Filed under: Apple Corporate
Apple opposes Calif. Prop 8, donates $100k to 'No' campaign
Apple issued a short statement on its Hot News page today saying it is publicly opposing California Proposition 8, and donating $100,000 to the No on 8 campaign.
Proposition 8 seeks to amend California's constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry. A "no" vote on the measure means marriages between same-sex couples would continue to be valid in California.
"Apple was among the first California companies to offer equal rights and benefits to our employees' same-sex partners, and we strongly believe that a person's fundamental rights -- including the right to marry -- should not be affected by their sexual orientation," the statement read.
"Apple views this as a civil rights issue, rather than just a political issue, and is therefore speaking out publicly against Proposition 8."
Update: Comments on this post are now closed. Thanks for your civil and constructive (mostly) responses.
![TUAW [Cafepress]](http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.tuaw.com/media/tuaw-cafepress-promo.png)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 19)
Jeff said 4:42PM on 10-24-2008
It's still a political issue and as such, it's controversial. It's no different from Apple or any other corporation donating money to an amendment about abortion or some other hot button issue.
Personally, I don't like it when corporations get involved in these types of issues because it invariably offends half of their customers.
Reply
Fred said 5:20PM on 10-24-2008
Good for Apple. As far as I'm concerned anyone offended by Apple's stance on this A. must not know very much about Apple's demographics and B. is a closed-minded a-hole.
Companies weigh-in politically all the time BTW.
infinitefruitloop said 5:22PM on 10-24-2008
the fruit is for the fruits...
Jason Martin said 5:29PM on 10-24-2008
Hey Robert Palmer,
I hope you were ready for the tidal wave of emotion-infused comments this post would generate. Not that you shouldn't have posted it, by any means. (It's a weblog about Apple; this news is about Apple; ergo, post away.) I just hope you realized how dirty it could get. =)
Fred said 5:32PM on 10-24-2008
Might as well just get it over with and call someone a Nazi.
Robert Palmer said 5:36PM on 10-24-2008
Thanks @Jason, I made sure to reserve a few hours for moderating comments this afternoon. ;)
sam said 5:51PM on 10-24-2008
@Fred: I'm a little irked by Apple's move here. Not because I give a crap about the issue but because I'm an investor and I know that other people will. Just more fuel for the mac haters who have already proven themselves ignorant by sticking to a huge leaky mess of an operating system. So there.
Gordy said 5:59PM on 10-24-2008
I agree.
Fred said 6:15PM on 10-24-2008
My response got "poofed" into the ether somewhere so I'll try to make it short and sweet. Anytime someone stands up for the basic human rights of another that's ALWAYS a good thing. It doesn't matter if people don't like the decision, it was the right thing to do.
From a fiscal standpoint this is in fact the best way to garner business from the gay and lesbian crowd who has TONS of money to spend. I'm not saying that's the reason for it, but it certainly is a happy side-effect. Cletis and Joe Bob can keep their PCs as far as I'm concerned.
punkassjim said 6:39PM on 10-24-2008
Jeff, it's a Civil Rights issue, and, as you say, roughly 50% of Apple fans will applaud the company for speaking up for their dedicated gay employees.
If they were taking a stand against racism, perhaps in this day and age, they'd offend less than half of their customers...but how is it different? Would you be just fine with Apple throwing their support behind an anti-racism bill? If so, how is it not hypocritical to oppose Apple's maneuver today?
Greg said 6:53PM on 10-24-2008
Most of Apple's customers are liberal anyway.
Besides, who cares about those homo haters? (jk... but no, seriously)
http://gregstechblog.blogspot.com
Al Moser said 7:02PM on 10-24-2008
I agree. Apple should stay out of politics. I know good people on both sides of the issue.
Fozzy Bear said 7:32PM on 10-24-2008
@Fred... you said: "Anytime someone stands up for the basic human rights of another that's ALWAYS a good thing. It doesn't matter if people don't like the decision, it was the right thing to do."
So I also assume that since you're all for gay marriage as a basic human right... then you're more so vehemently opposed to abortion because it destroys a human life, which is the ultimate denial of human rights?
If so, I have no issues with your statement. Otherwise, you're against life but for liberty... but you can't defend a right to liberty without first protecting life... so that would put you in a bit of a moral paradox.
no?
KarlW said 7:33PM on 10-24-2008
Google did this a while ago from the Google Blog.
