Apple Pulls Anti-Gay App from App Store

| News

Apple has pulled an app from the App Store that espoused an anti-gay and anti-abortion agenda called Manhattan Declaration from a group with the same name. The app had been approved and given a 4+ age rating, a rating that means the app contains “no objectionable material,” but Apple pulled the app over the Thanksgiving weekend after PinkNews got more than seven thousand signatures asking for the app to be pulled.

According to reports, the app presented The Manhattan Declaration, a manifesto put together by conservative Catholic and fundamentalist Christian groups against both abortion rights and gay marriage, in full. The app also included a four questions presented as a survey asking about the user’s opinions on the two subjects, but anyone filling out the survey was then given a score based on whether their answers matched the group’s agenda. In addition, the app also asked people to sign on to the declaration.

Surprisingly, Apple actually commented on this app removal, telling PC Magazine in a statement, “We removed the Manhattan Declaration app from the App Store because it violates our developer guidelines by being offensive to large groups of people.”

For its part, The Manhattan Declaration is “deeply perplexed” as to how Apple could find its app objectionable. In a blog post, it said that, “We are urging Apple to restore the App, and have written to Steve Jobs. We will update you with developments as they arise.”

The image below of a broken iPhone with a screen shot of the now-pulled app was taken from the group’s home page:

 

The Manhattan Declaration Protests Apple's App Decision

 

The Manhattan Declaration Protests Apple’s App Decision

Apple hasn’t often been publicly active in the political spectrum, but in 2008 the company did give US$100,000 to fight the now infamous Prop 8 measure in California that rewrote the state’s constitution to outlaw gay marriage. At that time, Apple said in a statement:

Apple is publicly opposing Proposition 8 and making a donation of $100,000 to the No on 8 campaign. Apple was among the first California companies to offer equal rights and benefits to our employees’ same-sex partners, and we strongly believe that a person’s fundamental rights — including the right to marry — should not be affected by their sexual orientation. Apple views this as a civil rights issue, rather than just a political issue, and is therefore speaking out publicly against Proposition 8.

All of this serves to illustrate the tightrope that Apple will constantly have to walk after setting itself up as the arbiter for what can and can not be offered on the App Store. In this case, anti-gay and anti-choice people will be angry the app was pulled, while gay rights and pro-choice users were angry the app was ever approved.

Sign Up for the Newsletter

Join the TMO Express Daily Newsletter to get the latest Mac headlines in your e-mail every weekday.

46 Comments Leave Your Own

MyRightEye

Um, ok, so Apple now rules via mob-rule rather than the rule of law. Just like our country, how exciting!

Sparkie48

Mob rule, in the case of Prop. 8, would suggest leaving the app on.

gnasher729

So Apple rightfully removes this propaganda app, which was specifically created so that the mob can trample on the freedom of individuals. Just seems that someone didn’t watch out when this app was accepted.

Bosco (Brad Hutchings)

...while gay rights and pro-choice users were angry the app was ever approved.

I’m not sure why this follows, Bryan. Surely some will be angry at anything that challenges their worldview. Witness some of the commenters on these boards. But I certainly am not angry that this app gets approved or that a group such as the Manhattan Declaration with different views than I have exists. Nor do I think this group is “anti-gay”.

The more interesting point about this is that Apple has now set itself up as a willing recipient of interest group pressure. The Manhattan Declaration can surely generate thousands of signatures itself, and if they are astute and creative, can create a public farce out of a discussion about what kinds of material are appropriate for Apple’s precious, *magical*, not offensive to anyone App Store.

