My stepdaughter married last year. I ordered and paid for the cake, as part of our contribution and a present. She was not involved (except to ask for chocolate cake with green & blue frosting!). So a straight person could theoretically be ordering a cake for a gay wedding -- and would be refused. Not because of their sexual orientation, but because they were being asked to participate in a ceremony that is a violation of their religious beliefs.
Far-seeing industrialists in the 1850s realised that chattel slavery was not profitable, beside being morally repugnant and representing the perpetuation of an atavistic way of life straight from the barbarian epoch. Yet in many cases neither they nor their massively wealthy descendants loved or embraced the people of color who were then held in slavery's thralldom. They profited handsomely from the slavery-based conflict we know as the Civil War but again, this did not convert those who made money from the war, nor those who fought on the Union side to free the slaves, into people who necessarily even liked those whom their efforts had freed. Similarly, the megacorporations that have taken a stand against anti-gay discrimination are doing so not because they approve of gays, nor even because they like them. Instead, they do this because some hard-nosed research based on focus groups has indicated that there's more profit to be made in adopting this politically correct pose. One is by no means forgetful of recent anti-gay employment practices on the part of 3M, and even in certain operations of the Federal government. If it becomes more profitable to embrace gay hatred, these entities will hasten to do so.
1
Yes, it's all been reduced to money. Is it possible anyone is surprised?
23
Corporate CEOs make a public statement about discrimination, then return to their offices, where they routinely practice it. I will pay attention to Tim Cook or Walmart when they clean up their own houses, when they don't discriiminate and support the abuse of people around the world. No one should be taking an ethical lead from either Apple or Walmart.
97
You are correct, however we should give them credit for moving in thr right direction. They can, and should do much more concerning equal rights. Please do not give financial support to candidates that support bigeritty.
2
So let me guess, you don't own any consumer electronics products, plastic gizmos manufactured in China or elsewhere with sub-US employment laws, etc.?
I don't mind taking an ethical lead from Apple or Walmart, as long as it truly IS ethical. So far, though, I don't see a broad, systematic ethical approach. Walmart has shown plenty of anti-woman, anti-environment, anti-poor, anti-government (while cashing huge corporate welfare checks) actions. Forgive my cynicism, but the fact that they only spoke up when a (potential) LOT of money is on the table for them, does not elicit any warm and fuzzy feelings from me.
17
You're putting business leaders in the position of thinking "no good deed goes unpunished." While there is always more one can do, we've just witnessed an unprecedented and decisive outpouring of support for diversity by business leaders who took risks in doing so. I would suggest a more appropriate response might be "Thank You - Great Job!"
3
Interesting how some conservatives complain of government overreach and simultaneously complain of private sector overreach. Discrimination based on race, gender AND sexuality is ethically wrong under any circumstances. Thankfully, large corporations in greater number are also acknowledging it is bad for business. Herein lies one of the greatest flaws of Federalism when states are granted the ability to legally discriminate. Freedom of religion is already protected under the Federal Constitution for all Americans. Freedom to discriminate based on one's religious views is not a protected right. Human sexuality is NOT a choice unlike one's religious faith, in spite of claims to the contrary by some religious zealots.
18
The founders would call what we have now "antifederalism"
Our present political idiots have dyslexified practically everything.
Our present political idiots have dyslexified practically everything.
"Global Capitalism makes democracy seem amateurish."
1
If corporations cared about the wellbeing of Americans they would leave public policy to the voters. We are a long way from that world.
9
I think it is shameful that corporations are paid that much heed to begin with. Commerce is the single greatest good in this country -- if it somehow affects the bottom line, only then does it merit attention. Disgraceful!
2
Corporations should indeed consistently support politicians and cultural leaders who believe in equal rights for all minority groups. But let’s not forget that Indiana and Arkansas wouldn’t have governors and legislators even creating bigoted laws if more people got off of their cabooses and voted. We have shameless politicians across the country that take care of the powerful on the backs of the weak and do nothing to fight dire and pressing problems like climate change and infrastructure because of elections like the one this past November; turnout was the lowest in 70 years.
22
This system evidently deprives about 70% of voters any reason to vote at all, between gerrymandering and abject fools on both party tickets.
So, now the Democratic Party has Wall Streets backing with (Clinton & Schumer) and it has the backing of the top fortune 500 companies.
Makes the whining about those "corporatist" Republicans from Wall Street seem a little silly. You can't have it both ways. The Democratic Party is now in bed with big business.
That also would mean that it is the Republicans who are representing American by standing up to big business and big government.
Makes the whining about those "corporatist" Republicans from Wall Street seem a little silly. You can't have it both ways. The Democratic Party is now in bed with big business.
That also would mean that it is the Republicans who are representing American by standing up to big business and big government.
4
i don't know if you have noticed, but there is little difference between a democrat and a republican politician. both are slaves to k-street and its money. both support corporate welfare. both support perpetual war. both support the slow removal of our civil rights. both support the drug war. the major differences between the two? gays and abortion. that is it. can you guess why? those two issues are polarizing. they make people so mad, so tunnel vision-ed, that they can't see what really matters. so if you are a democrat, or you are a republican, i am sorry, this may come as a shock, but you are (a big) part of the problem.