Tim said 7:54PM on 10-24-2008
@FozzyBear: What you're ignoring is that not all of us acknowledge these fetuses as human life. There is no contradiction in believing that performing these medical operations for the benefit of the mother is right and believing in gay rights. I myself am an atheist, so Bible-based arguments are of no consequence to me.
Fred said 7:58PM on 10-24-2008
Fozzy: I don't think it's fair to tie the 2 issues together in that way. I assume that you are anti-gay marriage based on your religious leaning and I ask you when did Jesus suspend the greatest commandment?
Fozzy Bear said 8:42PM on 10-24-2008
@Tim...
It's not biblically based... it's Declaration of Independence based (which, no doubt, had 5 references to God)... but I digress.
Yes, I understand you don't regard a fetus as human life... despite the very medical definition listing it an unborn human baby typically from eight weeks on from conception.
Even embryos are medically defined the same way except that it is the first eight weeks of human gestation... You're argument is a blatant disregard for science and common sense.
Further, there is no medical condition that *requires* killing an unborn human baby to save a mothers life when a live-birth is just as arduous as task on both mother and unborn human life. The only condition that requires it is reckless disregard for basic human rights.
Which brings me back to the Declaration of Independence. There is a reason the enumerated 'inalienable' rights are listed in the series of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." You cannot secure liberty without first securing life and you cannot secure happiness without securing liberty. The imperative on responsible society is to defend these rights even to the most defenseless and innocent of life.
However, you hit the nail on the head... you are an atheist so you cannot possibly fathom inalienable rights granted by a Creator, that is why the Declaration means little to your concept of rights or your understanding of how to secure them.
@Fred...
It is entirely fair to tie the two together based upon even a cursory understanding of how rights are ascribed to people, who their guarantor is, and governments role in oppressing or respecting those rights.
For the record, I am opposed to gay marriage. Marriage means a union between man and woman. If it's happy, then I guess you have gay marriage... otherwise, by the very definition you cannot have marriage between to people of the same gender.
I will say, I don't think our Constitution, nor federal, state, or local laws have the authority to restrict the liberty of the people in this matter if they choose to form a civil union -- I just think it's quite silly to redefine marriage to fit an situation that is not, by definition, marriage. Marriage is a union between man and woman. A union can be between any two parties who so desire to become such -- such as gay couples. I also would never deny them the legal privileges such as taxation, hospital visitation, or to an estate.
I apply the principles universally in a legal sense despite I personally may hold a different value on the matter.
Oh, and Jesus never suspended the greatest commandment... which was to love the Lord, your God, with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength. What was the one you meant? It seemed to me that, logically speaking, you were referring to "greater love has no one than this: to lay down one's life for one's friends."
Either way, I couldn't agree more.
sk8rpro said 10:56PM on 10-24-2008
"Good for Apple. As far as I'm concerned anyone offended by Apple's stance on this A. must not know very much about Apple's demographics and B. is a closed-minded a-hole." -Fred
@Fred, I respect your position (and the other position), and I'm sure you probably have good reasons for Apple's position taken, but is it possible if you could tone down on the name-calling?
Name calling is childish, and doesn't really help the situation or the argument.
That's my two cents for anyone who wants to participate in the argument over the issue with Apple's funding on Prop 8, or just Prop 8 itself.
Ken Outten said 1:08AM on 10-25-2008
This is what I replied to their web site feedback after reading:
Why did you feel you needed to, as a business, publicly announce a stance on something like that? You are a company for profit. Not an engine to promote a social agenda. You didn't ask me what I thought on gay marriage, abortion, prayer in school, or whether I was a Republican or Democrat when I purchased your product. Why do you feel we need to know the same from you? We all have opinions on these issues. Some of which are strongly, and sincerely held, and can sway the opinion one has of someone, especially if it's a polarizing different opinion. For the sake of conscious I purpose not to know these types of things about certain businesses, media personalities, and the like so I can simply enjoy them for what they are. I could care less what they think on the issues and most times would rather not know. But when you feel consumers, in your case, really MUST know your stance on these issues, then you open yourself up to be judged based on these and force some to re-think supporting YOU by purchasing your products. You are not a catalyst for promoting ANYTHING except your product. Run your business how every you deem fit, but leave the average consumer out of your collective soul. Thanks
John Russell said 3:15AM on 10-25-2008
@ Sam, so is the sole purpose of a company to turn a profit, even at the expense of civil rights? I think not. Congrats, Apple.
Unfortunately, this might mean that the gay couples now only need to buy one Mac between them, therefore halving Apple's profit in that demographic.