iPod.  iPhone.  iTouch.  iBanned.

Specifically, Apple decided to remove the Manhattan Declaration App (application), a piece of software designed for iPhones that allow the user to, among other things, digitally sign their agreement to and support of the Manhattan Declaration.   The Manhattan Declaration is a rather wordy but ultimately well-expressed statement affirming the dignity of human life (rejecting abortion, euthanasia, and any other technology or ideology that diminishes or dismisses human life at any stage or for any reason), the sanctity of heterosexual marriage (rejecting same-sex marriage and efforts to redefine marriage as anything other than between a man and a woman), and insists on religious liberty for all).  

Apple was petitioned to remove the app as something "offensive".  A counter-petition is currently ongoing for Apple to reinstate the app.  It's interesting how change.org who sponsored the petition to remove the app caricatures the Manhattan Declaration and it's supporters (incorrectly), stating that the Declaration supports:

Much of the debate at this point focuses on the issue of how Apple determines when an app is offensive and when it is not.  The app development guidelines are only available to  developers registered with Apple, but rumor has it that they are openly rather subjective in terms of how these decisions are made.  

Is it good or bad for Apple to make this decision?  We have to think about this carefully.  Forcing a company to support or sell or develop or carry any specific type of product is fairly antithetical to our capitalist mindsets.  While companies are prohibited from improper discrimination in who may buy, lease or otherwise access and utilize their products, what products they choose to make remains their decision.  From this perspective, Apple is completely open to determining what Apps they will host and sell and which ones they won't.  This is much preferred to the attempts currently underway by the LBGT community to force businesses to do whatever they want them to do, thus violating the inherent sanctity of a business/business owner to decide for themselves what sort of work they will or will not engage in.  

Ideologically, we shouldn't be surprised at this turn of events.  Now that any form of objection or rejection of the LBGT agenda is being more and more equated with hate-speak, it's going to be harder for any company to in any way support or associate with anyone hateful enough to disagree with the whims and dictates of LBGT promoters.  Sad for companies, true.  But don't be fooled - this same level of rhetoric will soon be used against congregations and any other group that disagrees publicly with the LBGT agenda.  The public schools have already pretty much been won over to this mindset.  Public universities have also been on board with this for some time.  The courts are more and more demonstrating their predispositions to this agenda.  Is it a shock that Apple would capitulate as well?

People who agree with the Manhattan Declaration can and should petition Apple to reinstate the app.  They are free to do so, and if they can muster adequate public pressure, they should at least in theory stand a good chance of success.  But not a guaranteed chance of success.  Apple is ultimately free to make it's own decision.  It certainly isn't the only way to get the word out to people about the Declaration.    Ultimately I question the usefulness of the Declaration in the first place, but that's another matter.