On the first excerpt, the man attempted to catch the waiter’s attention by raising his hand. Consequently, the waiter acknowledged the gesture of the customer, and returned it by locking eyes with him. However, the former was not able to attend immediately to the needs of the man because he was about to hand me the pub’s menu. Meanwhile, the man, who was the subject of the second excerpt, also tried to be noticed by the waitress by establishing an eye contact. But, because their location was far from one another, the waitress failed to notice that someone needs to be attended.
Many businesses in Indiana are denying LGBT people service and their action are justify because of Indiana’s RFRA. Indiana 's RFRA should be unconstitutional because it violates the 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause and religion should not override laws. Every individuals in the United States have equal protection under the law. However, Indiana 's RFRA allows businesses to discriminate against the LGBT community. It allows business owners whose religion does not tolerate homosexuals to not serve LGBT people.
Banned Books are books that are prohibited by law or to which free access is not permitted by other means. Banning books is against the writers right for freedom of speech, which is the first amendment. Students have the right to read, reading is not illegal, so why ban books? If a reader is mature enough to handle some curse words or bad behavior then they should be able to read banned books. Some people believe books should not be banned in schools/libraries but just because you do not like it does not mean it should be taken away, that is the authors freedom of speech.
Munchy's Ban on Students Argumentative Essay Rough Draft Should a business have the right to ban teens just because of their age? I think not because anyone should be able to enter a business that is kid friendly. Teens or anyone at this matter brings in money for the business, so I don’t see why a business would want to not allow an entire age group from being allowed in their business. This restaurant named Munchy’s wants to do so because they think teens are scaring away customers. My thoughts on this is that, are teens monsters or something, what’s the big deal?
Many of the foreigners see the Dutch as blunt because of their straightforwardness (“Dutch). It is hard to offend them thus, so anyone can speak their mind without displeasing them (“Dutch). The Dutch are reserved so they do not share personal information, even to their close friends (“Netherlands Language). The Dutch are formal while dining (“Netherlands Language). They use utensils in a proper way and the host must eat before anyone else (“Netherlands Language).
2. Include Everyone When you are not all sat around a table together, it can be too easy to forget about someone and leave them out of the meeting. If you are unfamiliar with your conferencing software, you could also mute them or even kick them out of the meeting without meaning to. If you are running an online meeting, try to make everybody feel included and ensure that every attendee has had a chance to share their work or express their opinion. If they are left out by accident, apologize so that they know it wasn’t done on purpose.
The law, which was named after its sponsor (Mike Synar), was a contingent prohibition on the sale of tobacco to minors. According to that, minors who are under a certain age determined by each state’s laws cannot purchase cigarettes and other related products legally, otherwise the violators will be harshly
GMI and HDTV will not be convicted because the First Amendment protects commercial speech. Commercial speech is not protected as noncommercial speech. For example, to protect consumers, a state may ban certain kinds of marketing practices, such as untrustworthy or false advertising. In general, a restriction on commercial speech will be considered valid as long as it falls between strict, intermediate, or rational scrutiny rules. Here, the complete ban on video ads "because the games might be damaging to teenagers " is too restrictive: it goes too far in attempting to protect minors for an apparently unconfirmed
Stricter gun laws would not benefit America because they would restrict the rights of citizens, restrict the reliability and freedom citizens deserve, and would do nothing to prevent killings from occurring. Recently, laws have been established within states that mistreat
Only constitutional amendment should the power to enact such guidelines that deal with censorship (O`Brien, 508). It is not rational to allow governments to ban certain expressions because they are not appealing to some people. If such an act is allowed, than freedom of speech and press guaranteed by the 1st Amendment becomes useless, and that every material could be banned based on this test. People cannot be punished for expressing their views just because those views might not be appealing to some judge or jury (O`Brien, 508).
05 December 2016). Despite any positive outcomes that the soda ban may bring, I believe banning soda from New Yorkers is not an effective way to reduce these numbers. Healthy living needs to be taught for it to be probably practiced across all the states.
Criminals, which by definition have no regard for the law, will not be phased by the governments restrictions with such laws. Parts of the U.S. that already have the strictest gun laws such as California and Chicago are the parts of the country that
I think that this bill should definitely be up for debate. To impose a ban that would potentially stop families or individuals from obtaining food, a basic need is a type of discrimination. While I do not agree or condone the selling of drugs, I do believe that there are various reasons why a person may resort to do something that is against the law. This bill does not leave any room for people who have paid their debt to society and is trying to get their lives on track. The bill also only specifies that “convicted drug felons” not any other convicted felons receives this lifetime ban.