There's an idea going around that if Apple can't be coerced into manufacturing a version of its operating system which expresses something Apple doesn't agree with (namely, that it's OS should be insecure), then a bakery shouldn't be coerced into manufacturing a version of its cakes which expresses something the bakery doesn't agree with (namely, that two people of the same sex should be allowed to get married).
This isn't a very good argument. For one thing, Apple isn't in the business of manufacturing insecure operating systems (all infosec joking aside). But wedding cake manufacturers are in the business of manufacturing wedding cakes. The core issue here is one of civil rights vs. established power. In the case of gay marriage, a distressed minority is asking that it not be discriminated against by the established power of the Christian majority. In the case of Apple, it is Apple that is saying it should not be compelled to violate the civil rights of its customers to have their thoughts, dreams, fears, and experiences recorded and exposed to the established power of the government.
This is settled law in a lot of ways. The baker and the photographer are not being asked to express themselves positively toward their subjects, they're being asked to do the same job they do for everyone else, the very job for which they applied for a business license and all the rights and responsibilities which go with it. Apple is being asked for something completely different, and by doing so Apple would breach the responsibilities it took on when it became a business.
This isn't a very good argument. For one thing, Apple isn't in the business of manufacturing insecure operating systems (all infosec joking aside). But wedding cake manufacturers are in the business of manufacturing wedding cakes. The core issue here is one of civil rights vs. established power. In the case of gay marriage, a distressed minority is asking that it not be discriminated against by the established power of the Christian majority. In the case of Apple, it is Apple that is saying it should not be compelled to violate the civil rights of its customers to have their thoughts, dreams, fears, and experiences recorded and exposed to the established power of the government.
This is settled law in a lot of ways. The baker and the photographer are not being asked to express themselves positively toward their subjects, they're being asked to do the same job they do for everyone else, the very job for which they applied for a business license and all the rights and responsibilities which go with it. Apple is being asked for something completely different, and by doing so Apple would breach the responsibilities it took on when it became a business.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}