Geek & Mild by Sean Sperte

Ben
October 24, 2008

It’s not clear who made the decision, but the board of directors is probably a good guess. And they can do this because, as they state, they see it as a civil rights issue that would affect their employees, just as if Prop 8 had said only left handed people can marry right handed people (my goodness, think of the children, they won’t know what type of baseball glove to get :-).

If an employee doesn’t like Apple’s position, they can quit. They might even get a lawsuit out of it (though doubtful). They can even cast their vote for Prop 8.

The shareholders can also exercise their rights and either sell their stock or cry foul and fire the BoD, but that probably won’t happen.

Ultimately if we tell companies they can’t speak on politics, then we have to prevent them from any political involvement, including contributing funds to various political movements (heck, my company contributed to both Bush and Kerry in 2004), which given current laws, companies have the ability to take political stances, just like the LDS are funding the Yes on Prop 8 campaign.

Ben

Sean
October 25, 2008

If an employee doesn’t like Apple’s position, they can quit. They might even get a lawsuit out of it (though doubtful).

In other words, “if you don’t agree with our political opinion then you can quit”? Wait, isn’t that discrimination?

Sean
October 25, 2008

You need only look as far as The Unofficial Apple Weblog to see how polarizing this issue is. Why would Apple choose to alienate such a large population of its customers (and potential owners)?

My guess? Like Google, they feel they can “throw their weight around” without consequences. They’ve done it in entertainment (music, TV, movies), right?

Ben
October 25, 2008

Not at all. It’s not discrimination for an employee to quit as long as they weren’t forced out. A company taking a stance on some subject (animal rights, child labor laws, gay equality) does not change how a person does their job or how they vote. If Apple said “We are against Prop 8 and anyone who is for it will be fired” that would be discrimination. Right now, the BoD is saying that they are supporting their employees right to have a legally recognized relationship, regardless of their spouses sex.

Ben
October 25, 2008

Yea, the argument on TUAW is quite interesting, especially with comments like “the fruit is for the fruits…”.

Some find the issue of gay marriage offensive. They can easily not buy Apple products. If enough people don’t buy then the BoD may change their position, but my hope would be that this is a legitimate concern for the rights of their employees.

Ben

Sean
October 26, 2008

Ben, you’re missing my point. You don’t see how unusual this is? For a company to involve itself in the political process in such a public way is, in of itself, a strange thing to read about — but that they’ve done so with such a “hot” topic is downright bizarre.

Ben
October 26, 2008

I understand. Apple’s (and Google’s) public opposition are unusual but not unprecedented. KFC Canada recently announced they will only buy humanly killed animals (a bit of an oxymoron); Burger King only purchases eggs and pork from cage free environments; The Gap has said they “strictly prohibit the use of child labor. This is a non-negotiable for [them]”. All of these are pubic companies that take a stance on various issues where others are silent or even complicit (WalMart’s repeated violation of child labor laws). None probably took a stock-holder vote or polled their employees, they just made a decision and lived with it’s consequences (lost profits).

Gay Marriage is one of the hot button issues in our country, along with abortion. Companies normally take the safe route and remain silent, but that silence is often at the cost of those affected by the issue. Apple management has decided that Prop 8 is an issue they can’t stand on the sidelines to see which way the wind blows. Apple has decided that the California Constitution (like other Constitutions) should limit government abilities to infringe adults rights instead of being used to limt the rights of adults.

Casey
October 27, 2008

I live in California and our church is a large force in opposing Prop 8. I also happen to be writing on the brand new Macbook Pro. And have supplied apple with enough cash in the last years. I think the whole PUBLICLY traded company promoting their political views is perverted. Especially, because so many rail on non-profits when they even mention something political. I agree with Sean, you can’t just toss your ideas in the ring and not expect repercussions. Be they spiritual or natural, it’s typically this kind of pride that comes before a fall.

For more detailed insight into the prop 8 and election issues see my website below.

Brian Warren
October 27, 2008

I don’t see this as unusual at all. Apple’s at least being transparent about it. Tons of companies give money to political campaigns and causes. Apple’s just putting it on their hot news page because it’s pretty good press. As an Apple shareholder myself, I’m glad they donated and glad they’re telling everybody about it.

That said, I can see a situation where perhaps some stockholders and employees might feel uncomfortable with this situation, and that’s why they have the ability to remove people from the Board.

