http://www.newser.com/story/106725/christians-hit-back-at-apple-for-blocking-anti-gay-app.html

So, opposition to gay marriage is homophobic and gay bashing? Good to know. Seems to me it's not the Christian side that's doing the labeling here. I have no dog in the fight one way or the other, but it appears as though Apple is obviously choosing sides here.

So, opposition to gay marriage is homophobic and gay bashing? Good to know. Seems to me it's not the Christian side that's doing the labeling here. I have no dog in the fight one way or the other, but it appears as though Apple is obviously choosing sides here.

 

IMO this decision by Apple has nothing to do with taking a religious stand. This is about not offending large client base.

This is a business decision. If it wasn't, Apple wouldn't have bothered.

IMO this decision by Apple has nothing to do with taking a religious stand. This is about not offending large client base.

Gays or Christians?

This is a business decision. If it wasn't, Apple wouldn't have bothered.

Not saying it isn't.

Gays or Christians?

 

Gays. Christians aren't being "blocked."

Gays. Christians aren't being "blocked."

Gays were being "blocked"? I thought the article claimed the anti-gay app was being blocked. The article says that a small but very vocal protest by those who favor gay marriage and abortion were offended and that more than twice as many signatures from Christians were on the petition than that which spurred Apple to remove the app. So, if it's a business decision, which again I'm not saying it isn't, isn't this decision offending a larger base of it's customers?

This is a business decision. If it wasn't, Apple wouldn't have bothered.

 

Could turn out to be a very poor decision for them.

I have no problem with this decision. Apple runs a business, and should have the freedom to make this decision if they so choose. I'm not sure it was necessary, as I'm not sure why anyone would want a bigoted app such as an "anti-gay" app, but whatever.

Gays were being "blocked"? I thought the article claimed the anti-gay app was being blocked. The article says that a small but very vocal protest by those who favor gay marriage and abortion were offended and that more than twice as many signatures from Christians were on the petition than that which spurred Apple to remove the app. So, if it's a business decision, which again I'm not saying it isn't, isn't this decision offending a larger base of it's customers?

 

Wrong term on my part. The point is that Apple made a decision to not allow apps to criticize one group. I doubt this will cause many Christians to cancel their service since they are not being condemned.

I have no problem with this decision. Apple runs a business, and should have the freedom to make this decision if they so choose. I'm not sure it was necessary, as I'm not sure why anyone would want a bigoted app such as an "anti-gay" app, but whatever.

Makes no difference to me one way or the other, I agree that they're entitled to make the decision.

I don't think it's an anti-gay app or they're anti-gay. I think it's an app against gay marriage and that doesn't make them bigoted or anti-gay.

Wrong term on my part. The point is that Apple made a decision to not allow apps to criticize one group. I doubt this will cause many Christians to cancel their service since they are not being condemned.

Ok, gotcha. I agree.

Makes no difference to me one way or the other, I agree that they're entitled to make the decision.

I don't think it's an anti-gay app or they're anti-gay. I think it's an app against gay marriage and that doesn't make them bigoted or anti-gay.

 

I was just going by the thread title.

 

Although I do think those who are against homosexuality (ie having the same rights as you or I), is bigotry to some degree.

I was just going by the thread title.

 

Although I do think those who are against homosexuality (ie having the same rights as you or I), is bigotry to some degree.

Some may be, but just because someone thinks marriage is meant to be between a man and a woman doesn't mean they have a problem with gays. I, for example, believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman but I have no problem with civil unions.