Skip to main content

Tim Cook calls Arkansas & Indiana laws “dangerous,” says they echo days of racial segregation

tim-cook

Tim Cook has written an op-ed in the Washington Post describing legislation permitting businesses to bypass anti-discrimination laws on religious grounds as “very dangerous,” and in fundamental opposition to the founding principles of the United States. In it, he referenced the ugly days of racial segregation, which finally ended only in the 1960s.

Men and women have fought and died fighting to protect our country’s founding principles of freedom and equality. We owe it to them, to each other and to our future to continue to fight with our words and our actions to make sure we protect those ideals. The days of segregation and discrimination marked by “Whites Only” signs on shop doors, water fountains and restrooms must remain deep in our past. We must never return to any semblance of that time. America must be a land of opportunity for everyone.

Apple has previously spoken out against religious discrimination in Arizona, and Cook tweeted on Friday to express Apple’s “deep disappointment” at a new law in Indiana … 

Cook wrote that in speaking out against a “wave of legislation” permitting discrimination, he was in no way opposing religious belief.

I have great reverence for religious freedom. As a child, I was baptized in a Baptist church, and faith has always been an important part of my life. I was never taught, nor do I believe, that religion should be used as an excuse to discriminate.

He argued that the controversy isn’t a religious issue, but a simple matter of “how we treat each other as human beings.”

Cook said that discrimination was not only wrong, but bad for business, hurting both jobs and the economy in states where discrimination is permitted. He reiterated Apple’s own commitment to treat everyone equally.

At Apple, we are in business to empower and enrich our customers’ lives. We strive to do business in a way that is just and fair […]

Apple is open […] to everyone, regardless of where they come from, what they look like, how they worship or who they love. Regardless of what the law might allow in Indiana or Arkansas, we will never tolerate discrimination.

Cook said recently that his own decision to become the first openly gay CEO of a Fortune 500 company last year had not been an easy one, but he did it because “it would likely help other people.”

Apple has long championed diversity, publishing its first annual diversity report last year and holding a number of employee events designed to promote inclusion. Apple earlier this month joined Google, Microsoft and 370 other companies in urging the US Supreme Court to legalize same-sex marriage across the country.

FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.

You’re reading 9to5Mac — experts who break news about Apple and its surrounding ecosystem, day after day. Be sure to check out our homepage for all the latest news, and follow 9to5Mac on Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn to stay in the loop. Don’t know where to start? Check out our exclusive stories, reviews, how-tos, and subscribe to our YouTube channel

Comments

  1. robertsm76 - 9 years ago

    Is Tim Cook going to make any comments about how women, gays and girls are treated in the Middle East where Apple has stores and uses resellers?

    Will any CEO? Nope. Imagine that.

    • Inaba-kun (@Inaba_kun) - 9 years ago

      I was just going to say the same thing. While it’s great to see Tim standing up for equality in America, he might also want to re-evaluate the appalling places Apple quite happily does business in. Places where being gay doesn’t just get you barred from shops, it will cost you your life.

      • Jack C. Hall Jr. - 9 years ago

        Fix America First before we start telling people in other countries what to do.

  2. Don Seidel - 9 years ago

    Tim, stick to computers when you speak publicly. Apple certainly has enough pressing issues to keep you busy there.

    • Joe - 9 years ago

      One of my favorite thing about Steve was that he rarely said anything about politics.

      I love Tim Cook to death, but stick to making beautiful devices. He’s more than OK to make statements, but I’d rather him speak out about working conditions in factories where they’ve done a lot of great work.

      • Oz Suguitan - 9 years ago

        I agree. Let’s save the energy for making great products. I don’t see how this helps.

      • Mosha - 9 years ago

        Steve was equally criticize for not discussing these issue.

      • Andrew Messenger - 9 years ago

        I don’t know. If I was blessed with the platform on which to speak up about an issue I felt passionately about, I wouldn’t be able to sleep at night knowing I wasn’t using my position to try and change it. And many people keep bringing up the working conditions–are you all just purposefully ignoring the investigations and progress that’s been made by Apple on that issue?

