Sentences with phrase «rights act because»

«The Tories would ditch the Human Rights Act because they care more about losing votes to Ukip than the rights of British citizens,» he told the conference.

Several districts in the city are protected by the Voting Rights Act because of large minority populations, but Mr. Weiner's is not.

Not exact matches

Fellow hip - hop act Astronautalis says he makes a few hundred dollars a month via streaming on his back catalog because he owns all of the publishing rights to it and doesn't have to split anything with a label.

We should never be too busy to do an act of kindness — they should simply be a part of our life and we should be kind because that is the right thing to do, not because it enhances our reputation — that's just a nice bonus.

You're right about the main reason, but that's because most people don't understand the purpose of Absolute Return investments is to diversify a portfolio — not act as a substitute for long - only equity exposure (which as you say can be obtained very cheaply)

«A smart man can not follow another man blindly even though the other man is right, because you can not have the confidence and act on advice when you do not know what it is based on.»

A company that even printed out a contract like that would be liable under the Civil Rights Act, because it is illegal to discriminate in employment decisions on the basis of religion.

If we go by your premise that «Some of us do the right thing because it is the right thing» and those of Faith because we are threatened, then why have we not acted more on the prescribed punishments that are threatened and demanded by God?

Yet that metaphor of the mirror is too Platonic, because God's epiphany in the world is not through mere surface shadows, but is in the coming to be, development, and passing away to make room for novelty of primary natural units, each of which truly exists and acts in its own right and according to its own nature and structure for its time, and interacts with other units in a process of mutual actualization and eventual replacement.

So CHRIS, should Obama turn down Bill Maher's money to his PAC because Bill called Sarah Palin the «C» Word??? While I don't like Rush the Left acts if they the Right has a monopoly on HATE.

Some Christians need to stop acting as if a.) The American Right = Christianity and b.) that «Christianity is true because it is» is a good argument

Right, just because it's in the bible and the people who commited some of those acts were not only never punished but still considered Gods faithful servants, shouln't be any sort of quide on what the bible allows.

The signatures of Ministers to the GATT Final Act must be reconsidered because it is hostile to human rights.

On the other hand, intrepid soldiers sometimes miraculously survive, even when their companions are falling left and right, because they act in a purposeful and deliberate fashion that unnerves the enemy.

I'll tell you why; because atheists aren't confident in their belief and need to try and act powerful and condescending so they can feel as if they're right.

Besides, are you suggesting that we suppress anyone's right to free speech because if you are than you need to move to one of these bass ackward countries where a less than middle school quality production of a total farce can insight people to act as a pack of rabid dogs blaming America for why they live in dirt... We are LUCKY and BLESSED to live in a land where we can smile and walk away from an opinion that we disagree with... that South Park can but Jesus in a boxing ring against Satan and depict Moses as a glowing spinning dreidl... and these nutcases want to burn and pillage because one lunatic makes a childish and stupid play on videotape?

The last one that I feel like talking about right now is this: I told that other poster that it was scary that he or she could start justifying evil acts because that's less than a half - step away from being able to do those acts.

It is also good to opt for family counselors who would definitely be the right person to show as wells guide the right way of thinking and acting in such crisis times of life The right thing would be to take control of oneâ $ ™ s emotions and act prudent enough because the life of not one but two are at stake in problematic affairs.

Nevertheless it must also be emphasized that such law is not left to the arbitrary will of the authorities only because it exists by custom or by a legal act and is therefore of human, not divine right.

The 1998 act passed because a remarkable coalition of Jews and Christians was prepared to do battle not only with the foreign policy mandarins but also with oldline liberal churches and secular human rights organizations who complained that concern for persecuted Christians is an instance of «special pleading.»

Unlike other religions, Christianity is not a social religion - you don't go to heaven just because you went to the right church or acted kind to others.

To your last point, when I said choice is an illusion, I wasn't referring that it is impossible to make that choice, but rather that there is a «right» choice and a «wrong» choice, the «right» one being that you worship god, regardless of how weird some of the rituals might be, making you a little more than a robot, acting out a script your given, we're just slightly better because we can justify why we're acting out a command, but it takes years to understand that justification, in the beginning, you do these rituals because you're given a script and if you don't want to do it, tough.

Because we have the right to free speech here in the U.S. means that we should be and act responsibly with this right, otherwise... you might get someone killed.

It makes us sound ignorant and really we should be thinking about all of those who are lost their live in the incident or serving as troops I'm not saying that Osama's death is bad, because personally I am quite happy about this, but we didn't act the right way about his death.

Privatizers of sex insist on their right to display sexual acts in public precisely because they believe that sex has no serious social effects.

One of the standard criticisms of virtue ethics is that it is weak when dealing with issues in applied ethics, in contrast to deontology or utilitarianism, and this because virtue theorists focus on good or bad agents rather than right or wrong acts.

«We have the right, tight knit, progressively moral community that could not commit these acts because of our progressive morals, so we haven't.»