As a comp sci grad student in the mid-1990s, one emerging topic that interested me a lot because I knew it would eventually get some legs was “genetic algorithms”. The idea was if you had a huge search space that could not be exhaustively searched, for some problems, you could try to “breed” a locally (or maybe globally) optimal solution by repeatedly mixing together promising solutions to capture the best of both. Well, I think a similar thing is happening with the App Store rejections. We’re all awaiting for the perfect rejection that will demonstrate how mind-numbingly stupid Apple’s process is to begin with. And they just keep getting better and better. In the two years since they rejected the original South Park app, this one is probably close enough to lighting fires on both sides. I’d say it’s the controversial app equivalent of the Kennedy brothers in the evolution from trilobites to primates.

marcsten

Pulling this sort of thing seems pretty easy to follow to me. If I created an app where I got a score based on how many Christians I was able to feed to a virtual lion, while laughing and rooting on the carnage, I would hope it would offend enough people to get pulled too. I don’t see much difference.

Nemo

I just read the Manhattan Declaration (Declaration) and using my best judgment as a lawyer, I can’t find anything in it that violates any reasonable construction of Apple’s guidelines (Guidelines) for its App Store.  While I take issue with many of the views expressed in the Declaration, it reasonably and respectfully expresses the views of millions of Americans.  And because of that reasonable and respectful expression of views that are not hateful and that are for many Americans mainstream, Apple is engaged in vile censorship in removing the Manhattan App from the App Store. 

Apple has a special obligation to permit apps on the App Store that are reasonable under the circumstances, fair, not unduly prejudicial to its legitimate business interests, and that are honest. No Apple’s doesn’t have any legal obligation to do this, because the its Guidelines are not a binding contract, and the provisions of the U.S. Constitution are only binding on governments and, in extraordinary cases, private entities that are, in effect, a government, nor am I aware of any other applicable law that regulates how Apple approves apps, except, perhaps, competition law, which does not apply here.  So, as far as the law is concerned, Apple may remove or permit whatever apps it pleases from its App Store.  However, if Apple goes beyond its own Guidelines to start restricting apps either because one group of American dislikes the content of the particular fair, respectful, and reasonable set of opinions expressed in the app or because it is contrary to the views of Apple’s senior management, then the voices and ideas heard on the App Store will be only those not opposed by the loudest dissenters or that comport with Steve Jobs’ opinions.  That won’t do for a closed system like the App Store, where everyone of Apple’s customers, if they are going to be confined to a closed system, has the right, based on their human dignity, which is no less than Mr. Jobs?, to decided for himself what opinions he will patronize and to expect that Apple will honor that right by guaranteeing that the App Store is a place where any fair, honest, reasonable, and respectful voice can be heard, even if some people object to the message of that voice.

If Apple can’t respect that right, which arises from the human dignity of its customers, then it is not fit to run a closed system like the App Store, and I, for one, will have to review my commitment to iOS devices as my primary mobile devices or, at least, will only be able to accept such devices, if they are jail broken so that I can choose for myself the ideas, opinions, beliefs, and/or solicitations that I will accept, without Steve Jobs or a group of loud dissenters, whether or not a majority, making that choice for me.

lizardliquer

I think that there needs to be a world where a “BIGOT APP” needs to live, somewhere in the bowls of hell. This from a hetero, father, Christian, church goer, and of course a flyfisherman. Now Pile On. Exclusionary Christianity is the opposite of Christs’ Christianity. Jesus ate with, talked with, “touched” the unclean, and never judged,or said “YOU ARE IMMORAL OR NOT LIKE ME”  the sinner…......... WOW. This is a PUKE APP to the max.
Pile on now…. I will love you anyway.

distantstorm

I think the final paragraph of the article sums up the crux of the matter here. As a gay man I am happy that the app is gone because I am quite sure I would find the content objectionable. I also realise, however, that I am only happy with Apple’s decision because of my personal view on the subject matter. My own feeling of pleasure at the app’s removal is tainted because I am also strongly in favour of freedom of speech and expression of opinion.
From my own perspective I would have to weigh up whether that freedom is more important than my own distaste and discomfort at the views that the app apparently promotes and on balance, uncomfortable as it is for me to say it, I think the app should probably have been allowed to stay - albeit I would hope that it would be poorly rated and also that it would have minimal downloads.
I would say, however, that perhaps material that is likely to provoke controversy and has a specific agenda such as this should be age-restricted - which from a personal point of view is also likely to cover any Murdoch-run iPad “newspaper” wink
I don’t envy Apple having to try and balance these situations.