      • ejcedric - 9 years ago

        Okay “Joe”, what do you do for a living, and why are you then exempt from the restrictions you are advocating for Mr. Cook? Why should you be allowed a voice to promote your views when you are saying Tim Cook, CEO of Apple, does not have the right to go out and speak up? So what jobs are the ones that you feel are good enough to voice public opinion? Garbage collectors? Assembly plant workers? Teachers? How about sex workers? Bakers? Lawyers?

        Your views are incredibly totalitarian and quite ominous. But as long as you get your shiny new electronics and toys, well, all is right in the USA.

      • Joe - 9 years ago

        Holy cow dude….I believe one of my statements said, “He is more than capable to make statements.”

        My opinion simply was that I liked that Steve just focused on his product.

        Could you point out what “restrictions I am advocating”?

        Also, could you point out where I said that Tim Cook doesn’t have a right to speak?

      • Spencer Balensiefer - 9 years ago

        ejcedric, do you like ChickFila or Starbucks putting their agenda on you? I don’t. The point is as simple as that.

    • drhalftone - 9 years ago

      Okay so your message to Tim is stop acting gay and pretend what’s happening in Indiana is not affecting you personally because as a CEO of a Fortune 500 company, you’ve lost all rights to being a human being.

    • Jack C. Hall Jr. - 9 years ago

      Tim don’t you dare just stick to computers…you were given this position for more than just making money, use your voice to change America and show people that it is not OK to de-humanize groups of Americans or use their so-called religion to discriminate. Thanks You Mr. Cook for having the balls to stand up to these bigots.

      • Spencer Balensiefer - 9 years ago

        Steve wouldn’t have done that. A company is not a place to politicize. Do you like what Chick FilA is doing?

  3. Aaron Lehnen (@ralehnen) - 9 years ago

    What about the other 20 states that have the same laws already in place. It has worked without issues for them, why is he getting all pissy about it now. IMO, religious freedom is one aspect of what this country was base on, if someones feelings get hurt, build a bridge and get over it.

    • Joe - 9 years ago

      I completely agree. The law itself (passed by Clinton almost unanimously) does NOT allow for legal discrimination. Other states have the law and don’t allow discrimination.

      Sadly, people don’t care about “religious freedom” anymore. When I worked at Apple, man, if you mentioned or even uttered God or Jesus you were in major trouble. It kind of stinks. But when it was National Coming Out Day…man, they had a party. So strange.

      • Andrew Messenger - 9 years ago

        I think you’re misunderstanding what religious freedom is. Has anyone knocked on your door and made you profess a belief other than your own under duress? Probably not.

        Also, can you elaborate in what way you were ‘in major trouble’ for mentioning God or Jesus at Apple? If your management penalized you for your religious beliefs, I would hope you’d speak with HR on this.

      • Andrew Messenger - 9 years ago

        André he said he got in MAJOR TROUBLE. This implies that there was some type of penalization by his management for simply mentioning his religion. That isn’t legal. Probably a total bullshit story, but illegal nonetheless.

      • Spencer Balensiefer - 9 years ago

        Joe if that happened at Apple, you have grounds to sue. The company has to have had constructive notice that their employee (manager) was behaving in that manner, however.

      • Joe - 9 years ago

        I don’t care. As a Christian you get that virtually everywhere. You get used to it. I can’t count how many times I get, “Stop shoving your religion down my throat.” And I’m the one that doesn’t talk about God that much at work at all, lol.

        It’s no big deal. I’m used to it. I still have it good. I’m not truly being persecuted. I just smile and say, “No problem.” My job is to show love to EVERYONE. Not just people that I think deserve it. EVERYONE.

        Plus, I don’t work there anymore. I got a great job now. I had a blast there and it was really just one of the managers. It’s crazy, he went to open the Beijing store and came back a totally different guy. He was fine after that. Don’t know what happened out there, but it changed him for the better!

      • Spencer Balensiefer - 9 years ago

        Andre, guess what? I am an American. That’s what makes this country great. You don’t remove someone’s rights w/o consequence.