Big business thinks your little government is a feather duster, child.
Corporations are people, my friend.
They just happen to be people who only care about money.
They just happen to be people who only care about money.
40
Any proposed legislation with the word 'religion' in its caption should be considered suspect, and most likely constitutes pandering by Republican politicians.
47
Yes if religion is in the title of a bill, it probably is an unconstitutional act of faith based legislation.
100% Correct. In my younger days, we said, "Put your money where your mouth is." Later it was rephrased, "You have to walk the talk." But now I realize that without genuine campaign finance reform, the transparency needed to verify the level of corporate integrity these phrases and this editorial demand would just not exist.
9
I am terribly disappointed in your editorial. I realize that corporate contributions--both direct and indirect--to political campaigns have been a factor in our elections for quite a while, but they need not be.
You say that "If corporations and their executives care about civil rights, they should make clear that they will not donate to or support the campaigns of politicians who back such regressive legislation."
Contrast that statement with your editorial on the Supreme Court decision on Citizens United, when you said, "Disingenuously waving the flag of the First Amendment, the court’s conservative majority has paved the way for corporations to use their vast treasuries to overwhelm elections and intimidate elected officials into doing their bidding." http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/opinion/22fri1.html
Do you now want corporations to "intimidate elected officials into doing their bidding?" Really?
You say that "If corporations and their executives care about civil rights, they should make clear that they will not donate to or support the campaigns of politicians who back such regressive legislation."
Contrast that statement with your editorial on the Supreme Court decision on Citizens United, when you said, "Disingenuously waving the flag of the First Amendment, the court’s conservative majority has paved the way for corporations to use their vast treasuries to overwhelm elections and intimidate elected officials into doing their bidding." http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/opinion/22fri1.html
Do you now want corporations to "intimidate elected officials into doing their bidding?" Really?
17
The New York Times is a corporation too.
Business, like advertisers on TV, don't want to chase a poorer, graying demographic if it means sacrificing a younger, more affluent one.
47
They are pretty dumb then, because the largest concentration of wealth in the US is in the hands of those "gray Demographics" -- boomers and older Americans, the retired, etc. And given longer lifespans, they will be around a long time yet.
The way to resolve this issue about providing services for same sex weddings, marriages, is for the Christian religious leaders of all the US based Christian religions to get together to make a joint statement. Something to the effect that: Although the teachings of our religions do not condone same sex marriage it is our belief that a person or business that provides services to or for same sex marriages does not imply that you personally condone same sex marriage. Therefore, to deny services to same sex weddings or marriages, if asked, based on the teachings of your Christian Faith would be an incorrect interpretation of our teachings.
1
If these same "big businesses" spoke out at all against corporate misogyny in denying women reproductive rights (Hobby Lobby, for example) or equal pay, maybe I'd believe they care about anything but their bottom line. Don't insult our potential gay customer base, but don't ask us to pay anything out of pocket for anyone's equality seems to be the mantra.
We need to wake up and realize that the real answer is to get corporate influence out of politics, because we all get the government they pay for. And then do something about it.
We need to wake up and realize that the real answer is to get corporate influence out of politics, because we all get the government they pay for. And then do something about it.
6
Thank you for suggesting a reasoned approach to combating discrimination. As to why corporations want to support the bigoted 'tedcruzes' of this world remains a mystery, and has a bad smell of hypocrisy and inconsistency. Of course, corporations have a C.E.O. behind them making the decisions; one wonders if the stockholders, aside from the bottom line, are interested in what is being done, or not, in their name.
1
It would be very encouraging if Big Business were indeed doing the "right thing" out of the goodness of their hearts but their hearts were not In evidence on raising minimum hourly rates or a host of other employee assistances. If one looks closely at Big Business displaying its affinity for the "right thing" one sees the threat of sales boycotts sitting there in the place where a warm heart was supposed to be. The pursuit of the quick buck seems to course through the veins of Big Business with much greater strength than any silly idea driblets for doing the right thing. But we must at least give BB credit for doing the right thing even if it didn't know it was doing so.
2
If the post-Citizens United era enables corporations to wield enormous power in politics, then they must take up the responsibility to be bastions of their community. "We do our part: we pay our taxes" died in 2010.
2
I somehow feel that the Walmarts of our world will not stand up for comprehensive anti-discrimination statutes, mainly because the public's eye will have wandered in the meantime. How sincere are their stated positions? When the heat is off in the kitchen, they will scurry back to their corners to suck milk (and blood) from the rest of us who live with potential discrimination every day.
1
Im not sure why corporations help fund politics at all. I worked for a fortune 500 company that gave to both sides equally. But would politics be a little more fair if multibillion dollar companies just stayed out of it?
3
I'm glad some force in the nation was able to make these governors back down from the more extreme versions of these laws. But is more than a little disheartening to realize that the legislators in these states only pay attention when big business yanks their chains. Would it be too much to ask them to listen to their constituents? I'd be willing to bet if you held plebiscites in Arkansas and Indiana a majority of their citizens would follow the rest of the country and back gay marriage and equal civil rights for everyone. They got a wake up call from corporate America. Perhaps it is time they listened to the rest of us.