Nemo

The way for any dissenters to deal with the Manhattan App is for them take on its ideas with an app or apps of their own to compete in marketplace of ideas.  That is the American way and is consistent with a reasonable construction of Apple’s Guidelines, provided that the apps on any issue are fair, respectful, reasonable, and honest.  Otherwise, Apple’s only fair recourse is to ban all apps from the App Store that contain any controversial political views.  That would include any app that was in favor of, for example, gay marriage.  Either Apple must be fair by banning all reasonably controversial apps, or Steve Jobs will become the left-wing equivalent of Mr. Murdoch, and one of that kind of bigot is enough, even though I am more likely to agree with a left-wing version of Murdoch.

I can assure Apple that its removal of the Manhattan app will be offensive to a large group of people.  Indeed, any controversial app will be offensive to a large group of people.  The question is not or should not be whether an app is offensive to a large group of people, but whether that group of people, large or small, is reasonably offended so that their offense is not mere bigotry.  Here, those opposing the Manhattan App are unreasonable in their opposition so that their demand that the Manhattan App be removed is mere bigotry, and by removing the Manhattan App, Apple has abetted that bigotry.

Now that Apple has taken this course, let’s see if Apple can walk the tightrope of banning all reasonably controversial apps.  Either that, or Steve Jobs should reverse Appel’s decision to remove the Manhattan App.

MyRightEye

“Pile on now?. I will love you anyway.”

No, you clearly don’t, or you’d respect that our Founders, many of whom died in the process, gave us a free country. A country where bigots are free to express their views.

“As a gay man I am happy that the app is gone because I am quite sure I would find the content objectionable.”

Um. So? You can’t be gay, because clearly you have no balls. Man up dude - if you don’t like the app, do not download it. Stop forcing your views on others and then calling THEM the bigots. The most bigoted people I have encountered in my life are no Christians, though they come close, but gays.

MyRightEye

“The way for any dissenters to deal with the Manhattan App is for them take on its ideas with an app or apps of their own to compete in marketplace of ideas.”

EXACTLY.

Bosco (Brad Hutchings)

I think everyone commenting on this ought to do as I have done and as Nemo has done and READ THE DECLARATION. You may not agree with it, but if you find it so objectionable (without reading whatever prejudices you think you are supposed to have) that you would want it removed from a sector of the commercial sphere, you’re not a reasonable person. I’m not sure what Nemo thinks about the declaration. I disagree with much of it, and would actually like to see the state completely out of the marriage business. But I don’t find the opinions in the declaration, which are contrary to mine, to be objectionable.

Anyway, this is the first time in the history of TMO comments section that Nemo and I have agreed about something worth discussing. I’m not surprised. The pickle Apple got itself into by going down this curated garden path was and remains unavoidable. Next step Nemo, get yourself a good Android phone, and rid yourself of the silly politics (with a small “p”) that infuses the Apple ecosystem. You can keep your Mac and even your iPad, while knowing that you’re in control of what’s on your phone, not Steve and his minions.

distantstorm

Um. So? You can?t be gay, because clearly you have no balls. Man up dude - if you don?t like the app, do not download it. Stop forcing your views on others and then calling THEM the bigots. The most bigoted people I have encountered in my life are no Christians, though they come close, but gays.

Um, I haven’t downloaded it, I haven’t forced my views on anyone and I haven’t called a single person a bigot. Good rant though, albeit it’s as if you’re responding to an imaginary post in your head rather than to anything I wrote. If you read my post you would realise that I am of the opinion the app should stay. Your selective quote was just illustrating my gut feeling and not my reasoned one which came later. Well done on your well thought-out and constructive comment however. Impressive.