I wonder if people would feel as stunned with Apple if it had been a proposition outlawing interracial marriages.

Ben
October 27, 2008

Casey,
Non-profit organizations, by which I assume you mean a 501©(3) such as charities and churches, are given tax exemptions under the current law. In return they are prohibited from participating or intervening “in … any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office.” (taken from the IRS website). Additionally they are limited to what they can do with legislative acts (like Prop 8), but that is a murky area. Basically, with legislation, minimal involvement is okay, but “substantial” is not. As a result your church (for example) legally can’t involve itself substantially in Prop 8, but can preach about the morality of same-sex marriages in order to influence their parishioners view of Prop 8. Of course what the IRS doesn’t know about won’t get caught, which is why smaller churches can get away with direct voter influencing (handing out “how to vote” brochures). No one complains to the IRS, so the IRS never finds out. But once a 501©(3) Church goes public with their view on a measure (say an ad on T.V.), they come to the attention of the IRS.

Like I said, Prop 8 is a divisive issue. On one side you have people with strong, often, religious beliefs about who should marry whom. On the other side you have people who think adults should be allowed to marry any other consenting adult. Who’s right? I don’t know, but I’m against Prop 8 for the same reasons I would have been against laws prohibiting inter-racial marriages. I think that if two consenting adults want to get married, they should be allowed to. Who’s to say one couples love should be more recognized then another?

Ben

Michael Montgomery
October 27, 2008

Sean,
I agree.

John
October 28, 2008

Part of me agrees with Apple for their stance on this issue. The other part of me is unsure. Let me explain…

Let’s assume for about 1 minute that this is not 2008 and instead is 1960. If Apple (I know they weren’t even a company then, but just follow along) came out against the discrimination of black people, wouldn’t you agree this was the right decision?
I feel this issue will hold the same value as that did, but it may not be apparent for several years.
I think it takes people, companies, and communities to publicly say things that may be hard to swallow in order to effect change for the good of a country and the world.

The other part is unsure because why should a publicly held company use money to spend on a legislative issue? If stockholders (and stakeholders for that matter) take issue with it, we will see the consequences. Why take that chance?

Michael Montgomery
October 28, 2008

All kinds of companies participate in all kinds of political activities, including companies like Coca-Cola, AT&T;, Starbucks, and Ben & Jerry’s. That is their right, and those employees and shareholders who disagree have the right to make their own choices about working for or supporting that company.

Indeed, there are mutual funds that specifically include _ companies which act _(or not) politically.

As far as the analogy to racism, it is based on the fact that one’s race cannot be chosen. There seems to be an assumption that particular lifestyles are similarly not voluntary.

Simmy
October 28, 2008

Maybe if you lived in California and worked for Apple, I would find this discussion more interesting. Instead, all I hear is another conservative imposing their own beliefs upon others.

Also, I’ll never understand why Christians have such a fetish for justifying like-minded materialism. My (Christian, pastoral) parents wouldn’t let me buy rock music because I would have been “contributing to their sinful lifestyle”. If I only bought stuff from people whose values—civil, spiritual, political or otherwise—matched mine equally, I probably wouldn’t own anything.

@John – I really hope the “hard to swallow” pun was intended.

Ben
October 28, 2008

We are not allowed to discriminate based on religion, but that is clearly a choice (whereas homosexuality may or may not be, depending on who you ask or if you look at the science). If this were an amendment saying only people of the same religion can marry, would there be a large support base?

Whether homosexuality is a choice is a straw man argument. The argument is, do you want government to be able to define your love as being somehow less then another? That’s what it really comes down to. Prop 8 elevates the marriage, the love, between a man and a women to a special status that is somehow better then the love between a man and a man or a woman and a woman. Just about everything else is a mote point as it can be accomplished by other, more complex, means (trusts, living wills).

Ben

Sean
October 28, 2008

I’m going to shut this discussion down (as is my prerogative) since it doesn’t seem to be producing righteousness, peace or joy. (Unless, of course, you find joy in debate — in which case, I’m sure you can find your way to a much more joyful venue somewhere else on the web.)

I do appreciate your comments, but this blog isn’t for political discourse. The reason for me posting the original link was because it was Apple-related, and struck me as interesting, if not odd.