4
If you or the left BELIEVE THAT, why not have let those states VOTE on gay marriage? and show their ringing endorsements as proof positive that "everyone supports gay marriage"?
The truth is that if it was VOTED ON, as all laws should be, gay marriage would lose by a landslide.
The truth is that if it was VOTED ON, as all laws should be, gay marriage would lose by a landslide.
None of the corporations listed provide the level of personal service that cake decorators, florists, and photographers provide to weddings.
Businesses need to realize that their employees and the people who may buy their goods or services are far, far more important than the financial benefits of headquartering in any particular state. Bad publicity is very hard to shake; good publicity goes to the bottom line.
2
Just imagine the victories corporations could help win for a sensible immigration system, women's rights, fighting systematic racial bias, and gun safety. If only there was a similar kind of pressure on them as there is for gay rights.
5
That's up to all of us. We need to vote with our wallets and we need to proclaim our intentions loud and clear.
The hypocrisy of big business, their double-speak, their lobbyists contributing vast sums to the extremists in both parties. But we "little people" deserve to get what we are served. In the end as it has always been and probably as it will always be, money talks. If more of the electorate debated issues and the reality of money in campaigns, we just might salvage democracy; however unlikely.
3
Businesses need the social conservatives to have a chance of putting the people they want into public office. It would be difficult to pressure them to change without organizing boycotts against those who donate to dubious candidates, but PACs now shield donor information.
3
The Republicans walked themselves into this. They wanted unlimited campaign contributions and the Roberts Supreme Court gave it to them. But it comes with a price. Those big corporate donors don't want anything to interfere with profits. And discrimination hurts profits. Enough said.
10
Corporate America figured out a while ago that it's a good idea for employees to bring their full, best selves to work. When workers can live and work openly, free from fear, they're better, happier, more productive employees, and that's good for business. Celebrating Diversity is good for the bottom line. That might not be the most noble reason to champion Diversity, but it's a good reason nonetheless.
5
I am glad that the egregious Indiana and Arkansas laws that were intended to legalize bigotry are being amended and hopefully , revoked, but it saddens me that the indecency of these laws was ignored until big money spoke. The secrecy invoked for the signing of Gov. Pence's "religious freedom" law and the circle of religious figure and well-known homophobics captured in the photo op of the signing exposes Pence as disingenuous at best, a liar at worst when he tried to argue that the media misinterpreted the intent of the law and discrimination was never the law's intent.
31
The war for equality, fairness and justice across a wide spectrum of issues is not close to being won. Let's take what we can at any point with some level of grace and gratitude and continue to push forward. Thank you Corporate America.
3
I second your motion.
As a shareholder in many corporations, I want them all banned from making any political donations at all. I want them to pay out the money as dividends and leave it to shareholders to donate to political campaigns, if they choose.
89
Best comment I've seen.
What were the motives really? In the case of Walmart if they truly cared about the human condition they would actually pay their employees more than subsistence wages. But I can appreciate the editorial board dreaming aloud.
4
How about a different approach? How about removing the role of big money in influencing public policy? It is not right to cheerlead just because American corporatocracy happened to get on the correct side of an issue. There is nothing especially noble about Walmart's or Salesforce.com's feigned, self-righteous indignation when (as always) their primary motivation was "this has the potential to affect our profits". Next week they'll go back to lobbying for cutting corporate tax rates.
5
Public statements from big businesses haven't played a "big part" in walking back the laws in those states, they were the sole reason for it. That's sad, but whatever it takes to move the mountain is fine by me. If I want or expect fairness and decency in legislation, it's probably best for me to move to Canada or some of the Scandinavian countries.
2
This editorial is correct in every essential. However, the Fortune 500 companies (and their CEO's) will continue to enjoy the best of all worlds. They will piously point to affirmative action hiring and promotional templates in their mission statements, but they can also conceal their true motives because the Supreme Court, in its wisdom, makes allowances for donor anonymity. What is needed is courageous push-back as the 2016 presidential campaign looms on the horizon. These mega-corporations might like to take out lots of expensive, prime-time campaign ads against candidates who use the dog whistle or appeal to the lowest common denominator in the human condition to appeal to a red-meat base.The CEO's need to be the face of rejection of hateful ideas and principles by stepping front and center and putting a recognized face in front of America. They should call out demagogues who trade in issues that are not consonant with what this country should be. They might give this a try, profits and bruised feelings be damned.
3
Good thing equality has recently become profitable.
As supporters of gay rights we should be aware that we can count on the support of corporate America for *precisely* as long as it remains profitable, and not a second longer.
As supporters of gay rights we should be aware that we can count on the support of corporate America for *precisely* as long as it remains profitable, and not a second longer.
