Filip Novotny It's not often that a high-ranking Apple executive speaks publicly to the media. But CEO Tim Cook has now deemed it appropriate to present his company's position on a topic he considers highly important - minority rights in the workplace.
This topic is now more relevant than ever, as American politicians face the possibility of enforcing a law prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender. It's called the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, and Tim Cook thinks it's so important that he wrote about it for the newspaper's opinion page Wall Street Journal.
"At Apple, we are committed to creating a safe and welcoming work environment for all employees, regardless of their race, gender, national origin or sexual orientation," Cook describes his company's position. According to him, Apple is currently going further than required by law: "Our anti-discrimination policy goes beyond the legal protections American workers enjoy under federal law, as we prohibit discrimination against gay, bisexual and transgender employees."
The Employment Non-Discrimination Act has been proposed to lawmakers many times. Since 1994, with one exception, every congress has dealt with it, and the ideological predecessor of this legislation has been on the table of American legislation since 1974. So far, ENDA has never succeeded, but today the situation could change.
The public is becoming more and more inclined to protect the rights of sexual minorities in particular. Barack Obama is the first US president to openly support gay marriage, and fourteen US states have already legislated it. They also have the support of the public, more recent surveys broadly confirm the approval of more than 50% of American citizens.
The position of Tim Cook himself cannot be neglected either - although he himself has never spoken about his sexuality, the media and the public widely speculate that he has a homosexual orientation. If true, Apple's CEO is apparently the world's most powerful gay man. And he can be an example for everyone of a person who was able to work himself up to the very top in difficult times and despite a difficult life situation. And now he himself feels the obligation to participate in socially important discussions. As he himself says in his letter: "The acceptance of human individuality is a matter of basic dignity and human rights."
So I think that Cook is gay, mainly because he is not seen with another partner and also because of his "talk". And you know what, just eat them and spread it on everyone!
What on earth should he "paint" on someone? Maybe he's gay and maybe he's not, so what? That is only his business.
If someone favors someone because of some difference, isn't that also discrimination? I don't like the laws here that infect me at all.
If you forbid someone to be fired from their job or bullied at work, etc., because of their skin color, orientation, etc., then it's being promoted :-O? What century do you live in?
Is someone firing someone because of the color of their skin? Even positive discrimination is discrimination.
You are confusing concepts with impressions... Defending discrimination is not the same as positive discrimination. And you might be surprised, but even nowadays people are bullied at work because of their orientation, skin color, even because of their female gender... I see this quite often at work here, and I do this in the office of a large corporation, behind a factory.
I also work in a large corporation, but I have not noticed any discrimination. We don't need laws to tell us what to do. And what does "discrimination against minorities" even mean? If I ask a gay guy how his date with a friend was, will I get spanked by the authorities for secretly insulting him? Another point is the quota of female workers in high positions. Why should the government dictate who I put in a leadership position? I run my business, not a government office.
You are confusing one with the other. Not a word was said about quotas or who you should choose as a leader as a large businessman.
That is a fact. Somehow I got caught up in a message that Twitter is being criticized for not having a woman in charge. That's why they hire Madeleine Albright :)
Well, for example, our boss has the attitude that on principle he won't let any woman into a better position (because he doesn't like them - and no, he's not gay). A colleague doesn't like another colleague (Roma) and so he constantly talks about how he would shoot "negroes" etc... And it all goes through... I see this as something that is wrong... And the fact that someone defends the human rights of different population groups it seems perfectly fine to me... All laws are there to protect someone from something...
The gay example is absurd... Of course he won't spank you. For what? But if you choked him in the chancel and talked about how "buzzers" are disgusting, etc., then it would be considered. Because if he doesn't somehow interfere in your life, then there is no reason to express himself in such a way. And the world is surprised, if such behavior is not against the law, then the individual has no way to defend himself... Because if it is not against the law, then the boss cannot punish him for it (the one who has this bullshit)...
Yes, it's good that pedophiles don't fall into it. After all, I won't discriminate against them because of their sexual orientation :) No seriously. I'm not against it if it's not abused, on the contrary, see Roma. It's all about people and then there's no need for controversial laws.