      • Spencer Balensiefer - 9 years ago

        @Andre, if you read Joe’s post, he says it came from one manager, and that it was continuous. Freedom of both religion and free speech are Constitutionally-guaranteed rights. Should he not fight for that?

    • Whenireply Youcry - 9 years ago

      Except that the laws are not the same.

  4. Joseph Frye - 9 years ago

    Liberals like Tim just must not be a fan of the First Amendment which already protects free speech and freedom of religion.

    • Gazoo Bee - 9 years ago

      Except you don’t seem to understand what “religious freedom” actually is.

      “Religious freedom” only refers to the freedom to believe what you want to believe. It’s a freedom of conscience. It doesn’t mean what many people seem to think it means, which is the freedom to *act* on the tenets of their religion, whatever they may be. Religious freedom is the freedom to think something. It’s freedom “inside your head” and no more.

      Law is 100% secular, and religion has (or should have) absolutely nothing to do with it. Religious freedom does not in any way allow religion to triumph over secular law.

      • Yup +1

      • darrenoia - 9 years ago

        Right, religious freedom is only the freedom to believe what you want to believe. That’s why the Soviet Union, for instance, had great religious freedom. So does ISIS for that matter. You can believe whatever you want in your heart of hearts. You’re just forced to comply with their vision of what people should do. Yeah, that’s why people came from a Europe in religious turmoil to found America, because they couldn’t believe things quietly and privately.

        It’s amazing how many soi-disant experts on religious freedom have no idea what they’re talking about.

      • Spencer Balensiefer - 9 years ago

        This is where you are wrong. It protects the freedom of PRACTICING religion.

    • drhalftone - 9 years ago

      As a legally recognized S corporation as defined by Subchapter S of Chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code (sections 1361 through 1379), is my right to refuse service to a customer based on their religious beliefs a freedom of speech or religion?

  5. Joe Cranford (@jodeo) - 9 years ago

    Love Apple, admire Cook. But he is totally in outer space on this one. He hasn’t read the bill or similar bills that have been law for nearly 20 years. Here’s some much needed perspective on this, since the press and the politicos have blow this way out of proportion: http://thefederalist.com/2015/03/30/your-questions-on-indianas-religious-freedom-bill-answered/

    • Whenireply Youcry - 9 years ago

      Wow, linking to a site that denies man-made global warming. Pathetic.

      • drhalftone - 9 years ago

        It’s worse than that. What’s completely ignored in this article as well as by Joe Cranford is that the Indiana law protects for-profit businesses like S-corps, which are not US Citizens but legal entities that have separate rules governing liability and taxes. To suggest that the constitution of the United States applies to these entities is patently absurd.

      • Spencer Balensiefer - 9 years ago

        Yourcry, if man-made global warming was a fact, then why is it that they now call it “Climate Change”? Because 2013 was a record cold year, where both poles grew, that no one could explain away. Go figure: The report that ID’d climate change ended it in 2012’s numbers, even though they had 2013 data.

      • drhalftone - 9 years ago

        Dear Spencer;

        That’s a lie. 2013 had more record cold days versus record hot days; however, 2013 was still one of the 10 warmest years on record overall. If you don’t believe me, do a search for “2013 record warm year,” and you’ll see an article from Nasa.gov that reads, “NASA scientists say 2013 tied with 2009 and 2006 for the seventh warmest year since 1880, continuing a long-term trend of rising global temperatures.”

      • Spencer Balensiefer - 9 years ago

        http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/09/12/remember-all-those-breathy-predictions-about-an-ice-free-arctic-by-2015-nevermind/

        Glad to see you agree with me!
        “We know this because if the alarmists ever had made such doom-and-gloom predictions, it would prove to be yet another epic fail in the annals of silly and disproven global warming predictions.”

      • drhalftone - 9 years ago

        I guess these photographs from the extreme ice survey are just CGI at its best: http://extremeicesurvey.org

      • Kurt Jackson - 9 years ago

        Thankfully there is the first amendment to protect your religious belief in man-made global warming.

      • Spencer Balensiefer - 9 years ago

        Keep in mid: There has been no less than seven ice ages in Earth’s history that we know of. And there will be many more. Regardless of what man does to it. This is the natural cycle.