4
The corporations may realize that this legislation was bad for business, not just unpopular. The original Indiana bill cculd have made a mess of employment, contract and landlord/tenant law; certainly it would have had problems for businesses with employees in those states. Also, the Supreme Court ruled back in 1964 (Heart of Atlanta Motel and McClung v. Katzenbach cases) that the Commerce Clause does mean that anybody who, say, bakes a cake with ingredients from elsewhere, and sells it to clients who may be from out of state, is already bound by participating in a market they sought to profit in. Proprietors can still render unto God, but if they take money then they will need to render unto Caesar. The corporations may realize that prosperity doesn't come with inhibitions on trade.
3
Big business invests in the GOP in order to minimize regulations, keep the minimum wage low, keep global warming as an unresolved controversy, keep the EPA at bay and reduce government oversight in total.
Koch Industries, for example, supports marriage equality (at least David Koch does) but they are one of the largest polluters in America. Their allies in Congress have substantially reduced the funding of the EPA.
Those things that they get from Republicans are vastly more important to them than gay rights. Getting those GOPers elected takes money but for them it is money well spent. It's corporate cynicism.
I would argue that if EVERYONE voted there would be a lot fewer corporate lackeys in public office. The way to change campaign finance is to get more people to the polls. It sounds exquisitely simple but it's nearly impossible.
People need to realize that there is a problem and then they have to be sufficiently irritated to take action to correct it. Both elements are missing.
Koch Industries, for example, supports marriage equality (at least David Koch does) but they are one of the largest polluters in America. Their allies in Congress have substantially reduced the funding of the EPA.
Those things that they get from Republicans are vastly more important to them than gay rights. Getting those GOPers elected takes money but for them it is money well spent. It's corporate cynicism.
I would argue that if EVERYONE voted there would be a lot fewer corporate lackeys in public office. The way to change campaign finance is to get more people to the polls. It sounds exquisitely simple but it's nearly impossible.
People need to realize that there is a problem and then they have to be sufficiently irritated to take action to correct it. Both elements are missing.
2
Frankly, I find this deeply offensive. So, for this social issue, corporate executives weigh in with all the force and defiance they can muster? There are so many other issues that are much more important that this just seems to be out of focus. And, this is one reason why I am not so keen on corporations developing public policy.
3
This editorial echoes some of the thoughts and concerns I have over the swift and potent efforts of the corporate world to influence the lawmakers of Arkansas and Indiana. While I thought they both passed awful laws and deserved all of the backlash they received, there was something jarring about the obvious power of Corporate America. And I agree with the editor, what did these corporations expect when they funnel millions into super pacs supporting the right wing agenda.
Also, I found myself feeling a bit resentful, that corporate America seems to have no problem with laws that discriminate against others, or infringe on the rights of women, immigrants and other minorities. Why aren't they upset with laws that restrict voting rights? I guess it is all about the $$.
Also, I found myself feeling a bit resentful, that corporate America seems to have no problem with laws that discriminate against others, or infringe on the rights of women, immigrants and other minorities. Why aren't they upset with laws that restrict voting rights? I guess it is all about the $$.
4
This whole matter is just proof that corporations are just fine with the pro-business people they have put in office and that they can easily control these puppet politicians. As soon as possible campaign contributions and kickbacks were threatened the politicians backed off. Every person, liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican, should now realize that our government is not controlled by the people, it is controlled by some people who have a lot of money. Wake up America our democracy has been purchased and we have been sold down the river. Ah the etiology of that phrase, "sold down the river" is so apropos.
4
It's all PR. A company or business concern has no more morals than a snake, and all their pronouncements about their supposed moral beliefs and values are just a bunch of hooey. When I see their advertisements on TV portraying idealized views of life, I feel like throwing up. One of the worst is MasterCard's' "priceless" ad campaign. Why do we give these cold-blooded hucksters so much respect and influence?
2
I am glad that my home state, Indiana, has revised its new law to clarify that it doesn't permit discrimination. I wish the legislature had gone further, but what they did is an improvement.
And I am glad that many businesses are joining civil rights groups in vocally and publicly opposing discrimination against gay and lesbian people, as they already do against other forms of discrimination.
Now, I wish that the Editorial Board of the New York Times will also advocate an end to discrimination and support equal treatment under the law, by ending the paper's frequent vociferous commentary in favor of affirmative action, which, as it is most often practiced today, is very much a form of discrimination and unequal treatment under the law, usually based on race, and/or gender.
And I am glad that many businesses are joining civil rights groups in vocally and publicly opposing discrimination against gay and lesbian people, as they already do against other forms of discrimination.
Now, I wish that the Editorial Board of the New York Times will also advocate an end to discrimination and support equal treatment under the law, by ending the paper's frequent vociferous commentary in favor of affirmative action, which, as it is most often practiced today, is very much a form of discrimination and unequal treatment under the law, usually based on race, and/or gender.
1
Why must we twist corporations to have morality. As a society, we ask that corporations are efficient at making goods so that we can all have jobs and a better life. We simply should ask the corporations to live within the Laws and if they do that then we should leave them alone for the bound that they produce. Morality, is best left to the family and the church.
I would be more impressed with these corporations if they stood up as forthrightly for women, minorities, immigrants, workers, students, retirees, endangered species, consumers, scientists, voters, and other targets of oppressive legislation from Republicans. That is, I would be more impressed if it did not appear that their objection to gay-bashing is only that it hurts their bottom line, while all of these other issues are opportunities for many of them to make money.
