Recently, Indiana became the state of national controversy after
passing a religious freedom law. While some may see this as a non-issue, a lot
of Americans are concerned. In the law, businesses in the state now have the
ability to refuse services to homosexuals based on their religious beliefs. For
example, and florist could refuse to do a wedding for a gay couple by citing
their religious beliefs. Here are some details on the law:
While a lot could be written about this,
from a variety of perspectives, I want to focus on a recent op-ed published by
the Washington Post that was written by Tim Cook, and openly gay man and the
CEO of the one of the most valuable and progressive companies in the world:
Apple. Here is the op-ed:
From the title I was already thinking
about CDA. The title is "Tim Cook: Pro-Discrimination 'religious freedom'
laws are dangerous. I found it interesting that the title used Cook's name, and
not a more attention grabbing signifier, like "Apple CEO." Surely a
lot of Americans know the name Tim Cook, but its no question that more people
know of Apple products rather than their CEO's name. If The Post were to
want to catch more headlines, it would seem that they would reference him as
Apple's CEO. In the title, Tim Cook is seen as an individual. Judging from the
title alone, a reader would assume that this is just his personal opinion,
rather than the company's opinion. If the title were to say "Apple:
Pro-Discrimination 'religious freedom' laws are dangerous" it would be
more collective than individual.
There is also the issue of nomination and
functionalisation. Again in the title, Tim Cook is not named the CEO of Apple
until the article is actually opened, where it is listed in italics above the
start of the article. It's interesting why it wasn't just put in the title.
In the actual article, Tim Cook also does not use anyone's specific names.
The law that was just passed in Indiana was signed by governor Mike Pence.
However Cook never mentions him by name, even when he is talking about the
law's recent passing. Why does Cook not call him out directly Cook is certainly
not happy about these laws: These bills rationalize injustice
by pretending to defend something many of us hold dear. They go against the
very principles our nation was founded on, and they have the potential to undo
decades of progress toward greater equality." But he doesn't name the man
who signed it into law. it almost seems as Cook is purposefully utilizing anonymisation when
talking about the laws passing and the the other states that have passed
similar laws. There is no doubt Cook knows the name of governor Mike Pence, so it's
perplexing to me as a reader why he avoids him name altogether.