      • drhalftone - 9 years ago

        Actually Spencer, this might be the only intelligent thing that you’ve posted. The earth undergoes a continuous cycle that repeats reliably every 100,000 years or so, and yes, these cycles lead to ice ages. And as a matter of fact, the earth should be right at the edge of a transition from a warming trend to a cooling trend; however, here is the problem. We should be starting a downward trend toward cooling weather, but the last 100 years have shown a continual warming trend. Scientists, in an effort to explain this abnormal behavior, have concluded that what is different about the past 100 years compared to the previous 100 years ago is the increase in CO2 emissions derived from the industrial revolution. Hence, you have unwittingly brought us back to the primary argument of environmentalists that human beings are causing global warming. Here is an excellent article on the subject:

        http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GISSTemperature/giss_temperature2.php

      • Spencer Balensiefer - 9 years ago

        Thanks, Halftone, for the backhanded comment. And thanks for agreeing with me. Wait until the pole shift. Then none of this drama will matter. Also, methane: globally mostly a by-product of RUMINANTS, and at 30 times the greenhouse gas effect of CO2, can’t ever be stopped.

      • drhalftone - 9 years ago

        Its funny that you should bring that up. I read an excellent article on that exact topic:

        http://animals.howstuffworks.com/mammals/methane-cow.htm

        that cites several studies looking at various ways to reduce greenhouse gasses produced by livestock.

        One method under investigation involves genetically engineering the animals to have more efficient digestive tracks. Now they aren’t doing this out of the kindness of their hearts but because better digestive systems means that the cows will turn more of their food into meat/milk and less into gasses, thereby, reducing the costs of feed. There are also numerous articles that describe methods of using animal by products as alternative energy sources. These studies point not only to the environment benefits of better land/sea/air management but also the financial benefits of doing so.

      • Spencer Balensiefer - 9 years ago

        The thing about global warming is that it’s truly NOT happening. That is why the left changed their tune and called it “Climate change”. Temperatures went down for forty years from 1940-1980. Coincidence?

  6. GQ Cruise - 9 years ago

    I truly feel there should be no discrimination in any manner for any one person I support that. I am not a gay person but I know what it feels like to be discriminated against. Indiana has a group of gays that don’t act accordingly and has gotten away with unlawful practice here in the South Bend area with a group of Christians who do feel that they are above reproach and the law. You should check it out it will leave you with a different frame of mind. Unreal truly.

  7. Jim Fedele - 9 years ago

    I respect Mr. Cook’s views but I think he is confusing two different concepts which have been confused by the media and most folks since the 60’s. As Thomas Jefferson so well put in the Declaration of Independence and Madison in the Bill of Rights, Govt cannot discriminate nor pass laws forcing people to discriminate. So Mr. Cook is right on the Texas law. Where he goes off the rail is in terms of free association. Simply put people are allowed to disciminate in a free society. And he obviously supports this as he is not asking for buyers to be forced not to discriminate but only sellers. Should a gay couple be forced to buy a cake at a shop run by say people who do not believe in homosexuality? You can’t just say sellers can’t discriminate but buyers can…of course try and legislate buyers not discriminating..and see the police state you get. If you don’t like the Indiana law, boycott by all means…

  8. Jim Phong - 9 years ago

    Tim Cook proves once again to be unsuited to be CEO of Apple.
    This nonsense statement of his with the nonsense gay pride stuff is just so lame.

    • drhalftone - 9 years ago

      Apple stock is at $126 per share after a 7 for 1 stock split. So reversing the stock split, you have a stock price of $882. Compare this to a stock price of $700 per share just after the introduction of the iPhone 5. I think the performance of the stock speaks for itself. As a stock holder, I’m very happy with Tim Cook’s performance as CEO. Perhaps you like Samsung better?

      • drhalftone - 9 years ago

        Steve Jobs was adamantly opposed to a large screen iPhone and was a chief reason why we had to wait until the iPhone 6 to get it. Steve never had any interest in music streaming or self driving cars. Both of those potential markets are driving Apple’s stock. Steve did orchestrate a conspiracy among tech companies not to hire other’s employees. He is also the chief reason Apple lost their case against the justice department for eBook sales, two issues that have adversely affected the stock price. In fact, the one thing that is driving the stock price has always been the high profit margins on Apple devices. You can thank Tim Cook for those margins.