2
Big business will get quickly in bed with anyone and anywhere that their publicity department deems advantageous. So why are they doing business with violently anti-gay despots in the Middle East? It is good for business and no one in the media will ask them that question. It is very brave of them to destroy a small business for obviously self celebrating reasons. No kickback and the bottom line remains the same or even rises. So very concerned and brave are they.
1
American capitalism is not a compass for morality. It is in fact devoid of morality, with its only interest being to maximize profits.
1. Capital serves democracy when it seeks to make its goods and services available to the largest number of potential buyers, like with the LGBT support here, or in civil rights fights with a longer history.
2. Capital does not serve democracy when it concentrates itself into fewer and fewer hands, and uses that power to manipulate the political process for its own good.
Item #2 is what happens with capital over time, into our own time. Some of the corporations being lauded here are the same ones that write legislative proposals to serve their own purposes, which they then have their on-the-take legislators make into law.
Corporate actions described in this editorial regarding discrimination are self-serving and amoral. The corporate actions of writing and passing business’ own legislation are self-serving and immoral. A corrupt political process represented by the Republican and Democratic Parties is not capable of distinguishing between the two.
1. Capital serves democracy when it seeks to make its goods and services available to the largest number of potential buyers, like with the LGBT support here, or in civil rights fights with a longer history.
2. Capital does not serve democracy when it concentrates itself into fewer and fewer hands, and uses that power to manipulate the political process for its own good.
Item #2 is what happens with capital over time, into our own time. Some of the corporations being lauded here are the same ones that write legislative proposals to serve their own purposes, which they then have their on-the-take legislators make into law.
Corporate actions described in this editorial regarding discrimination are self-serving and amoral. The corporate actions of writing and passing business’ own legislation are self-serving and immoral. A corrupt political process represented by the Republican and Democratic Parties is not capable of distinguishing between the two.
1
"Corporations are wonderful people, my friend."
If we had anything closely representing a representative democracy, we wouldn't need to wait until political sugar daddy companies told our radical right representatives to cut out their state-sponsored religious bigotry laws.
What the latest chapter of Republican misanthropy illustrates is not only the unhealthy influence of business in public policy, but also the disproportionate influence the Republican Party has through electoral injustices such as the gerrymander, the two-party system itself that caters to right-wing extremists, and the unrepresentative Senate.
In the year 2015, the idea that a number of states passed Stand Your Religious Bigotry laws and related laws that commingle church and state shows how shattered our electoral process is.
Perhaps this episode will at least help to remind the American people what a bunch of serial misanthropes the Republican Party attracts and represents for a living.
If we had anything closely representing a representative democracy, we wouldn't need to wait until political sugar daddy companies told our radical right representatives to cut out their state-sponsored religious bigotry laws.
What the latest chapter of Republican misanthropy illustrates is not only the unhealthy influence of business in public policy, but also the disproportionate influence the Republican Party has through electoral injustices such as the gerrymander, the two-party system itself that caters to right-wing extremists, and the unrepresentative Senate.
In the year 2015, the idea that a number of states passed Stand Your Religious Bigotry laws and related laws that commingle church and state shows how shattered our electoral process is.
Perhaps this episode will at least help to remind the American people what a bunch of serial misanthropes the Republican Party attracts and represents for a living.
119
Remind the choir. Those brainwashed by fox and friend to hate the black guy in the White House......it won't.
2
Perhaps this episode will at least help to remind the American people what a bunch of serial misanthropes the Republican Party attracts and represents for a living.
Sadly the Americans who watch fox and listen to Limberg can't be reminded because they never thought that way in the first place.
Sadly the Americans who watch fox and listen to Limberg can't be reminded because they never thought that way in the first place.
1
Let's not mistake what we just witnessed between American business and the state governments of Indiana and Arkansas; it was neither altruism nor charity.
We witnessed two state governments pandering to their extreme elements and being reprimanded by their real employers,for potentially disrupting the business lifecycle in those states for the corporations. That could've meant less profits.
While the turn of events happened to work out for the "underdogs" on this occasion, with the help of corporations, lets not fool ourselves. The action of the corps was done specifically to benefit the corps. Had there otherwise been no
public outcry, the corps would have probably been fine with it as well.
In other words, lets not ready ourselves for a new day in which corporations seek to right social inequalities. They are here to make money, and "create jobs" (for as little money as possible) not to necessarily create an harmonious social system. As usual, only money talks.
We witnessed two state governments pandering to their extreme elements and being reprimanded by their real employers,for potentially disrupting the business lifecycle in those states for the corporations. That could've meant less profits.
While the turn of events happened to work out for the "underdogs" on this occasion, with the help of corporations, lets not fool ourselves. The action of the corps was done specifically to benefit the corps. Had there otherwise been no
public outcry, the corps would have probably been fine with it as well.
In other words, lets not ready ourselves for a new day in which corporations seek to right social inequalities. They are here to make money, and "create jobs" (for as little money as possible) not to necessarily create an harmonious social system. As usual, only money talks.