Bosco (Brad Hutchings)

Here is a paragraph from their declaration:

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. We have compassion for those so disposed; we respect them as human beings possessing profound, inherent, and equal dignity; and we pay tribute to the men and women who strive, often with little assistance, to resist the temptation to yield to desires that they, no less than we, regard as wayward. We stand with them, even when they falter. We, no less than they, are sinners who have fallen short of God’s intention for our lives. We, no less than they, are in constant need of God’s patience, love and forgiveness. We call on the entire Christian community to resist sexual immorality, and at the same time refrain from disdainful condemnation of those who yield to it. Our rejection of sin, though resolute, must never become the rejection of sinners. For every sinner, regardless of the sin, is loved by God, who seeks not our destruction but rather the conversion of our hearts. Jesus calls all who wander from the path of virtue to “a more excellent way.” As his disciples we will reach out in love to assist all who hear the call and wish to answer it.

A lot of critics would say that they write tolerance but don’t really mean tolerance. Just for shits and giggles, I would love to hear the critics voice their opposition in a similar (faux if they think) respectful way. At a minimum, it would be entertaining.

The more I look into this, the more obvious it is that Apple stepped in a steaming pile. Get your popcorn.

DaveW

The Manhattan Declaration is a pro-life, pro-family advocacy organization.  While you may assert that the organization is anti-<insert your favorite group or cause here>, the fact is that removal of this application constitutes censorship on the part of Apple.  They have the right to do so, but think about it, most of the documentaries that Apple sells and rents via iTunes reflect left-wing ideology and beliefs.  If they delete the MD application because it offends one group, then they will be pressed to delete left-wing documentaries because they offend other groups.  Censorship cuts both ways. Finally, if your arguments in favor of your favorite group or cause are so weak that you can only address your opponents via censorship, perhaps you should revisit your positions.

Nemo

I have read the entire Declaration, and the passage quoted by Mr. Hutchings, supra, is typical in its tone and respectful character of the entire document.  The Declaration in its respectful tone and reasonable statement is a model of just the way Apple and all of us should want all controversial ideas treated and presented.  In removing, the App, which presents the Declaration from the App Store, Apple has censored a model of tolerance and respect, at least in its language; whether the practice comports with the language, I don’t know and is beside the point, because it is the language that the App presents.

Apple has made mistakes in its censorship before, and such mistakes will occur and are unavoidable, though they have been rare.  But what has distinguished Apple’s character and practice with its past errors of censorship is the swiftness with which it reversed those errors.  I hope will reaffirm it good character and swiftly correct its error in removing the Manhattan App, which it can only do by either quickly reinstating the App or by indicating that it will prohibit all controversial apps in the future, no matter where on the political spectrum they lie.  If Apple takes the latter course, the App Store will be fair, but it will become, with respect to intellectual life, a dull and second-rate third-rate place.

davebarnes

That was so gay of Apple.

lizardliquer

I guess when the self-rightchious submitters to this post do the “CALL ANYONE WHO DISAGREES NAMES.” they don’t have any argument left. Only names, no compassion, no love of your enemies, only blind hatred, just like the app. OBTW, in previous post here I forgot to say I am a Viet Vet in addition to father, Christian Presbyterian. I guess that’s it for now.

DALLAS OUTLOUD

The idea that we (left leaning liberals) should be mollified by the declaration’s kindness toward the poor immoral sinner is ridiculous. Gay people are not immoral. I refuse to stand by while the right declares its “love” for the sinner. The idea that I need the right’s pity, sympathy, or anything other than the same rights afforded to everyone else is offensive and rejected.

Is Apple led by left leaning liberals? You betcha. As is Microsoft, Google and most other leading tech companies in the wireless world. So, the religious right might want to consider using CB radios.

MyRightEye

“Gay people are not immoral”

That is YOUR opinion. And you are entitled to it, just as much as they are entitled you theirs.

