Tim Cook’s Apple is no stranger to standing up for social issues including marriage equality.
Almost a year ago to date, the companyâ€"not just Tim Cookâ€"voiced public opposition to anti-gay legislation in Arizona which was surprisingly vetoed after weeks of public attention. The company also embraced last year’s annual Pride parade in San Francisco with an official video highlighting participation by thousand of employees and family members. There’s also Tim Cook’s widely praised essay published last year in which he first publicly acknowledged being gayâ€"a first for a Fortune 500 chief executive.
So when Apple realized it hired a former politician with a history of promoting anti-gay legislation to lobby on its behalf to the Alabama Congress, it’s no surprise that the company reportedly severed ties with the individual…
Citing records shared by the Alabama Ethics Commission, BuzzFeed reports that Apple recruited then ousted lobbyist Jay Love:
“The hire appeared to create an unusual relationship between a conservative lobbyist known for anti-gay views and a company run by a gay CEO, but the love for Love appears short-lived.â€
As Buzzfeed mentions, Jay Love is “a former state house speaker who sponsored legislation praising a beauty pageant contestant for opposing same-sex marriageâ€.
When asked, an Apple spokesperson shared a statement with Buzzfeed declaring that Love does not work for Apple or lobby for the company while a lobbyist liaison official confirmed that the former house speaker had been registered as a lobbyist for Apple.
Tim Cook, a native of Alabama, recently spoke at length at the state’s capital where he called on Alabama to push forward on social equality issues in a speech, and Cook recently paid a substantial personal donation to an LGBT equality group that operates in Alabama, Arkansas, and Mississippi.
Neither Apple nor Love addressed the hiring and subsequent contract termination, but the evidence from state officials is apparentâ€"the only surprise being that Love wasn’t vetted more closely from the beginning. Apple has noticeably increased its investment in lobbyistsâ€"a job field full for former politiciansâ€"over the last decade.
Apple’s investment in Washington D.C. lobbying continues to rise
Tim Cook makes personal donation to LGBT equality campaign in Alabama, Arkansas and Mississippi
2) Being “persecuted for believing differently†is a common false argument used by those who oppose gay marriage. If your views restrict other people, it’s not simply a matter of policing belief or restricting your free speech.
If your beliefs include restricting the freedoms of others, and “others†include Tim Cook, you should probably look into a backup career path.
Is that even legal? Here in Canada it is not. You can only fire someone based on poor work performance or committing serious crime.
This means that you can’t terminate someone based on them being one of these classes. However, that does not mean that you can’t terminate someone when one of these classes prevents them from doing their job. In other words, someone in a wheelchair can’t sue because they’re not going to be a quarterback for a pro football team.
Likewise, a lobbyist who believes in things that don’t represent the interests of the client can legally be terminated.
This makes sense, and isn’t bigotry. You can’t have someone effectively advocating a position that they have a history of actively opposing since they would have no credibility on the issue. It’s a conflict of interest and happens all the time with lobbyist and lawyers.
I must say though, on another note, these comments are very entertaining in general. Americans are so backward and it’s times like these that they really show themselves as being so. Why anyone wants to live in that medieval, backward nightmare called the USA I will never know. So funny. :-)
“People can be and are fired every day of the week just for “not fitting in†or for any of a variety of shallow reasons.â€
Correct. Stil doesn’t make it right or even lawful
Problem is, is that type of thinking doesn’t just permeate within Apple but with many tech companies â€" MS, Google, Facebook, etc.. Apple is more forthright about it.
Apple’s going to do some pro-gay lobbying in Alabama. This guy wasn’t the one for the job.
No one is applying an atheism test to aspiring software engineers.
LGBT (or any part) unfortunately isn’t a federally protected class (yet). Religion is. You can fire someone for being LGBT (as far as Federal law is concerned). You can’t fire someone solely for being religiously opposed to LGBT.
Hopefully this will change soon and LGBT will be recognized as a federally protected class.
In this case, the lobbyist is being terminated because he can’t effectively represent the client (Apple) because he has a history of actively being opposed to an issue that Apple supports. In other words, you can terminate someone for not being able to do their job, even if they belong to a protected class.
Come on, you really believe what you’re saying? This person was a hired contract, not an employee. He was hired to argue on their behalf about a variety of issues. One of those many issues is the equality for LGBT humans. The dude failed his own job description. As others have pointed out, Apple should have vetted him better. But you’re an absolute idiot if you are defending this guy and saying Apple is hypocritical for severing his contract.
He was hired to lobby for Apple’s beliefs. If he opposes those beliefs, he isn’t a fit for the job. Plain and simple. Some of you…are simply beyond belief or plain stupid.
Anyone who’s crying hypocrisy here should read:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_discrimination_law_in_the_United_States#LGBT_employment_discrimination
Where did I write that gays were a federally protected class? Read my other comments. I specifically wrote that they weren’t. The purpose of that link is to read where and why you can fire someone in a protected class and how it applies to terminating this lobbyist. Read the full article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_discrimination_law_in_the_United_States
The average American has a twisted idea of religious freedom. It’s widely misinterpreted to mean that people have “the right to live life according to their religious beliefs,†even when they conflict with the law, when in fact it’s really only about the freedom to not be beat up or denied service in a public place for believing in whatever nonsense you believe in.
I disagree. Being anti-gay doesn’t interfere with his ability to represent Apple. He doesn’t have to hold the same social views or values as Apple or Tim Cook for him to be able to do his job. He got let go because he disagrees with Cook’s social views. That’s not lawful. That wheelchair / QB example is nothing compared to this.
“Being anti-gay doesn’t interfere with his ability to represent Apple. He doesn’t have to hold the same social views or values as Apple or Tim Cook for him to be able to do his jobâ€
If he were a store manager or some other position, I would agree with you. It would be illegal for Apple to fire someone who did and believed exactly the same as this lobbyist, but was in a different position at Apple where there was no impact.
However… he’s a lobbyist.
So imagine you’re meeting with him to address various LGBT issues. He comes into your office and starts talking pro-LGBT. That’s all fine and good, but… he was just previously at your office talking anti-LGBT for another client.
It’s a conflict of interest.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_discrimination_law_in_the_United_States
Apple didn’t terminate an employee solely because he had any specific religious belief. They terminated this lobbyist because he has a history of actively opposing Apple’s position on LGBT issues. The lobbyist couldn’t effectively do the job due to this conflict of interest. It happens all the time with lawyers and lobbyist.
There are no lines to read between. This isn’t someone who was a store manager or sales person or engineer at Apple. This was someone who was a lobbyist. Their role was specifically to influence others on issues that Apple pays him to. Had he been in another position, it wouldn’t necessarily have affected his job and thus would be illegal to fire him, but here, there’s clearly a conflict of interest because as a lobbyist he represented the exact opposite of what Apple was paying him for.
It’s like a Catholic church firing a priest because they find out he happens to be a satanist. You can say, “Oh come on, they fired him for religious reasonsâ€â€¦ yes, but he couldn’t do his job.