4
These malicious intent state laws-Indiana and Arkansas- are anti-human beings as persons who are divinely naturally created equal with certain unalienable rights simply because they were born LGBT in the United States of America. That has nothing to do with either religion or business. It has everything to do with justice and civil and human rights.
Confusing and conflating fictional legal entities like corporations with real biological persons exposes law as socioeconomic political educational history that has nothing to do with logic, justice, reason or morality. Relying on the kindness of any inhuman stranger business to have a conscience beyond enhancement of shareholder wealth is to abandon all rational consistent hope for justice. Mixing religious faith theology and secular state government politics is a very bad idea.
Confusing and conflating fictional legal entities like corporations with real biological persons exposes law as socioeconomic political educational history that has nothing to do with logic, justice, reason or morality. Relying on the kindness of any inhuman stranger business to have a conscience beyond enhancement of shareholder wealth is to abandon all rational consistent hope for justice. Mixing religious faith theology and secular state government politics is a very bad idea.
3
Big Busness, particularly high-tech, knows that they depend on the LGBTQ community for their most creative functions. Their employees know this too. Millennial and more recent employees are not just comfortable with LGBTQ colleagues, they love them and care about them. Discrimination hurts straight friends as much as the LGBTQ community. Attitudes have changed radically. Now when people hear about discriminatory practices they are revulsed. Many would never work for any company that practices discrimination, and customers are also loath to patronize such places. In short discrimination is very bad business. Politicians may now have gotten the message. What went down in 2004--playing the gay scare card--no longer works in politics. Just the opposite. Any politician who embraces this antediluvian attitude is going to be in big trouble from all sides--from corporate supporters and from the voting public.
4
The Fortune 500 (with the notable exception of Exxon Corporation) have been at the vanguard of civil rights in America, far ahead of the government.
Smart and innovative companies understand that diversity strengthens every company. Bigotry narrows the universe of talent to the detriment of corporate growth and vibrancy.
I applaud big business that stands up for equity and fairness in the workplace.
When I was a teenager with a part-time job in high school I was fired when the restaurant in which I worked changed hands. The new manager felt that two gay people working in the same restaurant (which had 50 employees) would give people the wrong idea.
I went on to college and grad school and became a Managing Director for a Wall Street firm by the age of 29 with a 7 figure income, but I never forgot the feeling of bias, bigotry and rejection in the workforce unrelated to how hard I worked.
I worked very hard in subsequent positions to make the companies that I worked for inclusive and diverse, with no credence or penalty given to race, gender, religion or sexual orientation.
I found simply looking for the most qualified candidate naturally led to more diversity.
Smart and innovative companies understand that diversity strengthens every company. Bigotry narrows the universe of talent to the detriment of corporate growth and vibrancy.
I applaud big business that stands up for equity and fairness in the workplace.
When I was a teenager with a part-time job in high school I was fired when the restaurant in which I worked changed hands. The new manager felt that two gay people working in the same restaurant (which had 50 employees) would give people the wrong idea.
I went on to college and grad school and became a Managing Director for a Wall Street firm by the age of 29 with a 7 figure income, but I never forgot the feeling of bias, bigotry and rejection in the workforce unrelated to how hard I worked.
I worked very hard in subsequent positions to make the companies that I worked for inclusive and diverse, with no credence or penalty given to race, gender, religion or sexual orientation.
I found simply looking for the most qualified candidate naturally led to more diversity.
14
A majority of conservative voters and liberal voters think that there is too much money in our political process. Many democratic and republican politicians think there is too much money in our political system. I have read of businessmen who feel that they are shaken down for campaign contributions every few months by the politicians who know that politics is really a political arms race for money. But for a few supreme court justices, there aren't that many people who think that money in our system is a good thing. Congress find common ground and change this!
5
Did not mean to ignore the editorial. Yes, by all means, do not fund these bigoted charlatans. They would be less powerful if the roll of money on politics was reduced.
5
From what I can see, the more money that is poured into elections, the fewer people vote.
1
Something closer to home for you to get worked up about and no special law passed to enable it...
http://louderwithcrowder.com/hidden-camera-gay-wedding-cake-at-muslim-ba...
Diversity in Dearborn Michigan
http://louderwithcrowder.com/hidden-camera-gay-wedding-cake-at-muslim-ba...
Diversity in Dearborn Michigan
Even Oligarchs sometimes react
When absurdity becomes a fact,
Anti-gay doesn't pay
In the Big Business way,
And so Big Business support was lacked!
When absurdity becomes a fact,
Anti-gay doesn't pay
In the Big Business way,
And so Big Business support was lacked!
4
Big Business supports what makes it money. It's now okay to be gay, lesbian,bisexual, or transgender. It's okay to want to marry the person you love. Since there's a lot of money to be had from same sex couples businesses don't want to lose it. It's not about morality or doing what's right. If businesses cared enough to do what was right, company like GM would have fixed the problem with the ignition switch before people were killed or convicted of murder for something that was GM's fault.