As I said, you gays are the real bigots, and people should wake up and realize that already.

JonGl

Pulling this sort of thing seems pretty easy to follow to me. If I created an app where I got a score based on how many Christians I was able to feed to a virtual lion, while laughing and rooting on the carnage, I would hope it would offend enough people to get pulled too. I don?t see much difference.

What I find interesting is that it is those who decry “hate” then turn around and talk about throwing Christians to the lions. I love how people think that talking about throwing Christians to the lions is something offensive to them. Worse is the glee with which it is usually brought up. I suspect that if such a practice were to be reinstated, we’d have large crowds…. So, who’s _really_ guilty of hate here?

I don’t know any Christian who would want to see homosexuals killed (in any manner) or denied the basic rights of all humans (which nobody is denying). It is homosexual behavior and the lifestyle that they are opposed to. I see, however, that the pro-homosexual bigots cannot understand that. So, go ahead and feed me to the lions. I don’t really care. And you can laugh and rejoice to your heart’s content. All you have done is show your true colors, and they aren’t pretty.

-Jon

JonGl

From the closing lines of the article:

this case, anti-gay and anti-choice people will be angry the app was pulled, while gay rights and pro-choice users were angry the app was ever approved.

Interesting choice of descriptions. Why not call the “anti-” people “pro-family” and “pro-life”. For us, it is not about what we are against, but what we are _for_. One’s choice of vocabulary can do a lot to color the debate. By choosing those terms, you create an environment, not of discourse, but of bigotry. You could have just as well as called the “other” side, “anti-family” and “anti-life”. Let’s try to be consistent here. Why don’t we use the terms in the way that each side prefers? Let’s see if you can be fair and objective in your article, and call the two sides “Pro-family” and “pro-life,” and “pro-homosexual” and “pro-choice”. At least that way, you don’t come across as one-sided (and, dare we say, narrow-minded). That would be the honest (and sadly, brave) way to put it.

-Jon

Lee Dronick

They could negotiate, see this

geoduck

Oh no we CAN’T have Apple do anything that might be construed of as <gasp> LIBERAL. What might happen if they actually stood up for something they believed in rather than just the almighty dollar. Why, then they would be unlike the other big companies, and the print media, and the broadcast media and the churches and the legislatures, and congress and the white house and the courts at all levels. I mean what might happen if Apple starts to THINK DIFFERENT.

Bosco (Brad Hutchings)

@geoduck: Focus on the real issue here, which has nothing to do with gays versus Christians, liberal versus conservatives, or any of those other petty squabbles. The real issue is the viability of Apple’s proprietary App Store. Does it concern you that a staunch defender of the system such as Nemo might consider jailbreaking his phone or even whether to continue to purchase iOS devices based if Apple does not reinstitute the app?

Ultimately, Apple’s ability to run a single-legitimate-source App Store for iOS devices relies on customer buy in, not technology or even property rights. Granting that perhaps Apple needed to pursue this course to make an iOS software ecosystem arise, they are far beyond the point of diminishing marginal returns. This controversy is just a well-emerged example, with more juicy ones surely to follow now that the flood-gates of vocal opposition and petitions are open.

Nemo

Apple’s executive suite or its CEO can be as liberal, conservative, or anything in between as they like, but they can’t be that on their computing and service platforms, at least not when they are closed platforms so that Apple’s customers don’t have any choice about the messages or ideas that they can patronize.  When a closed platform becomes as dominant as the App Store has become, a company must be fair in accommodating and presenting ideas, because it is about the customers and their right to have all ideas presented to them that are presented fairly, respectfully, honestly, and reasonably, and is not about whatever opinions may exist in the executive suite of that company or among the members of a dissenting group.  The customers choose the ideas, not Steve Jobs and not some group that doesn’t like a particular idea that is contrary to its beliefs.