      • drhalftone - 9 years ago

        The stock price is a reflection of the fact that all is well at Apple under Tim Cook’s leadership. Find a investment advisor who says otherwise. I’d like to hear what they have to say.

      • Spencer Balensiefer - 9 years ago

        The only reason Steve was opposed was because he was building the iPhone.The only reason the iPod made it was Steve’s adeptness at iTunes software (Remember–he sold NEXT’s OS to APpple?), and UI.

      • Spencer Balensiefer - 9 years ago

        The Watch, Steve worked on a bit. And the Mac Pro. And the same with the (still to come) Apple TV. Apple is making a car??

      • drhalftone - 9 years ago

        Look, I liked Steve too and really admire his design philosophy, but Steve wasn’t a nice person. He screwed everybody and anybody he saw as a competitor. That being said, he really likes Tim Cook and is very much responsible for Tim being his successor. If you really like Steve, I would think that you had trust in his judgement. And let’s be way clear, it’s been over three years since Steve passed away. At some point, you have to start giving Tim Cook credit for the direction Apple is headed. And no institutional investor would purchase Apple stock unless they thought Tim was doing a good job at the helm, and the stock is near all-time highs.

      • drhalftone - 9 years ago

        It’s clear you’re a totally unreasonable individual who doesn’t actually read 9to5mac or any credible news website. If you had, you would have run into the articles in Forbes and Time that describe cultural changes inside of Apple being made by Tim Cook. You also should have read about the numerous acquisitions that Apple has made under Tim’s leadership. You would have read about the taptronic engine inside the iWatch and how Apple has incorporated it into the new Mac Air, and will eventually port it to all Apple laptops. You would have read about Beats Music and its streaming music service and the $3B Apple spent on it. You would have read about the Prime Sense acquisition. You also would have read about the rumored Apple car. All of these things are being lead by Tim Cook. And of course, you would have read about how the Apple stock price was $500 per share when Steve passed away, and how it has grown to record highs. Now you might say these things are because of Steve, but then I would point out that investor don’t invest on previous or even current performance, they invest on future performance. But you would ignore that advice any way. So good luck to you, and I hope your retirement account is in a managed plan. Heaven help you if you are investing on your own.

        Next thing you know, you’re going to claim that Apple invented multi-touch.

      • drhalftone - 9 years ago

        I apologize for the name calling; however, you wrote in your comment, “I’m not even sure he knows how to spell Johnny’s last name ‘Ive’.” You might not have called Tim Cook an idiot, but you clearly implied it. Regardless, I said you are being unreasonable to even suggest Tim Cook is an idiot given that all evidence says Tim Cook’s is doing a fantastic job as CEO of Apple. For instance, Fortune magazine just called Tim the “World’s Greatest Leader.” Can you reasonably argue that the only reason the stock price is so high is thanks to Steve?

  9. snkrsfx - 9 years ago

    I think the government should force people to buy baked goods

  10. iphonenick (@iphonenick) - 9 years ago

    Americans should be grateful to have a CEO like Tim Cook standing up to those that wish to discriminate. He could have chosen to be a force for negative disruption (aka Trump) but he’s chosen to lead a company that audits its suppliers and speaks out for fairness.

  11. Tom Who (@TommieWho) - 9 years ago

    Sorry, but, if you don’t think these “religious freedom” laws are being put in place to legalize discrimination against gay people, you have your head in the sand. The lobbyists behind this law in Indiana are all virulently anti-gay, and have all made public statements backing it up.

    Religious freedom is already enshrined in the Constitution. These laws are a direct response by the religious right to the marriage equality rulings that have spread across the USA. They don’t want gay people to have the same freedoms they enjoy. It’s not unlike what happened over 50 years ago when segregation was outlawed across the USA, but may states in the south did everything they could to maintain their discriminatory practices against black people. They’re up to the same tricks, this time it’s gay people.

