Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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: Bill who wrote (792728)	7/1/2014 7:10:37 AM
From: jlallen	Respond to of 1571811

Most of CJ's posts are just that way....

To: Bill who wrote (792728)	7/2/2014 9:29:54 AM
From: combjelly	1 Recommendation Recommended By Don Hurst Read Replies (6) \| Respond to of 1571811

Projecting again, Bill. You need to watch that. This ruling sets a precedent that if those 5 or less people who are the majority owners of a corporation can figure out a way the claim that something offends their religious beliefs, they can be exempt from the law. There is nothing to stop a company owned by Jehovah's Witnesses to reject coverage of transfusions. Or Christian Scientists to reject health insurance in toto. What if a Muslim owned business wants to require their female employees wear burkas? Unless, of course, you want to claim that only certain strains of certain religions have that right. I know, I know. The court restricted that to only contraception. But a) the law doesn't work that way. b) contraception has a lot to do with public health. c) the methods in question don't cause abortions. So religious beliefs trump science and reality.