SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: combjelly who wrote (792619)6/30/2014 12:11:22 PM
From: i-node5 Recommendations

Recommended By
Bill
FJB
one_less
steve harris
TimF

  Respond to of 1584252
 
>> Since the insurance is part of the employees compensation, it is sort of like a Muslim-owned business forbidding their employees to buy alcohol.

That is a ridiculous analogy.

A correct analogy would be that it is like a Muslim-owned business not being forced by government to buy their employees alcohol.



To: combjelly who wrote (792619)6/30/2014 12:30:52 PM
From: Bill3 Recommendations

Recommended By
i-node
one_less
TimF

  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 1584252
 
You do know that this is about "insurance" for an expense that costs less than $30 a month, don't you?

You also know that the employees of Hobby Lobby are free to buy their own contraceptives if they want, with no restrictions, right?



To: combjelly who wrote (792619)6/30/2014 7:38:52 PM
From: TimF  Respond to of 1584252
 
Since the insurance is part of the employees compensation, it is sort of like a Muslim-owned business forbidding their employees to buy alcohol.

No, its not at all like that.

It has however very like a Muslim-owned business refusing to buy alcohol for its employees. (Something which it should be able to do.)

It would be like the Muslim-owned business forbidding their employees to buy alcohol if the policy was "buy these drugs and we will fire you", rather than "we don't want to pay for a policy that covers these drugs".