[pdrayton]

I certainly wouldn't be upset if a company publicly stated it's opposition to a ballot measure that would take away the civil rights of a particular race.
So, I'm very pleased to see Apple step up and do the right thing by opposing California's Proposition 8.
And here in Massachusetts, after 4 1/2 years of equal marriage, no one has been found yet whose marriage has been harmed by same sex couples who have married.

[rtye]

Apple has always had the courage to Think Different. This is why Apple leads the way in innovation and creativity. Apple obviously loves America and all its citizens, and is a true patriot company for standing up for all Americans. Apple is truly the kind of company that makes America a great nation. Thank you, Apple, for supporting human rights and taking whatever temporary risks there may be for doing the right thing.

[randombob]

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
How can you try to write legislation that would deny equal protection to a class of otherwise law-abiding citizens? If you really think you're FOR this, just fast-forward to the time when someone tries to write legislation discriminating against the class of citizenry that includes YOU. Now, you won't like being denied "equal protection," but if you're OK with discriminating against people, then you HAVE to be OK with being discriminated AGAINST.
That's sort of the definition of equality, after all.
And to nip the argument in the bud, before anyone tries to say "yeah but civil unions give the same rights," I direct you to research
1) Plessy v. Ferguson, and
2) Brown v. Board of Education
This ballot measure is essentially trying to revive Jim Crow laws, subbing gays for blacks.
You know, if only because I don't want to ever be discriminated against, I can't support anything of this nature. It doesn't directly affect me, but the ramifications could/will affect us ALL in negative ways in the future.

[mskocko]

One day we'll look back on this issue as equivalent of the civil rights movement of the early 21st century. Bravo, Apple, for taking a stand.
Mike Skocko
Swinging from the Apple side of the plate since 1985
Married to my wonderful wife since 1993
Proud father since 1996
http://maclab.guhsd.net/

[sporks]

The part of the article explaining Apple's advantages in taking this stand was a very interesting read. Quite a careful and delicate way of saying "protection money."
But beside that there is a lot of non-critical thinking going on here. Point one: Gays have equal rights under current marriage laws. A gay individual may marry any member of the opposite sex who will consent, just like a straight individual may do. The law treats all individuals equally as it currently stands. The issue here is to create a special privilege for one group of people based on a biological absurdity. It's ridiculous.
Secondly, No religion teaches "do not judge." What the religions teach is "judge properly because you will be judged by the same criterion."
Thirdly, a corporation crosses the line when it takes a stand on a moral issue that has bearing on its operation as a business because it abuses its authority over its employees by implicating them in a position with which they may vehemently disagree. Like a previous poster said, let Jobs spend his own money; leave the corporation out of it.

[neilr_]

FTA: Jeff Bell, another long-time Apple customer,

Bell told Macworld. “I don’t want to have my hard earned money wasted on this cause that I do not believe in.”
If he is only a customer, then "his hard earned money" was spent on a product that he felt was worth buying. As has been stated, after you give your money to Apple, it becomes theirs to spend as they see fit.

[Terrin]

I applaud Apple for taking both a principled, but also a brave, stand. Our Country was in part founded by those who fled their countries over religious persecution. Various religious groups seemingly now want to be the persecutors: it is their way or the highway.
Nobody is forcing religious groups to embrace gay marriage in their institutions, however, civil marriages and life partnerships should be allowed between homosexuals. The law provides married people protections not allowed to unmarried partners. For instance, if an unmarried person dies without a will that person's blood family will inherit his or her assets even if 1) he or she hasn't spoken to them in twenty years, and 2) he or she has spent the last twenty years with somebody that person's family hated but he or she loved. The life partner will get nothing. Homosexuals perhaps even more so the straight people need these types of protections.
Moreover, these types of proposed laws often discriminate against straight people who do not believe in the institution of marriage, but have formed life partnerships with different sex spouses. For instance, Michigan passed a similar Constitutional ban and many employers were forced to stop health benefits for employee's partners, many of whom were a different sex. In a free Country, religious views should not dictate through the force of law how others should live. Provided the views do not directly harm others, they should be supported under the rule of law.
Finally, it should be noted that the law treats corporations as people. They even have First Amendment rights under the law. Personally, I think this is wrong because corporations are not people and they have much more money to spend advocating their views then regular folks. However, it is hard to condemn a company when it actually does make a principled stand. To Apple's stockholders who think this is an improper use of money. I could say the same thing about the thousands thrown to political campaigns, however, no one minds there. Here Apple is thinking different. It likely is inspiring many of it's employees. That can only help the company in the long run.
Ok, one last point. For those planning to boycott Apple, you better be prepared to boycott other popular companies. For instance, McDonalds has been promoting gay rights.

[lipbalm]

"But in 2005, the company withdrew its support from a Washington state bill that would have banned discrimination against gays and lesbians in housing, employment, and insurance."
More proof that Microsoft = evil, Apple = good
Maybe Apple did this in the hopes that Rush Limbaugh would "switch" to Windows.

[drimwit]

This ballot measure is about a bunch of religious organisations shoving their opinion down other's throats. Even of you're a bigot and have an irrational fear of homosexuality, you should oppose this measure. Apple is right to support it. Microsoft fence sitting doesn't work. What about my deeply held belief in equality?
I can't see a boycott having much effect. Middle-aged bigots are not Apple's target demographic.

[context]

I remember a time when Mac publications were devoted to product reviews and tips. I'd still rather know whether, for instance, PowerTunes works well with iTunes than MacWorld's (useless) impression of Apple's political machinations.

[Rhywun]

sporks said:

Gays have equal rights under current marriage laws. A gay individual may marry any member of the opposite sex who will consent, just like a straight individual may do.

Ah, the old "he just hasn't met the right girl yet" argument. It never ceases to amaze me when social conservatives promote sham marriages over real ones simply because the body parts aren't "right".

[Lisamacnewton]

sporks--

?Judge not, that ye be not judged (Matthew 7:1).?

That's pretty clear to me from the Bible.....one down...... :)

[rusfull]

Apple's decision to support Prop 8 is utter foolishness.
What will be the next issue in our cultural wars that Apple will come out and support? Abortion, open borders, gun rights, etc etc. Apple is needlessly offending most of America-- an unwise business move.
Moreover, Apple is offending God and His word. The ultimate unwise move.

[Herrick]

Well im not about to boycott apple but i will remove my bumper sticker and further more, my excitement for the company is now blunted.