3 ms·

Texas is part of the United States. Of which, I am a citizen. I am free to question their decisions when they impact the whole of the country. The same people t

by ohashi 5y ago

Texas is part of the United States. Of which, I am a citizen. I am free to question their decisions when they impact the whole of the country. The same people trying to push this law tried to steal the presidency and give it to someone who didn't win. And somehow you think I shouldn't have a right to question their decisions when they get pushed up to the Supreme Court and potentially be applied across the entire country? No. Sorry. No. If we give companies the power the lobby and push agenda, then yes, I think Apple should be allowed to push social agendas and punish Texas for enacting draconian laws that are designed to hurt women and set the country back decades. Apples actions here and what they do in China can both exist and don't make one action OK because the other is NOT OK. Or are you going to say only the perfect moral entity can have an opinion on any topic? Because there will always be some moral critique of anyone who says anything. If we are going to let people subject their ridiculous religious beliefs despite the supposed separation of church and state, what's the difference with letting companies? It's just another organized group with lots of money. Why let one get away with it and restrict the other? Personally, I'd like to see religious groups lose any tax benefit if they participate in politics. I'd also like to see Citizens United overturned and get corporate money out of politics. But given the status quo, if corporations want to fight the religious right pushing their anti-women agenda? It's better than saying 'companies shouldn't be involved in politics.' By your own argument, companies have the right to not employ people in a State that is pushing an agenda against a protected class of people. The current set of laws says this is OK, ergo, Apple has the right to do it. This is the same logic that the people of Texas have the right to enact a draconian anti abortion bill. The rest of the country, people and companies, have the right to say fuck off and try to change the law.

lettergram 5y ago
> The same people trying to push this law tried to steal the presidency and give it to someone who didn't win. Something like 40-50% of the country disagrees. This is kinda my point, you’re coming across like you believe half of the citizens beneath you or just dead wrong. In fact, the entire election incident was requesting a forensic audit and canvass because the numbers didn’t make sense to them — citizens have a right to that, no? Regardless it’s alright there’s disagreement, just like you they’re questioning things we all can. I think it’s entirely fine to try to convince people. So, again to be clear — good to question, discuss, reason, I agree with that. Where the disagreement occurs is trying to get a tech company to utilize leverage to hurt the people of Texas. I don’t think we should hurt Texans who have a belief that those with a heart beat should be civilly protected. I think generally we should separate businesses from donating to or actively supporting politicians. More importantly, we shouldn’t be trying to harm those of a different ideology (harm is different than supporting opposition). That has been a move recently and is leading towards authoritarianism and is dangerous. Imagine if the oil companies decided to not operate in California or sell to Californians because they didn’t agree with “murdering babies”. It’s a contrived example, but I’m hoping you can see the two way street. I’m merely pointing out the can of worms that’s being opened here.
- ohashi 5y ago
  For someone who preaches about we shouldn't be trying to harm those of a different ideology, you're trying to justify the oppression of women that's coming from a mostly religious perspective. Exactly the thing you're saying you're against. The can of worms has been open for generations and they are trying to hurt large swathes of people they don't like for ideological reasons.

by ohashi 5y ago

lettergram 5y ago

> The same people trying to push this law tried to steal the presidency and give it to someone who didn't win. Something like 40-50% of the country disagrees. This is kinda my point, you’re coming across like you believe half of the citizens beneath you or just dead wrong. In fact, the entire election incident was requesting a forensic audit and canvass because the numbers didn’t make sense to them — citizens have a right to that, no? Regardless it’s alright there’s disagreement, just like you they’re questioning things we all can. I think it’s entirely fine to try to convince people. So, again to be clear — good to question, discuss, reason, I agree with that. Where the disagreement occurs is trying to get a tech company to utilize leverage to hurt the people of Texas. I don’t think we should hurt Texans who have a belief that those with a heart beat should be civilly protected. I think generally we should separate businesses from donating to or actively supporting politicians. More importantly, we shouldn’t be trying to harm those of a different ideology (harm is different than supporting opposition). That has been a move recently and is leading towards authoritarianism and is dangerous. Imagine if the oil companies decided to not operate in California or sell to Californians because they didn’t agree with “murdering babies”. It’s a contrived example, but I’m hoping you can see the two way street. I’m merely pointing out the can of worms that’s being opened here.

ohashi 5y ago
For someone who preaches about we shouldn't be trying to harm those of a different ideology, you're trying to justify the oppression of women that's coming from a mostly religious perspective. Exactly the thing you're saying you're against. The can of worms has been open for generations and they are trying to hurt large swathes of people they don't like for ideological reasons.