Apple declares war against Christians


It wasn’t mere “disagreement.” There were a number of threats of sanctions from a number of corporations, and Cook is on record stating that any such legislation securing religious freedom is to be opposed in any form.

Salesforce offered employees $50,000 relocation packages to move out of Indiana and suspended employee travel to the state and canceled Indiana events.
Angie’s List threatened to cancel a $40 million expansion plan for its Indianapolis headquarters, thereby extinguishing 1,000 new jobs by 2019.
General Electric, PayPal, Yelp, Gap Inc. and Levi Strauss & Co. decided, on behalf of the voters of Indiana that the laws “must be stopped.”
Amazon pulled out of an Indianapolis conference, as did Pivotal, Platfora, Cloudera and EMC.

Tim Cook wrote a Washington Post op-ed opposing this kind of legislation that secures religious rights “wherever it emerges,” and certainly freedom of expression will not be tolerated on the Apple platform no matter what the First Amendment holds.

First to NOT be protected, and in fact banned from Apple, will be anything that Cook finds “offensive, insensitive, upsetting, intended to disgust or in exceptionally poor taste.”

I find Cook’s censorial attitude to be upsetting and offensive. Will he be banned from speaking or being heard?

I didn’t think so. Some “religiously” held opinions count more than others, I suppose. And only some – not all – of those will be protected, which is why Cook, et al, opposed protecting all religious opinions in order to protect only some.

All the more reason why none ought to be censored merely because someone, somewhere, finds them “offensive, insensitive, upsetting, intended to disgust or in exceptionally poor taste.” First Amendment.


The Washington Post is a publisher, not a platform.

If the telephone company listened into everyone’s conversations and banned or censored all speech with which that CEO disagreed or thought to be “offensive, insensitive, upsetting, intended to disgust or in exceptionally poor taste,” that would be censorship.

Apple is a platform pretending to be a publisher with right to censor, but at the same time hides behind its publisher status when they are called out for censorship.

Neat little game they play. Now you see it (publisher), now you don’t (platform.)


They have the right to control speech on their platform just like Catholic Answers has the right to control speech on theirs. What’s good for the goose…


A telecommunications company providing it’s telecommunications functionality is bound by both state and federal laws on monitoring phone calls. A telecommunications company acting as a publisher can choose t what content to publish or not publish. So if I upload a photo to Flickr and Verizon doesn’t like it they are within their rights to remove it from Flickr. Despite the more generic word “platform” being used here these functionalities/services are bound by a different set of rules and a single company can be bound by various rules for the services they provide as it pertains to providing that service.

Apple also doesn’t meet the criteria that was applied against Microsoft for the Antitrust case. Apples smart phone markets hare is in the 40% area (Android has the largest market share on mobile devices ). And yet again, none of those demonstrates that Apple’s actions can be shown to be an instance of the USA government abridging the free exercise of religion or expression.

These roles are not mutually exclusive. A company can be considered both. AT&T provides phone services, TV services, TV content, owns several blogs and other sites through which it publishes content.

So…there were no actual “sanctions” imposed by Apple…
Apple hasn’t been shown to be an arm of the USA government.

Okay. Not a Constitutional Free Speech issue.

BTW: Mr. Jones content can still be viewed through an iPhone. His podcasts can still be added to the Apple Podcast application on the phone. I just tried adding it myself. Here’s a screenshot. The concept of Podcast wasn’t invented by Apple and they can be managed without Apple. Similarly, as mentioned in a previous post Jones has options if he wanted the functionality from the Infowars app to be made available on iOS.


I have also seen “engineering consent.” When the current media becomes a propaganda tool then that is its primary function.


If that happened, then it is extremely likely that those standards would describe what most decent people would agree is “offensive, insensitive, upsetting, intended to disgust or in exceptionally poor taste?” It is very unlikely that all such companies would independently agree to bad standards. Not saying it is impossible. Just very very very very unlikely.


Android apps can be delivered outside the Google Play Store. There exists distributors outside the Google Play Store. Amazon being one of them, but not the only one. An entity can also self distribute. But as mentioned before, there are protections one looses as they move to less restricted sources for their apps. There’s a good bit of hot garbage that can be found that way. It is still possible for malicious applications to find their way into the Google Play Store. But once discovered Google can take action to initiate a remote removal of the applications and block further distribution. No such protections occur through some of the third party distributors.

Android also supports PWA with more advance features than what are provided on iOS by way of the Chromium project. Agreement with Google isn’t at all needed for distribution of applications using this method. Samsung had their developer’s conference last month at the Moscone in San Francisco. I flew out to participate and among other things they shared some of the other PWA capabilities that are specific to their phones. The presentation is available through YouTube for those interested.

I haven’t said much about my personal values. I have repeatedly pointed out that there has not yet been a Constitutional Free Speech violation identified. This isn’t dependent on thinking that Apple’s actions were a bad thing or a good thing. Nor do I argue that their actions are a bad thing or a good thing.

But let’s not shift this to a discussion about my alleged personal values. Per the forum rules and many comments that have been posted by the moderators (in the form of warnings) discussions should stay on issues, not on individuals that participate in the forums.


Pardon my skepticism, but just a few weeks ago Macron smugly derided Trump for being “nationalistic” instead of patriotic, thinking he safely was ensconced at the top of the European political elite. Today, and for the last three weeks, Paris is burning and Macron in hiding.

Two years ago we were told with 95% certainty that Hillary would be the next POTUS. Today her and Bill can hardly draw a handful into their speaking tours and it is a safe bet they will soon be prosecuted for the way they benefited materially from their charitable foundation.

