Thats such bullshit. I am not gay, but the passage selected is incredibly demeaning. They are patronizing and belittling people for being themselves. If anything, this Christian Group is a group towards whom I would support discrimination. They are seriously fucked.

Well, the most important thing to remember is that Apple is a company and it is their right to pull any app they want.

I personally wasn't offended by the quote, because I don't put much stock in what people who make bible apps think, but I would say it was offensive. They outright claim that being gay is immoral (emphasis added):
"We acknowledge that there are those who are disposed towards homosexual and polyamorous conduct and relationships, just as there are those who are disposed towards other forms of *immoral conduct.*"

Now, does this warrant it being pulled from the app store? Probably not. It's not like anyone is being forced to read it. It's like that BS outrage that Amazon was selling The International Jew. But, Apple is known to be a control freak, so I'm not at all surprised.

At least in America, anyone ought to have the right to express racism, bigotry, homophobia, or any other form of expression anywhere they choose within a public area at any time.

@Bob

Yeah, but Apple's App store is not a public area...

Advocates of tolerance need not accommodate intolerance.

Do you think that you would feel the same way if the passage said something along the lines of "having heterosexual sex before marriage is wrong/immoral"? Also, with the idea you present about it being wrong to criticize people for who they naturally are, do you think it would be wrong for someone to condemn a person for killing or hurting someone because they were angry and that was their natural reaction? Obviously (or hopefully obviously) you would say that it is definitely ok to criticize a person for following their natural instincts and killing another person. Having said that, I think that it's really just a basic disagreement on morality that you have with the writers of the article/app/whatever. So, then, if we've established that, do you think that it is ok for two people to have different systems of morality?

And yeah Abge I agree with you on your call about it being Apple's app store so I don't have a problem with them pulling it either--they can do whatever they want. That does also bring up the issue of information control, but at this point Apple isn't nearly large enough to be a threat in regards to that.

And post with all the questions was aimed at Lando Calrissian. Anyone can answer the questions though.

@abgemacht

It kind of is, functionally speaking. I mean, their technology would not exist without DARPA, their consumer base runs somewhere in the hundreds of millions. I kind of think of their app store, or indeed any internet utility, as properly belonging within the public sphere. Well, maybe not, I'm still sorting through this idea, but I think we tend to describe way too much stuff as private property in our society.

It is a disagreement but these people are so forward about their criticisms. Nobody is getting hurt like in your example. They are creating this hateful literature to make these people feel bad about themselves. They are clearly trying to create damage (psychological) and force their way on others.

While this is allowed, it is extremely immoral. It also makes them seem irrational and idiotic.

@jman

Yes, because I still don't care what some bible app says about how I live my life.

I don't think the second part was directed at me, but I'll answer anyway: It's OK to have different views on morality, but they shouldn't interfere with how people live their lives. I understand that this itself is open to debate, but you can only do so much. For instance, killing people isn't OK because you are forcing your way on someone else. Likewise, trying to prevent gays from marrying is forcing your way on someone else.

That quote is so blatantly patronizing that the people who had it pulled should be thankful that such embarrassing trash is no longer in circulation. That said, they have the right to be idiots and request that their idiocy be broadcast for all to see; I don't support censoring morons, only acknowledging their moron status when necessary.

All of THAT said, it's Apple's store, they can do what they want.

@Bob

You can think that, but you'd be wrong. Read one of Apple's EULAs some time. You may be very surprised.

There is a very serious problem with society these days that the Internet is somehow Free as in Freedom. It isn't. Anything you post on FB, FB owns. Anything you post on Twitter, Twitter owns. Even on this site, there is no freedom of speech, as some people claim occasionally. Kestas can come in here and band players/remove threads for no reason. Luckily, he's a nice guy, but there is no Internet Bill of Rights to protect us.

@Bob - Apple owns the app store same as Amazon owns Amazon.com. They can choose what to sell and what not to sell. It is no more public than walking into a restaurant that reserves the right to refuse service to anyone at any time for any reason.

Yes, you're right that no one is actually getting physically hurt like in my example, but it illustrates a part of your system of morality. You believe that it is wrong for one human to take another human's life. You also believe that it is wrong to criticize people of something that they cannot change (provided that the behaviors don't actually harm anyone). They, on the other hand, simply believe that homosexuality is wrong, just like you believe killing is wrong. Do you see my point? It's just a difference in core morality. Would you agree?

@abgemacht +1

@jman - the difference is that believing something and acting upon it (and posting an app is an action) are two different things. you have a right to your opinion, but to express that opinion can be deemed as hate speech and lose it protectyion even in the public forum. It has son such protections in the private forum unless you own that particular venue.

@ab and Draug

I am well aware that Apple holds its ap store out as merely private commerce. I am just not certain that's the way we as a society should regard it. Ostensibly, Apple is chartered to advance the public good.

*It has no such protection... Stupid fingers.

@Bob - where does it say that in it's charter? Google's company statement/charter may say that, but I don't believe Apple's says anything about that. It is a company out to make money and if it feels something is degrading to it's intellectual and electronic property, it has every right to censor it.

Ok Draugner I definitely see your point there. But if we take that to an extreme would it mean that we essentially only have freedom of thought, and not of speech?

Oh, and I *am* certain it is the way it should be viewed. Intellectual and electronic property rights exist and I think they are a good thing.

@Jman - we don't have complete freedom of speech. You cannot walk into a synagogue and spout anti-semitic statements. That si hate speech and you will get arrested and prosecuted for it. Private venues have a right to limit speech. Only the government is banned from limiting speech in public venues and even that has limitations where they can act if that speech incites others to act illegally.

@Draugnar

Every state in the union enacts its laws allowing corporations to charter and do business within their state based upon the advancement of public good.

I agree that electronic intellectual property rights are a good thing. I just don't necessarily swallow the argument that they should trump 1st Amendment free expression rights.

Jman, I see the point that you are trying to make. I believe killing is wrong. Fortunately, most people agree with this and there are proper channels to deal with murderers. The comparison doesn't work because most educated people are able to agree that homosexuality is harmless and normal.

That definitely makes sense to me Draug. I agree.

So do you all think that an internet bill of rights should be created?

@Bob

I agree that it would be nice if that was the case, but since it isn't, society should act accordingly. Companies are not looking out for our best interests, so we need to.

Also, if you think Apple is chartered to advance the public good, ostensibly or not, you are seriously mistaken. They are chartered to make their shareholders money.

And asllowing homophobia is advancing the public good?