Now, there are two ways for Apple to be fair in regulating ideas on the App Store:  It can either permit all ideas that are respectfully, honestly, fairly, and reasonably presented, or it can bar all controversial ideas.  Apple is morally obliged to do one or the other.  If it chooses the course of baring all ideas, that will be fair but will transform the App Store into an intellectual wasteland; if it chooses to restrict the presentation of ideas to those that are fairly, honestly, reasonably, and respectfully presented, then that will be an App Store where the competition of ideas may flourish, without any person having any reasonable basis for claiming offense.

But if Apple selects neither of those courses but instead chooses to permit only the ideas that comport with the philosophy, opinions, prejudices, and/or bigotries of its executives or of whatever group simply wants to shout down the idea that it hates, I shall either jailbreak or abandon Apple’s iOS devices.

Old Enough

We have decidedly redefined t-o-l-e-r-a-n-c-e. It used to mean accepting something from someone else than one did not like at all. Classically, one tolerates only what one dislikes or disagrees with. We are now confronted, on all sides, by people who insist not that we tolerate something, but that we either actively accept/condone, or shut up.

The Manhattan Declaration is not vile or offensive language, exhibits the kind of calm reasoned discourse for which we should all strive. While thousands may have apparently expressed their displeasure at its ideas (and not, notedly, its language), I can assure you that millions of people not only agree with both its ideas and language, but are also offended by the numerous “gay apps” that are easily accessible via the app store. They have not chosen to protest to Apple because they are tolerant, in the classic sense of the word.

In the app store one can obtain the Koran, complete with offensive passages that call for the extermination of Jews and Christians. One can obtain Jewish scriptures, presumably offensive to Muslims, and any number of translations of the Bible, presumably offensive to any number of free-thinking unbelievers. Yet they are all available in the app store marketplace of ideas, as they should be.

Apple can do what it wants, of course. For my part, I hope they reconsider. I can do what I want, as well.

I too am going to reconsider?my commitment to Apple products which has remained firm since 1989.

anthony_dellos

Look - the quoted paragraph and I’m sure the entire manifesto strongly implies that homosexuality is immoral. I think people at Apple find that implication offensive.

It’s nice to see that Bosco and Nemo are right on this article. I’m sure they struggled “to resist the temptation to yield to desires that they, no less than we, regard as wayward.” but ended up opining in a contrarian fashion on this article anyway.

As far as I’m concerned, two bottom lines here:

1. There is no real controversy here. This story will be replaced by the next “greatest controversy of the week” in I’d say about, oh, a week. And at that point effectively no one will be fretting about it.

2. Apple is a business and has the right to refuse the service of their app store as they see fit. If people don’t like it they can vote with their feet by jail breaking their devices or going to a different platform.

JMHO
Anthony

BandyRandy

I like how Chaffin doesn’t even bother to hide his biases - his enemies are “anti-gay” and “anti-choice,” but the causes he approves of are couched in positive terms.  Way to report the news fairly and with integrity, guy.

Joe

I suppose religious texts that paint gays in any negative light will be removed… I suppose the bible, quran, and many other religious texts have to be removed next…. Then who is next?

Neo

Let’s all try to remember that gays make up at least 35% of Apple’s market.

This is clearly within their business interests.

Neo

“That is YOUR opinion. And you are entitled to it, just as much as they are entitled you theirs.

As I said, you gays are the real bigots, and people should wake up and realize that already.”

This is only slightly less offensive to me than the thousands of comments I’ve read on news sites comparing homosexuals to pedophiles.

Being homosexual does not make one immoral. This is no opinion, this is fact. It may make them sinners but all humans are.
One’s sexuality does not suddenly deprive them of all morality and conscience.

MyRightEye

“Being homosexual does not make one immoral. This is no opinion, this is fact.”

Ah, no, sorry, but morality is not testable science, is it is completely subjective philosophy - so it is indeed an OPINION, not a FACT.