I wept because I had been made to see, for the first time, that all the justice that must be shown the black man, all the help given him, everything that should be done legally to give him his rights, will never do what a simple act of love can do: make him know that he is accepted, cared for, yes, really loved by those who do not just «do good to him» but who feel with passionate concern that he is a human brother.

We are dignified because God has entitled us to be dignified and to act accordingly, sometimes as our human right and sometimes as our human duty.

The person who does these acts just because it is right.

A federal appeals court on May 31st ruled that the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional because it denies equal rights for legally married same - sex couples, making it likely that the Supreme Court will consider the politically divisive issue for the first time in its next term.

I think James Cone is right when he says: «Theologians of the Christian Church have not interpreted Christian ethics as an act for the liberation of the oppressed because their views of divine revelation were defined by philosophy and other cultural values rather than by the biblical theme of God as the liberator of the oppressed.»

It was because of the Civil Rights Act and other pressures, including and especially a revelation from god.

And in truth just this demand for complete obedience which involves the whole man takes a heavy burden from man, however paradoxical this sounds; for he is now set free from the endless and useless task of searching for commands and prohibitions which he must know in order to act rightly; from the fear of having failed here and there because he did not know the scriptural precept or its right interpretation; from the contempt which was felt for the people who did not know the Law.

Ok, you «preach» tolerance for your gay rights... then «tolerate» our christian beliefs... just because the media outlets highlight the militant voices that are intolerant of the gay person himself and not just of the gay act, then it tunrs around to what we experience when you try to militantly shove your gay lifestyle in my face and say I have to accept it.

More commonly and subtly, a mental disorder may so distort an individual's beliefs that he may think he is doing right when in fact an act is terribly wrong - as, for example, when a person has the delusion that his wife has literally turned into a zombie and that shooting her is the only way to protect himself from being eaten alive, or an inpatient attacks the attendants on his ward when they come to take him to an appointment because he believes they are alien beings sent to kill him.

You can't claim this is a violation of your 1st amendment rights, because you are not acting in this case as an individual, but as an agent of the corporation, and the rules governing the corporation apply.

One act of terrorism on our soil here and people will again flock to the right, because you all need crisis religion.

Because it is a moral crisis, Christians have the right and the responsibility to speak out and to act — presumably from the principle of stewardship which rejects and resists any redescription of man's powers relative to God's such that the earth is seen as man's to do with as he will.

Yeah... other than the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 — both of which passed primarily because of LBJ's sheer force of will — Johnson was racist as fuck.

This is an incredibly difficult question to answer for a variety of reasons, most importantly because over the years our once vaunted «beautiful» style of play has become a shadow of it's former self, only to be replaced by a less than stellar «plug and play» mentality where players play out of position and adjustments / substitutions are rarely forthcoming before the 75th minute... if you look at our current players, very few would make sense in the traditional Wengerian system... at present, we don't have the personnel to move the ball quickly from deep - lying position, efficient one touch midfielders that can make the necessary through balls or the disciplined and pacey forwards to stretch defences into wide positions, without the aid of the backs coming up into the final 3rd, so that we can attack the defensive lanes in the same clinical fashion we did years ago... on this current squad, we have only 1 central defender on staf, Mustafi, who seems to have any prowess in the offensive zone or who can even pass two zones through so that we can advance play quickly out of our own end (I have seen some inklings that suggest Holding might have some offensive qualities but too early to tell)... unfortunately Mustafi has a tendency to get himself in trouble when he gets overly aggressive on the ball... from our backs out wide, we've seen pace from the likes of Bellerin and Gibbs and the spirited albeit offensively stunted play of Monreal, but none of these players possess the skill - set required in the offensive zone for the new Wenger scheme which requires deft touches, timely runs to the baseline and consistent crossing, especially when Giroud was playing and his ratio of scored goals per clear chances was relatively low (better last year though)... obviously I like Bellerin's future prospects, as you can't teach pace, but I do worry that he regressed last season, which was obvious to Wenger because there was no way he would have used Ox as the right side wing - back so often knowing that Barcelona could come calling in the off - season, if he thought otherwise... as for our midfielders, not a single one, minus the more confident Xhaka I watched played for the Swiss national team a couple years ago, who truly makes sense under the traditional Wenger model... Ramsey holds onto the ball too long, gives the ball away cheaply far too often and abandons his defensive responsibilities on a regular basis (doesn't score enough recently to justify): that being said, I've always thought he does possess a little something special, unfortunately he thinks so too... Xhaka is a little too slow to ever boss the midfield and he tends to telegraph his one true strength, his long ball play: although I must admit he did get a bit better during some points in the latter part of last season... it always made me wonder why whenever he played with Coq Wenger always seemed to play Francis in a more advanced role on the pitch... as for Coq, he is way too reckless at the wrong times and has exhibited little offensive prowess yet finds himself in and around the box far too often... let's face it Wenger was ready to throw him in the trash heap when injuries forced him to use Francis and then he had the nerve to act like this was all part of a bigger Wenger constructed plan... he like Ramsey, Xhaka and Elneny don't offer the skills necessary to satisfy the quick transitory nature of our old offensive scheme or the stout defensive mindset needed to protect the defensive zone so that our offensive players can remain aggressive in the final third... on the front end, we have Ozil, a player of immense skill but stunted by his physical demeanor that tends to offend, the fact that he's been played out of position far too many times since arriving and that the players in front of him, minus Sanchez, make little to no sense considering what he has to offer (especially Giroud); just think about the quick counter-attack offence in Real or the space and protection he receives in the German National team's midfield, where teams couldn't afford to focus too heavily on one individual... this player was a passing «specialist» long before he arrived in North London, so only an arrogant or ignorant individual would try to reinvent the wheel and / or not surround such a talent with the necessary components... in regards to Ox, Walcott and Welbeck, although they all possess serious talents I see them in large part as headless chickens who are on the injury table too much, lack the necessary first - touch and / or lack the finishing flair to warrant their inclusion in a regular starting eleven; I would say that, of the 3, Ox showed the most upside once we went to a back 3, but even he became a bit too consumed by his pending contract talks before the season ended and that concerned me a bit... if I had to choose one of those 3 players to stay on it would be Ox due to his potential as a plausible alternative to Bellerin in that wing - back position should we continue to use that formation... in Sanchez, we get one of the most committed skill players we've seen on this squad for some years but that could all change soon, if it hasn't already of course... strangely enough, even he doesn't make sense given the constructs of the original Wenger offensive model because he holds onto the ball too long and he will give the ball up a little too often in the offensive zone... a fact that is largely forgotten due to his infectious energy and the fact that the numbers he has achieved seem to justify the means... finally, and in many ways most crucially, Giroud, there is nothing about this team or the offensive system that Wenger has traditionally employed that would even suggest such a player would make sense as a starter... too slow, too inefficient and way too easily dispossessed... once again, I think he has some special skills and, at times, has showed some world - class qualities but he's lack of mobility is an albatross around the necks of our offence... so when you ask who would be our best starting 11, I don't have a clue because of the 5 or 6 players that truly deserve a place in this side, 1 just arrived, 3 aren't under contract beyond 2018 and the other was just sold to Juve... man, this is theraputic because following this team is like an addiction to heroin without the benefits

