Apple asks for veto of Arizona's controversial "anti-gay" bill

iPhone maker asks governor Jan Brewer to veto the religious freedom bill that would allow businesses to refuse service to gay individuals.

Technology behemoth Apple, maker of iPhones and iPads, has asked Arizona governor Jan Brewer to veto the state's controversial "anti-gay" bill that would--if signed into law--allow businesses to refuse service to gay and lesbian individuals.

The Arizona Capitol Times reports that an Apple representative spoke with Brewer about the bill--SB1062--and asked her to veto it, though other details of their conversation have not been made public. Apple's request to the governor comes as the company is preparing to open a manufacturing plant in Mesa, Arizona that would employ 700 people and create over 1,000 construction and management jobs.

"Apple is indisputably one of the world's most innovative companies and I'm thrilled to welcome them to Arizona," Brewer said in a November-dated statement. "Apple will have an incredibly positive economic impact for Arizona and its decision to locate here speaks volumes about the friendly, pro-business climate we have been creating these past four years."

In offering its veto request, Apple joins other opponents of SB1062 including business organizations like The Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona Technology Council, Greater Phoenix Economic Council, and the Tucson Hispanic Chamber of Commerce. Others speaking out against the bill include major hotel chains, tourism groups, and AT&T.

Brewer has yet to take an official position on the bill, though she's like to make a decision on whether it becomes a law or not sometime this week.

Written By

Eddie Makuch is a news editor at GameSpot, and would like to see the Whalers return to Hartford.

Want the latest news about Angry Birds Go!?

Angry Birds Go!

Angry Birds Go!

Follow

Discussion

733 comments
Gelugon_baat
Gelugon_baat

The act has been zapped. (Google keywords: arizona, governor, veto, 1062)

Crouteru
Crouteru

The relevance of this article? Apple are involved in the games industry, homosexuals like myself play video games. I like to see influential companies like Apple take a stance against bigotry and intolerance. If you have no interest in the article, don't read it.

surferosh
surferosh

how is this 'gaming' related ?


Pretty much bolsters suspicion that Apple pays for this kind of publicity.. nothing wrong in that. .and nothing wrong in Gamespot accepting such monies.. what they need to do is make it clear that it is promotional material !



sakaixx
sakaixx

pass the law and be done with it.

xsonicchaos
xsonicchaos

I don't really like Apple and their business practices, but I'm very impressed by this endeavor in opposing such stupid bill. Bill, you're nuts, Bill! Get down from there! Haha.

No, but... suddenly BOOOM!!! political flame war and conspiracy nuts everywhere!

swagtile
swagtile

Jim Crow laws 2.0?

Do Christians even realize they are opening the door to have the same thing done to them by Jews, Atheists, etc.?

collingtonuk
collingtonuk

Always makes me laugh when Americans spout about how they are the freest country in the world. Any country that allows religious dogma to dictate laws is not free in any way.

guardianofhonor
guardianofhonor

Liberals don't believe in freedom of religion because they are authoritarian communist. America is under siege from these fifth columnist. The Democrats and their elitist buddies in corporate-America and the media think they can trample all over anyone who opposes their agenda but their war on Chrisitans sure to fail, we are the silent majority, we are the middle class, the backbone and heritage of America and were going to take back this country.

-Signed, a tea party advocate.

musalala
musalala

What has this got to do with Game news?

mack10
mack10

Good marketing by Apple. If the bill passes and Apple really wants to take a stand they should halt progress on the plant until the law is rescinded. I don't think they would.

darkljolly
darkljolly

This is why Aliens will never visit us. We can't tolerate each other, what chance do we have of tolerating them. They must be shaking their heads thinking what an immature race we are.

Gelugon_baat
Gelugon_baat

@guardianofhonor  

Perhaps you can argue that getting service from private businesses or such other private persons is not a given right - I have never disputed that, just to remind you.

Yet, I would argue that denying someone service based on his/her nature is not a given right that private service renderers have either.

j0nny04
j0nny04

@gam3r80  soooo, does that mean I'll be able to deny services to Christians because their homophobic, misogynistic way of life conflicts with my beliefs...??

Dalixam
Dalixam

@sakaixx  Move to Russia and be done with it. I think people like you would like it there.

SpicaAntares
SpicaAntares

@swagtile

Interesting idea: you're walking down a commercial street and you see signs: "We don't serve Christians, nor anyone who believes in faery tales. Go Away!"

Ahahaha!