And THAT is a fact.

geoduck

Being homosexual does not make one immoral. This is no opinion, this is fact. It may make them sinners but all humans are.

Exactly right and calling a Homophobe a Homophobe is not being intolerant. A couple of hundred years ago exactly the same things were said about left handed people and horrible punishments were visited on us left handers for the ‘moral crime’ of being left handed. It’s why I feel so strongly about Gay Rights now. It’s just the right thing to do.

MyRightEye
No it becomes a fact when you measure ‘morality’ by equating homosexuality with pedophilia. The two are not connected (fact) therefore being gay is not a moral issue by their own definition.

MyRightEye

“No it becomes a fact when you measure ?morality? by equating homosexuality with pedophilia. The two are not connected (fact) therefore being gay is not a moral issue by their own definition.”

I have not, nor has anyone else that I have seen, done any such thing. So here’s a match for your strawman.

And nothing makes morality a fact - NOTHING. It is and always will be an objective philosophy. The only people trying to turn morality into a fact are religious and gay bigots. Which one are you?

distantstorm

I have not, nor has anyone else that I have seen, done any such thing. So here?s a match for your strawman.

I would agree actually, you did not equate the two. Perhaps you can be big enough to agree that I did not call anyone a bigot as you claimed I did earlier? Even though you are throwing the word about yourself fairly liberally. Also that I am not forcing my views on anyone - which you also claimed, merely commenting on a discussion the same as yourself. Thanks in advance smile

Neo

What exactly have gays done that can fit the definition of bigotry?

I don’t see any gay activists pushing to stop anyone from marrying anyone else. Or to stop anything, actually, with the exception of the bigotry against them.

It can be compared to civil rights, in that all the black Americans were trying to stop was the prejudgment and racism. While not as serious an issue, it is still similar.

Gays being allowed to marry 1.) benefits the gays and 2.) harms no one. (I would like to see you find some evidence pointing to the contrary.) Maybe your “feelings” will be hurt but that isn’t a concern of the government. Marriage, however, is.

Bosco (Brad Hutchings)

What exactly have gays done that can fit the definition of bigotry?

Presumably, a group of people sympathetic to what is thought as a “gay cause” did petition Apple to remove an app from an organization whose stated beliefs fall well within the mainstream of diverse American opinion. Stifling speech because of a political or philosophical disagreement would quite rightly be called a bigoted action. At least that is how several very reasonable people here perceive what happened. While I disagree with much of the Manhattan Declaration, I find it beyond reprehensible that some who I might be more inclined to agree with would stifle their access to promote their thoughts, especially because their thoughts are very mainstream. It’s not only reprehensible, it’s terrible politics.

If you want to change people’s minds and hearts, engage in the discussion and don’t be a dick. Period.

zewazir

A slanted story tends to yield slanted responses.  The story first states that the Manhattan Declaration has an “anti-gay” agenda.  Then it details that the app presents arguments which are simply against gay marriage. So, if someone disagrees with ANY part of the gay community movement, then they are ANTI-GAY?

The thing many seem to forget (or ignore) is that marriage is a RELIGIOUS institution. Marriage has existed before anything we can realistically call government in most societies.  Marriage predates even the ancient cultures of Rome, Greece, Egypt, even China. Governments, including ours, have made use of the institution of marriage for secular purposes such as common property, various automatically derived rights of attorney, inheritance, etc.  But the institution of marriage itself is religious in derivation, and therefore those who hold to religious beliefs have every right to defend the institution against government encroachment under the guise of equal rights. And we can do so without being bigots - it’s not about who chooses whom to have a relationship with, it is about what relationships are Blessed by the Father.

If that is “anti-gay” bigotry, then all who disagree with the Catholic interpretation of the bible are, by the same standard, anti-Catholic bigots. And anyone who disagrees with the basic tenets of Christianity are also, by these same standards, anti-Christian bigots. Seems a rather harsh, narrow minded, and intolerant standard to me.