And also, bellerin started to act complacency because he's the favorite right back.

Although it will be incredibly difficult to ever match his contributions on the pitch, it's vitally important for a former club legend, like Henry, to publicly address his concerns regarding the direction of this club... regardless of those who still feel that Henry has some sort of agenda due to the backlash he received following earlier comments he made on air regarding Arsenal, he has an intimate understanding of the game, he knows the fans are being hosed and he feels some sense of obligation, both professionally and personally, to tell it like he sees it... much like I've continually expressed over the last couple months, this team isn't evolving under this current ownership / management team... instead we are currently experiencing a «stagnant» phase in our club's storied history... a fact that can't be hidden by simply changing the formation or bringing in one or two individuals... this team needs fundamental change in the way it conducts business both on and off the pitch or it will continue to slowly devolve into a second tier club... regardless of the euphoria surrounding our escape act on Friday evening, as it stands, this club is more likely to be fighting for a Europa League spot for the foreseeable future than a top 4 finish... we can't hope for the failures of others to secure our place in the top 4, we need to be the manufacturers of our own success by doing whatever is necessary to evolve as an organization... if Wenger, Gazidis and Kroenke can't take the necessary steps following the debacle they manufactured last season, their removal is imperative for our future success... unfortunately, I strongly believe that either they don't know how to proceed in the present economic climate or they are unwilling to do whatever it takes to turn this ship around... just look at the current state of our squad, none of our world class players are under contract beyond this season, we have a ridiculous wage bill considering the results, we can't sell our deadwood because we've mismanaged our personnel decisions and contractual obligations, we haven't properly cultivated our younger talent and we might have become one of the worst clubs ever when it comes to way we handle our transfer business, which under Dein was one of our greatest assets... it's time to get things right!!!

Ferguson was a tough act to follow, because he was arguably the greatest club manager ever, and left ManU right at the top as league champions.

HE threw me across a conference room yelling I had no right then he tried to murder his father over us stopping him having a day off since 1985 the offer was just wait 210 more days and he would get his stinking vacation He did not have to hurt us because we stopped him again to let a younger couple have the two weeks for their honey moon He was so angry over that he had me and his father arraigned and jailed for two months for illegally acting as false agency in his name.

This time in childhood, sometimes called «the age of reason,» is also when kids begin to form a conscience, differentiate between right and wrong, and act not just on impulse but because something is the «right» thing to do.

Small children act instinctively and impulsively even when not stressed simply because that is what they are developmentally capable of, but when they are stressed even the small amount of self - control they may have attained flies right out the window, and before they know it (literally!)

Feeding your baby — however or wherever you do it — is an act of love, and no - one has the right to make you feel uncomfortable just because they can't deal with women, breasts or babies.

I don't want my children to act right because they fear their parents.

«I was really very hurt by this act, because I was in no way bothering him, so what gave him the right to shame me?»