    It’s repulsive no matter how you look at it, and those trying to spin this as simply “religious freedom” are liars and bigots. I’d like to see how you’d react if laws were made making it legal to deny you housing, education, a job, medical services, etc.

    Kudos to Tim Cook for standing up to these homophobic bullies.

    • Spencer Balensiefer - 9 years ago

      Bullshit, Tom. If I work in a Cake Store, am Muslim, and have a gay couple come in and want me to bake them a cake, and it’s against my principle: who is really the person being offended here?

  12. Spencer Balensiefer - 9 years ago

    Why can’t apple just do it’s job without getting political? I don’t subscribe to a “Gay rights” company: I subscribe to Apple products. That’s it. If you read the actual law: everybody is protected!

  13. Roman Hawke - 9 years ago

    BS Tim Cook. LGBT activists will not stop at marriage.

    The current uproar in Indiana is proof.

    Last week Indiana Governor Mike Pence signed their state ‘Religious Freedom Restoration Act’ into law. The law is nearly identical to the federal law introduced by Senator Charles Schumer, passed 97-3 by the Senate, and signed by President Clinton in 1993.

    The law protects the freedom of all people of faith to live, breathe, and practice their faith as they see fit. No person of faith can be discriminated against unless the government can show that it has a compelling reason to do so. I should have the right and freedom as a business owner to refuse to do business with any one. Including homosexuals, as they have the right to refuse to hire me based on their beliefs.

    The LGBT backlash is now in full throttle. Corporations like Apple, Yelp, Salesforce, PayPal and others are threatening to stop doing business in the state unless they repeal the law. Now here is where I call BS again on Tim Cook. Until he pulls his apple products out of the states that he is rallying against, he is simp,y blowing smoke and clouding the real issues.

    Openly gay Apple CEO Tim Cook essentially said: unless Indiana law allows discrimination against people of faith, he and his Silicon Valley bullies will destroy them.

    Some facts you need to know about the fight in Indiana:

    Indiana’s new law is nothing new. The federal government and 19 other states have similar laws.

    The law does not allow anyone to discriminate against gay people for any reason. If a gay person were to order a pastrami sandwich, a deli owner could NOT deny him service under this law.

    People of faith that wish to abstain from morally cooperating in gay weddings can do so, and gay people are free to take their business to the thousands of other photographers, florists and banquet halls. It’s called freedom. It’s what we do in America.

    Open your eyes and connect the dots. Gay marriage is just the start. What irks LGBT activists so much about this new Indiana law is that it strips them of the right to IMPOSE their agenda on you! That’s right. That’s the real issue. LGBT activists want rights but want others to sacrifice theirs in that persuit.

    Marriage is not the end game for the sexual liberation left. Their radical goal involves dismantling the nuclear family and annihilating the Judeo-Christian understanding of human sexuality, and even religious freedom itself.

    Religious freedom for all.

  14. thejuanald - 9 years ago

    I can’t wait for these stupid laws to backfire on the social conservative Christians. When a Muslim store owner refuses to serve a white Christian, it will become a huge issue for right wing pundits.

    • Spencer Balensiefer - 9 years ago

      The Muslim can only refuse on grounds that it is against his specific faith to serve the Christians. Which, since we know Muslim law, he cannot. He cannot turn away a whole protected demographic without consequence.

      • thejuanald - 9 years ago

        The bible also says to love and serve all, there, now we know it isn’t against a Christian’s specific faith to serve homosexuals.

      • Spencer Balensiefer - 9 years ago

        I agree. I had a gay housemate I picked myself. I don’t want any person to abuse the rights to peaceful establishment of the other.

  15. Why would they make this law. I think It is their life, if they aren’t hurting others, let them be.

Author

Avatar for Ben Lovejoy Ben Lovejoy

Ben Lovejoy is a British technology writer and EU Editor for 9to5Mac. He’s known for his op-eds and diary pieces, exploring his experience of Apple products over time, for a more rounded review. He also writes fiction, with two technothriller novels, a couple of SF shorts and a rom-com!


Ben Lovejoy's favorite gear