Warlord_Irochi
Warlord_Irochi

@collingtonuk They don't dictate, they vote it. But I still agree that the very concept goes against the idea of religion and state should be separated.

BlackBaldwin
BlackBaldwin

True, then again having the ability to try to pass such laws even if ridiculous in nature signifies a free state is being practiced. Its when such practices are stopped being discussed then freedom to choose is nonexistent nobody ever admitted freedom didn't come without challenges.

59Hertz
59Hertz

@guardianofhonorWhy do I always see posts now on liberals/ democrats/ right wing/ left wing/ BS etc? They're all different sides of the same pile of shit.

welterdude
welterdude

The Bible is authoritarian.

Freedom of religion is only acceptable until it directly interferes with other freedoms; freedom of sexual orientation, freedom of speech and freedom of NON-religion.

That is not communism, that is not authoritarian. I have no interest in American politics but true liberalism is far from authoritarianism by it's very definition. Whether your hopeless political parties live up to that is another question.

Gelugon_baat
Gelugon_baat

@guardianofhonor  

That's a heavy tin-foil hat that you have - and man, that is some propaganda that you are spewing. :P

CrouchingWeasel
CrouchingWeasel

@musalala  

Why can't we debate how a manufacturer of gaming devices interacts with the greater freedom of individuals to expect equal respect & freedom under the law? People whine & bitch like fuckwits every time there's another XB1 vs PS4 article but when GS do try to report a greater variety of news people still want to bitch & whine? Make up your mind what you really want & then go & start your own site if you don't like what's reported here.

CrouchingWeasel
CrouchingWeasel

@mack10  

Their self righteousness will only last as far as it takes for their profit margins to start shrinking. As usual it's just another attempt from a greedy, plutocratic corporation to use a current controversy to generate more profit for itself.

Zero_Nitrous
Zero_Nitrous

@Gelugon_baat @guardianofhonor It has nothing to do with one's "nature" whatever that means.  But, it has everything to do with a person maintaining their faith and beliefs.  And, the prevention of them being compromised.  People that believe in nothing don't understand that.

gam3r80
gam3r80

@j0nny04 @gam3r80 maybe ... but in my country filthy people like those deviants won't see the day light ... so glad I'm not American

Gelugon_baat
Gelugon_baat

@Warlord_Irochi  

The act is posed as a move to protect religious freedom, so it has gone through a loophole in the first amendment of the USA Bill of Rights, which is supposed to support separation.

RedentSC
RedentSC

@BlackBaldwin If you honestly think the "free state" or people of America asked for this bill.... you're an idiot. Everything in the US political system requires cash... only businesses have the money to fund such endeavors (its called lobbying)... so basically this law was and is being pushed for by business... who are mainly ran by apathetic cunts who really, honestly, couldn't give a shit about anyone but themselves... , they will always want a law that's either in their best interest or of their company's (in that order)

Its all about money and control mate.. wake up man... please?

guardianofhonor
guardianofhonor

@welterdude

Think what you want but all across the world from Japan, Egypt, Greece Ukraine, Venezuela ...people are rising up against internationalism and liberalism and in America the tea party is taking back the Republican party to reestablish a real conservative party of the people.

Zero_Nitrous
Zero_Nitrous

@welterdude Freedom of religion can't interfere with other freedoms.  It has no government enforcers only protectors.  And, there are laws to prevent civilians from doing so.

Gelugon_baat
Gelugon_baat

@Zero_Nitrous

So I suppose if you are arguing that, the very existence of the person that goes against the beliefs of the rights-holder is justification enough?

RedentSC
RedentSC

@BlackBaldwin No dude, I live in the UK. A largely social state.. where lobbying is largely outlawed. Just because i disagree with how the US is ran does not mean i must live in a state where communist dictators rule with an iron fist... thats one way to run a country, the US runs it another way. 


Basically the US system is hugely flawed, there are betters ways to run a country. Please don't believe that the people of the US actually asked for this bill... they didn't

BlackBaldwin
BlackBaldwin

@RedentSC  Thats life Mr RedantSC you can't do shit without money fueling anything and I'm perfectly aware of how the system works I'm freaking 28 years old been walking around this planet for quite sometime.  Also calling me an idiot for what reason exactly? Because I pointed out that stupid bills like this can be created by the people who lives in the republic that is america is a good thing?  Would you rather go live in places like China or North Korea led by a regime that doesn't listen to anything the citizens wish to see come into laws that govern themselves?  If so then thats great leave honestly to every coin their is a downside that limits things and yes it seems things like this pop up all the time yes the system is flawed thats life it was created by humans of course it won't be perfect but hey its better then ruled over by a monarch or dictator.