Bottom line, people: we can (and do) disagree with the intents of certain groups.  Disagreement with the beliefs of others does not, in itself, make us anti-anything. The app does not call for anything EXCEPT keeping the institution of marriage true to the religious beliefs which spawned the institution in the first place.

That and trying to defend the lives of unborn human children - but I have a feeling if Manhattan Declaration had kept to that one subject, their app would still be out there. (Then again, maybe not. The intolerance of party of tolerance has been growing more and more noticeable in recent years.)

akcarver

Exclusionary Christianity is the opposite of Christs? Christianity. Jesus ate with, talked with, ?touched? the unclean, and never judged,or said ?YOU ARE IMMORAL OR NOT LIKE ME?? the sinner

Yes, but he also told the woman who was caught in adultery:Go and SIN NO MORE!

Laurie Fleming

So you say that someone is entitled to his opinion, then call him a bigot, thus attempting to deny that entitlement. That’s not very nice, is it? And you have no sense of irony.

akcarver

Neo said:What exactly have gays done that can fit the definition of bigotry?
Presumably, a group of people sympathetic to what is thought as a ?gay cause? did petition Apple to remove an app from an organization whose stated beliefs fall well within the mainstream of diverse American opinion. Stifling speech because of a political or philosophical disagreement would quite rightly be called a bigoted action. At least that is how several very reasonable people here perceive what happened. While I disagree with much of the Manhattan Declaration, I find it beyond reprehensible that some who I might be more inclined to agree with would stifle their access to promote their thoughts, especially because their thoughts are very mainstream. It?s not only reprehensible, it?s terrible politics.

If you want to change people?s minds and hearts, engage in the discussion and don?t be a dick. Period.

This is EXACTLY my view. I have had people I’ve known since high school (more than 30 years ago) just shut down the discussion completely when I’ve disagreed with them about controversial topics. When that happens, I WIN THE ARGUMENT. Or at the very least, they lose their opportunity to change my mind.

akcarver

Pulling this sort of thing seems pretty easy to follow to me. If I created an app where I got a score based on how many Christians I was able to feed to a virtual lion, while laughing and rooting on the carnage, I would hope it would offend enough people to get pulled too. I don?t see much difference.

Then you’re a MORON. MD is NOT calling for mass executions of homosexuals. They are just presenting an unpopular (at Apple) opinion that homosexuality is immoral.

akcarver

Let?s all try to remember that gays make up at least 35% of Apple?s market.

This is clearly within their business interests.

Where are you getting that 35% number? If true, that would be well outside the homosexual representation of the population at large.

ibuck

Like many people, I am not persuaded by people who are defamatory, inaccurate, manipulative or dishonest. And I see too much of these qualities in these posts. Usually, such tactics make me less sympathetic to their arguments and more open to the other side.  And I become averse to those who try to twist language: “Call us Pro-GoodGuy and call the other side Pro-ScumBag.”  But I am fairly well-educated, both formally and experientially, and not as easily taken in.

Organizations often make decisions that may disappoint or which some may disapprove.  But companies try to avoid controversies that may diminish their brand or adversely affect their success. I think Apple will do whatever they can to minimize controversy while doing the right thing, as best they know how.

It’s sad that we have come to this as a people, where divergent myths divide us. All of us believe things, most of them unconsciously, that we have not ascertained.

Bosco (Brad Hutchings)

Update: According to Nemo’s favorite website, Gawker, (blacklisted, can’t post link) the app is going to be resubmitted without the quiz, and there are groups gearing up to oppose its approval.

Apple’s mistake is the same as it has been since the original South Park app, which is that its App Store is the only legitimate source for apps for iOS devices. Now it is caught between two large constituencies that are demanding the exact opposite on an approval decision for an app. It has already sided with the one that is most wrong, those who demanded removal of an app they disagree with. The controversy is two weeks old and bigger now than when it started.

Log-in to comment