So, while I'm glad to hear that WalMart, Apple, and others are speaking out, I don't believe for one minute that it's because they CARE. They don't want to get slammed on this. The people doing the objecting are those that are not comfortable with anyone who exist outside their norm. However, there are more and more of us who are outside their norm. We are gay, lesbian, transgender, bisexual, blind, deaf, African Asian, whatever. But we are all Americans and we should be able to walk into any store in any state and be served with politeness and respect unless we do something to incite a riot.
As someone with a handicapped sibling and who is a lesbian I have witnessed and experienced enough gratuitous cruelty. It's inhumane and it's a cheap way to feel like a "big" person. The GOP has shown its willingness to support inhumane treatment of those it feels are outside its narrow standards. Their attitude is un-American. It's also very un-Christian.
So, while I'm glad to hear that WalMart, Apple, and others are speaking out, I don't believe for one minute that it's because they CARE. They don't want to get slammed on this. The people doing the objecting are those that are not comfortable with anyone who exist outside their norm. However, there are more and more of us who are outside their norm. We are gay, lesbian, transgender, bisexual, blind, deaf, African Asian, whatever. But we are all Americans and we should be able to walk into any store in any state and be served with politeness and respect unless we do something to incite a riot.
As someone with a handicapped sibling and who is a lesbian I have witnessed and experienced enough gratuitous cruelty. It's inhumane and it's a cheap way to feel like a "big" person. The GOP has shown its willingness to support inhumane treatment of those it feels are outside its narrow standards. Their attitude is un-American. It's also very un-Christian.
204
Tim Cook did really care-- he is gay himself and old enough to have seen the same senseless cruelty your sister experienced. Cruelty like fear seem to have become the GOP's calling card. But just remember there are more and more people who love all our brothers and sisters -- the haters are fortunately dying off.
7
I wish that you would run for office. But for now please keep speaking up. People like you give me hope.
hen3ry,
One thing the GOP hasn't considered is the flip side; What if they hire a gay baker to supply the cake to their daughter's wedding? What if the photographer is gay? WWJD?
One thing the GOP hasn't considered is the flip side; What if they hire a gay baker to supply the cake to their daughter's wedding? What if the photographer is gay? WWJD?
1
This unholy alliance between corporations, the religious right, and GOP politicians was bound to result in this sort of debacle. When push comes to shove, profits will trump religious intentions and the whole thing reveals the perniciousness of Citizens United. The left should be wary too.
I cannot wait for this awful Supreme Court ruling to be inhibited in some way.
I cannot wait for this awful Supreme Court ruling to be inhibited in some way.
122
The beauty of natural laws lies in the fact that they enforce themselves automatically without any human assistance at all.
Separating policy stances on the myriad issues that national politicians face is impossible for corporations whose sole interest is the bottom line. Most major corporations now regard LGBT rights as crucial to their company's success, because so many of those folks are now seen as talented contributors in their organization. This is all that matters to companies.
45
The way to resolve this issue about providing serves for same sex weddings, marriages, is for the Christian religious leaders of all the US based Christian religions to get together to make a joint statement. Something to the effect that: Although the teachings of our religions do not condone same sex marriage it is our belief that a person or business that provides serves to or for same sex marriages does not imply that you personally condone same sex marriage. Therefore, to deny serves to same sex weddings or marriages, if asked, based on the teachings of your Christian Faith would be an incorrect interpretation of our teachings.
14
Not all of the U.S. based Christian religions believe that same sex marriage is contrary to their beliefs. I have attended numerous same sex marriage ceremonies at my Episcopal church. Gay couples and their children are welcomed as full members of our Christian church and we believe that our faith, bible and God call us to extend this love and hospitality to all people.
6
That's a great idea. It's a shame that people couldn't figure it out on their own but it would be good to see something like that and it would be nice to see this kind of thing come from religious leaders and not politicians.
3
It would be nice is Muslim clerics declared that martyrdom is a hoax too.
The very idea that Large Corporate America is afforded not only an outsized megaphone in our political debate, but one upon which politicians will apparently now pander to with great velocity is ANATHEMA to the most fundamental core value we've supposedly constructed as Americans of a government of the people, for the people, by the people.
Now, don't get me wrong, the legislation upon which Corporate America has decided to weigh in on in this case was a disgusting effort to legitimize discrimination and thus I'm relieved to witness its quick demise, nevertheless, we should all take great pause in embracing this new political dynamic -- let's all imagine a world in which Corporate America decides all our policy for us -- moralistically, legally, financially -- we should shudder to imagine such a world.
So, this editorial, while morally aligned with my personal sentiments regarding the bipolar right wing of politics, gets it all wrong in now demanding that Corporate America actually get even more involved in shaping our politics and legislative agenda. We should instead work tirelessly to marginalize Corporate America's involvement and influence on our government and its policy -- by being more actively involved as citizens and demanding accountability of our politicians to the will of the people, rather than to their corporate funding sources.
Now, don't get me wrong, the legislation upon which Corporate America has decided to weigh in on in this case was a disgusting effort to legitimize discrimination and thus I'm relieved to witness its quick demise, nevertheless, we should all take great pause in embracing this new political dynamic -- let's all imagine a world in which Corporate America decides all our policy for us -- moralistically, legally, financially -- we should shudder to imagine such a world.