Zero_Nitrous
Zero_Nitrous

@guardianofhonor @welterdudeI'm for liberty and freedom.  And, the protection of individuals from government oppression.  The government is becoming a tyrant in many respects, it's attempting to rule the people rather than serve them.

welterdude
welterdude

My point exactly, just making the distinction for people incapable of seeing freedom in that way.

CrouchingWeasel
CrouchingWeasel

@Zero_Nitrous @welterdude 

Freedom is freedom, period. Attaching a prefix to that description of freedom doesn't entitle one to any more respect for their viewpoint than anyone else.

Korun4869
Korun4869

@musalala @Gelugon_baat  Don't.. just don't even try. Gelugon_Baat is such an annoying person.

He is basically telling you, if you asked a question before on a different article, then you shouldn't ask it again in similar article. And he seems to be counting comments as well. It's best to leave him alone.

And yes, I agree. This news has nothing to do with gaming

Gelugon_baat
Gelugon_baat

@musalala

Oh sure, if you are going to make that argument, then this news article is news too since Apple is involved in the gaming scene.

musalala
musalala

@Gelugon_baat @musalala  Keep digging that hole , you made yourself look like an idiot and are trying to save face I understand that , That is most definitely gaming news last time I checked the xbox one was a gaming console and that content is being  made by xbox entertainment studio for their platform. I don't understand why on earth you are being so b*tchy....

musalala
musalala

@Gelugon_baat @musalala  Again This is the first time I have asked this question, and given the fact that its got nothing to do with game news its a valid question, you must be confusing me with someone else

Gelugon_baat
Gelugon_baat

@musalala  

Perhaps you don't remember earlier similar non-gaming articles that you commented on. ;)

Gelugon_baat
Gelugon_baat

@Zero_Nitrous

I, for one, think that it would be amended yet again later when people realize that it causes more problems than it solves.

Gelugon_baat
Gelugon_baat

@Zero_Nitrous  

I doubt that they would be able to flourish in the USA, risks or no, but I, for one, would prefer that they are not given any chance.

This act would seem to give them just that.

Gelugon_baat
Gelugon_baat

@Zero_Nitrous  

Metaphors aside, there is going to be little to dissuade the good apples from turning bad once they know of the lack of risks. Conscience is not a very reliable insurance against this.

Gelugon_baat
Gelugon_baat

@Zero_Nitrous

Bad apples can spread the rot. ;)

Especially if there does not appear to be any risk of significant reprisal against their behavior, or there is relief from such risks.

Gelugon_baat
Gelugon_baat

@Zero_Nitrous  

Well, there you have that. The act Arizona-2014-SB1062 would seem to allow for such a scenario.

Of course, more conscientous premise-owners could go about such conflicts in a more diplomatic manner, as you suggested, but this act seems to allow for deliberate ignorance or ejections of "undesirables", if said premise-owners are not inclined to be more beneficent.

Zero_Nitrous
Zero_Nitrous

@Gelugon_baat @Zero_Nitrous Not serving someone just because they are a certain way is just hateful.  And, kicking them out because of it is even worse.  I'm only concerned about people having to directly go against their faith in order to serve someone.  If their faith says they can't serve them at all I can understand, but otherwise...

Anyway, as I said before politely explaining the situation is the right course.  And, if someone refuses to leave your property you can call the police or use security.

Gelugon_baat
Gelugon_baat

@Zero_Nitrous  

Ah... the keywords here is "go elsewhere".

Yet, after having gone through the text of the act, it would appear that it provides a relief a property owner to eject a person from the premises after he/she has entered with authority.

I would elaborate with a hypothetical scenario:

A person that is considered "undesirable" by an individual that manage said premises, which do not expressedly warn against the entrance of said "undesirable" with signboards and such other prior indications, enters the premises.

Said manager discovers the "undesirable", and then proceeds to order the person out. The act would allow the manager relief against legal proceedings that challenge the order, if the manager can argue that the presence of said person goes against his/her "sincere religious beliefs".

Zero_Nitrous
Zero_Nitrous

@Gelugon_baat @Zero_Nitrous - It's simple protection of one's beliefs.  No one is forced to enter another person's private property.  They are free to go elsewhere and both parties can benefit.