A few years back, the fact that a man is a man and a woman is a woman was thought to be as safe a proposition as any, but today the “very very very very unlikely” possibility that people would widely dispute that fact is mainstream in universities and among the intellectual, political and media elites.

Prognostication, as a credible art, has taken a huge hit in recent years – not that it was ever that credible.

Don’t mind me if I question your assurances regarding what is probable these days. It isn’t about you, but about the times we live in. The Father of Lies seems to be having his way. The only One I have faith in is God, and I wouldn’t presume to know what he has in store at the moment. Surprises await.


False urban legend.

Ironic that on one hand you are trying to discredit prognostications, and on the other hand are actually prognosticating! Way to go!


Irony of ironies! :flushed:

Now let’s see which turns out to be true.

In the meantime, an actual thoughtful perspective…


Another conspiracy theorist! I will give him this: he is soft-spoken.


I find it interesting. Apparently oil companies can collude to restrict trade so we need an anti trust law. But tech companies can’t do the same. Even though these tech companies seem to often act in unison.


I noticed he highlighted the comments section being turned off for the ADL Tim Cook video. This is factually true. But the ADL YouTube channel doesn’t have comments turned on for any video; a fact that when omitted might mislead someone to believe that this was something specifically done for the acceptance video.

I did look up Tim’s acceptance speech. It starts five and a half minutes into this video for those interested.


Except the numbers of dislikes and likes have not been turned off for every video, only for those, like this one, that are not well accepted.

Yeah, specifically done to avoid showing how poorly it was accepted.


I know this thread is pretty much dead at this point, but I came across this earlier today. As mentioned before one doesn’t need Google Play to distribute apps. But once you go outside of Google’s allowed apps there are other potential problems to deal with.

Watch Android Malware Automatically Steal 1,000 Euros From a PayPal Account in Seconds

Cybersecurity firm ESET discovered this new malware in November, and published details about it on Tuesday. The malware is disguised as a battery optimization app—called Android Optimization—and is distributed by third party app stores (so it’s not in the official Google Play store.) The malware isn’t just a run of the mill banking trojan, it smartly takes advantage of Google’s Accessibility Services, which are designed to help people with disabilities, to trick users into giving criminals some control of the phone.

“The whole process takes about 5 seconds, and for an unsuspecting user, there is no feasible way to intervene in time,” ESET researcher Lukas Stefanenko wrote in a blog post. “The attackers fail only if the user has insufficient PayPal balance and no payment card connected to the account. The malicious Accessibility service is activated every time the PayPal app is launched, meaning the attack could take place multiple times.”


The time is coming, and is already here to a certain extent, that those who speak the Truth on issues such as homosexual ideology and such, will be silenced more and more by being banned from popular social media platforms. Liberals don’t seem to like tolerating speech that goes against their progressive ideals.


We must find John Connor…


Looking at how people choose where they live there’s a concern that people of different ideological views also being geographically segregated leading to a loss of empathy and a lot of “otherising.” Without that empathy that might otherwise come from having someone with those views in their life it is a lot easier for someone to make decisions that have some impact on the “other” people with less concern for the impact.


Please consider this Article :

Apple won’t tolerate intolerance? Look in the mirror, Tim Cook

We’re not talking about homosexuals being denied service, they should be welcomed in to any store and given the same service as any other person. We’re talking about business owners being forced by the government to participate in a ceremony in which they do not condone or wish to partake in. These bakers, florists, and photographers aren’t fetching pitchforks and torches to protest gay weddings, they just want to be left alone. …

Christian business owners aren’t imposing anything on anyone when they choose not to participate in a gay wedding. Homosexuals and Christians have different views, but homosexuals aren’t forced by the government to participate in a church service when asked, so why should a Christian business owner be forced to participate in a gay wedding service when they are asked? This is forced association- the very thing people came to this country to escape from.


Since the middle of the twentieth century almost everything marriage once brought together has been split apart to accommodate for these sexual desires, the ultimate goal for Sexual Revolutionaries:


Of course I do know. I was intending this thread for Catholics who know the Bible and wish to defend her teachings on homosexuality. Clearly Mr. Cook favors an opposing agenda… I think these individuals noticed I was referring to Romans 1:24-27 and how that Christian teaching needs to be explained and defended in our current culture.

The article stated:

Cook, who recently announced that being gay “is God’s greatest gift to me,” said technology companies have a moral obligation to ban certain people and content from social media and digital platforms, and that to not do so is a “sin.”

Those who bring up the issue of white-supremacy are completely off topic. No one on this forum is supporting that.

Cook is promoting his gay agenda. Besides his opposition against religious freedom laws in Indiana, addressed above, consider :

“Cook has long been a champion for equality and has frequently spoken out about social issues around the world, whether it’s gay rights, ending anti-Semitism

A year earlier, Cook was among more than 90 business executives who spoke out against a North Carolina law that would force transgender students to use school toilets "inconsistent with their gender identity."

Cook, who said in 2014 he is gay, has also often spoken out against anti-LGBT legislation, and his name was featured on Alabama’s anti-discrimination bill.

Romans 1:24-27

“Therefore, God handed them over to impurity through the lusts of their hearts* for the mutual degradation of their bodies. … Therefore, God handed them over to degrading passions. Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural, 27and the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another. Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity.”

This article should be put back on Sacred Scripture Forum.

I don’t mean to sound impolite, but you missed a whole lot more than just that.

There is a war of ideas going on.

Is this a war ?

He is not just saying he favors one position and opposes its opposite, he is saying that the other position should not even be allowed to be heard.

I hope to post latter on the Importance of Ideas.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit