Wrote the wrong "church" in pervious post, corrected.  But https://thesatanictemple.com/#
https://kutv.com/news/nation-world/satanic-temps-says-religious-freedoms-exempt-abortion-rights-from-state-laws

https://www.freedomforuminstitute.org/about/faq/has-the-u-s-supreme-court-defined-religion/#:~:text=In%201890%2C%20the%20Supreme%20Court,of%20obedience%20to%20his%20will.%E2%80%9D

In 1890, the Supreme Court in Davis v. Beason expressed religion in traditional theistic terms: “[T]he term ‘religion’ has reference to one’s views of his relations to his Creator, and to the obligations they impose of reverence for his being and character, and of obedience to his will.”

Following the expansive view of religion expressed in Seeger and Welsh, the Court in its 1972
ruling involving the Amish and compulsory school attendance suggested a shift back, to a more
exclusive definition. The majority opinion in Wisconsin v. Yoder indicated that the free-exercise
clause applied only to “a ‘religious’ belief or practice,” and “the very concept of ordered liberty
precludes allowing every person to make his own standards on matters of conduct in which
society as a whole has important interests.”

The Court in its 1981 decision Thomas v. Review Board further expressed its reluctance to protect
philosophical values. The Indiana Supreme Court had ruled that a decision by a Jehovah’s Witness
to quit his job after he was transferred to a weapons-making facility was a “personal philosophical
choice rather than a religious choice” and did not “rise to the level of a first amendment claim.” In
overturning the Indiana decision, Chief Justice Warren Burger cautiously stated, “only beliefs rooted
in religion are given special protection to the exercise of religion.” The Court found the worker’s actions
to be motivated by his religious beliefs.

So, the recent precedences YOU posted indicate that beliefs founded in religion are a valid basis for
ones actions, but simply holding a philosophical belief is not valid under the protection of religion.

You, as a non-believer of religion, would have zero basis for refusing IT services based on "moral grounds" as you proposed.

Okay so if I find it morally wrong to help you with a computer issue is it my fault as an IT worker or your fault as a employee.  Should I find someone else to fix your computer issue or should the burden be placed on you to find another IT worker?

Look you don't have to support abortion,  as long as you find another doctor to replace you that's all that is required.  But you can't leave the innocent person trying to get a procedure hanging.

You have to have some religious teachings to back up your opinion.

Just saying something is against your religion doesn't make it legitimate.

Do what I tell you, even if you believe it is morally wrong, or be fired.

Is there another definition of what it means to be forced to do something?

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/forced

forced
adjective

1.  done against your wishes:  forced repatriation

Syn:  involuntary

Perform these operations that might be killing another human being, or give up your job of treating and healing the sick.


Nothing immoral about that position.   

I too would have an unhappy face. Abortion access is critical.  If the doctor doesn't want to do it, he must find a willing replacement doctor.  Else, he has to preform the procedure as its his job. 

I can't make excuses of religion for my job.  Why should they get to.

The government can't force a free and private citizen to preform [sic] ANY service.

Private businesses reserve the right to refuse service ... unless the patient requires life-saving treatment.  THEN the doctor/ER must render aid -- not abortions.

That’s more of a basic safety issue. I don’t think it would make much of a difference for any other firearm if you don’t drop the mag and check the chamber a few times briefly.

It's absolutely a user-caused problem.  But, if one brand requires a trigger pull to break it down, and others do not, the increased risk still exists if (when) someone skips the basic safety check for any reason.

If you've ever left a burner on after cooking or the front door unlocked when you left for work, you understand that we can't always trust what we have been taught.

One safety concern many have voiced about all Glocks is the need to pull the trigger when breaking it down.  You can't take off the slide unless the trigger is "uncocked."  That's accomplished by (hopefully) dry-firing the pistol before disassembly.

There have been many people causing unintentional (negligent) discharges when starting to clean their Glocks.  It's too easy to get distracted and forget to eject that round sitting in the chamber.  I have a friend who admitted he started to clean his G21 after a range visit, but he forgot it had to be uncocked to take it down.  As he was trying to figure out why the slide was being stubborn, he racked it -- and the chambered round ejected.  Shocked him to death, because he was positive it was unloaded.  Luckily, he was inexperienced and didn't know why the slide wouldn't come off.  If he'd known, he would have more than likely gotten an even bigger shock! 

Sigs can be taken apart without having to pull the trigger first.  So, if a round happens to be carelessly left in the chamber, it'll be discovered as the slide is safely removed without touching the trigger.

In a perfect world, this would never be a concern.  But, when humans are part of the equation, the product ought to be as foolproof as possible.

So Fauci mentions a few days ago that even with the vaxx, you still have to wear a mask.  $20 says he will have to back track on that later.

There's a logical argument to be made that it would be prudent to wear masks in public regardless of the existence of any "Super Flu". 

If we're seeing a decrease in other communicable disease infections during this pandemic, it may point to the efficacy of masks being able to decrease disease transmissions across the board.

There's an opposing argument to be made for decreased immunization and ability to fight off diseases if you are not being routinely exposed to them.  But, from a general health and productivity perspective, not getting sick seems like would outweigh catching colds and the flu every year or so.

The choice, of course, would be up to the individual and their doctor.  But, the pandemic may have made choosing to wear masks when outside the home more "normal".

I was in the market for a G19 to compliment my G17.  I was interested in it for CCW when I travel.

Then I bought the Sig P320 Nitron Full-Size as soon as it was available at my LGS.  It's my favorite pistol now.

What I don't see in many comparisons with the P320 is how versitile it is.  You can pick a variety of calibers and sizes, and all with the one trigger module.  I bought the Sig X-Change kit that transforms my Full-Size into a Compact.

The Full-Size has a standard 17rd capacity.  Same as a G17.

The Compact has a standard 15rd capacity.  Same as the G19.

So, when looking at G19 alternatives, it's important to match up all the specs before delving into those that require compromises.  Capacity, dimensions, weight, striker vs. hammer, polymer vs. all metal, ...

Ergonomically, the P320 beats the G19 to death (YMMV).  The only real advantage the G19 has over the P320 Compact IMO is price.  But we are talking about a Sig versus a Glock after all.   

Will do, the day you can promise me your actions will not effect me.   

You can smoke all you want.  I don't give a fuck it's your freedom.  But the second your smoke effects me then it's no longer your freedom.   It infringes on mine.

Why are you forcing your beliefs on everyone else?  I thought you hated that.

 

All these precautions I would venture to say is better than catching and spreading covid....

And YOU are FREE to decide that for YOURSELF.

Please respect others by allowing them the same FREEDOM to decide for themselves.