So, this editorial, while morally aligned with my personal sentiments regarding the bipolar right wing of politics, gets it all wrong in now demanding that Corporate America actually get even more involved in shaping our politics and legislative agenda. We should instead work tirelessly to marginalize Corporate America's involvement and influence on our government and its policy -- by being more actively involved as citizens and demanding accountability of our politicians to the will of the people, rather than to their corporate funding sources.
155
Even my own words here appear only at the suffrance of a corporation.
2
Outstanding. Perfectly stated.
6
I enthusiastically agree. To your comment:
"let's all imagine a world in which Corporate America decides all our policy for us" ... this is a pretty apt description of the TPP that conservatives want to fast track ...
"let's all imagine a world in which Corporate America decides all our policy for us" ... this is a pretty apt description of the TPP that conservatives want to fast track ...
2
Finally, Corporate American agreeing with Democrats regarding expanding equality.
23
While I disagree with the Supreme Court's decision granting corporations the right to practice a religious agenda, it is necessary for them to demonstrate and promote moral behavior. Perhaps it is difficult to draw a distinction here, but perhaps one difference is that restricting citizens from all having the same rights to be protected from discrimination is not just a religious issue. It is a moral issue that cuts across all humans.
8
I like that corporations spoke up against discriminating against a group of people, and it does dhow the power of these corporations. While I applaud their advocating for equal rights for the LGBT community, I did not hear them on voter the suppression laws or the war on women. I wonder why?
107
You can't fight a war on too many fronts.
1
Maybe because there is no actual voter suppression or "war on women?"
1
That is a very good point!
1
I wonder when the Times became completely detached from reality. One statement in the editorial reflects this best:"If corporations and their executives care about civil rights..." Well, Duh, corporations (generally, though there are a few exceptions) don't care about civil rights in the least. They care about the bottom line. (And, in fact, that's what rational people expect them to care about.)
So trying to enlist them to fight the good fight is simply tilting at windmills. They will change their campaign spending habits when it's no longer in their economic interest to spend that way -- or when the Supreme Court comes to its senses. I'm not holding my breath on the latter.
So trying to enlist them to fight the good fight is simply tilting at windmills. They will change their campaign spending habits when it's no longer in their economic interest to spend that way -- or when the Supreme Court comes to its senses. I'm not holding my breath on the latter.
38
"I wonder when the Times became completely detached from reality."
Sadly I fear the NYT reflects America' reality, we have become a nation where culture and societal values are determined almost solely upon monetized benchmarks, where social stature is so dependent on material sign of wealth, where the notion of representative government has been sold out to the highest bidder. The lurid denomination of the" Citizens United" decision is a call top follow the money - it is no wonder we have the best politicians money can buy.
Sadly I fear the NYT reflects America' reality, we have become a nation where culture and societal values are determined almost solely upon monetized benchmarks, where social stature is so dependent on material sign of wealth, where the notion of representative government has been sold out to the highest bidder. The lurid denomination of the" Citizens United" decision is a call top follow the money - it is no wonder we have the best politicians money can buy.
2
Oh right, corporations should speak if they agree with the NYT; otherwise they should be muzzled.
11
'Muzzled'?
You're kidding, right?
p.
You're kidding, right?
p.
3
Peter:
The McCain-Feingold Act partially struck down by Citizens United made it a felony for corporations to engage in election-related speech.
it made an exception for media corporations like the New York Times Corporation.
The McCain-Feingold Act partially struck down by Citizens United made it a felony for corporations to engage in election-related speech.
it made an exception for media corporations like the New York Times Corporation.
How about not doing business with countries where homosexuality is illegal?
http://76crimes.com/76-countries-where-homosexuality-is-illegal/
or countries that don't recognize same sex marriages?
It appears that the NY Times reserves their crusade exclusively against fellow Americans and Republicans...
http://76crimes.com/76-countries-where-homosexuality-is-illegal/
or countries that don't recognize same sex marriages?
It appears that the NY Times reserves their crusade exclusively against fellow Americans and Republicans...
16
I agree these appalling regimes should have higher priority than they do, but i don't see that as a reason why NYT should not print this news, especially since it is headlining in every other news outlet.
3
Why don't you ask Hobby Lobby the same kind of question? You remember them right? The idiots who claimed that birth control pills and devices cause abortions (they don't) while they buy most of their products from a country that mandates the use of those same pills and devices and in some cases has forced people to have abortions?
10
There is a lovely neighborhood Whole Foods store close by where my wife and I shopped almost exclusively. Since their CEO has bad mouthed the ACA we shop there no longer.
I was a customer of Conoco for 40 years, no more. (koch)
Chick Fil A, Hobby Lobby, Guitar Center and a host of others will get not one cent from us.
Corporations who support both parties I am a little more forgiving of, even if it is a bit cynical to try to have it both ways.
That is how we get their attention, one buy at a time.
We must finally realize that the family values of the republican party have much more in common with the Hatfields and McCoys than with Jesus, Mary and Joseph.