Sentences with phrase «rights claim if»

Finally, if an employee is subjected to behavior that is in violation of the Ontario Human Rights Code, the employer may be faced with a human rights claim if they allow the hostile work environment to continue or develop.

Not exact matches

«Because of our emphasis on the long - term, we may make decisions and weigh tradeoffs differently than some companies... We will continue to make investment decisions in light of long - term market leadership considerations rather than short - term profitability considerations or short - term Wall Street reactions... We aren't so bold as to claim that the above is the «right» investment philosophy, but it's ours, and we would be remiss if we weren't clear in the approach we have taken and will continue to take.»

As Theranos continues to spiral downward, its investors are now claiming the company threatened to file for bankruptcy protection if they don't give up their rights to sue the startup over its faulty blood - testing business, Bloomberg reported.

Anderson claims Ride's suit is just an attempt to «harass and intimidate a smaller competitor,» but even if he's right, the suit is still a potentially costly nuisance that could frighten off licensing partners.

The other aspect of your patent application will be the claim of exclusivity — the exclusive rights you hope to own if the patent is granted.

If any controversy, allegation, or claim (including any non-contractual claim) arises out of or relates to the online services, the Content, these Terms of Service, whether heretofore or hereafter arising or to any of NBCUniversal's actual or alleged intellectual property rights (collectively, a «Section 27 Dispute»), then you and we agree to send a written notice to the other providing a reasonable description of the Section 27 Dispute, along with a proposed resolution of it.

(g) Further, you agree that if the online services, or your possession and use of the online services, infringes on a third party's intellectual property rights, you will not hold Apple responsible for the investigation, defense, settlement and discharge of any such intellectual property infringement claims.

It's important to get things right from jump street vis - à - vis customer service; a man (I make no claim to his wisdom, he may have had the wisdom a closed - head - injured orang) once said «if you don't have time to do it right, when will you find time to do it over?»

You acknowledge, consent and agree that we may access, preserve, and disclose your registration and any other information you provide if required to do so by law or in a good faith belief that such access preservation or disclosure is reasonably necessary to: (a) comply with legal process; (b) enforce this Agreement; (c) respond to claims of a violation of the rights of third - parties; (d) respond to your requests for customer service; or (e) protect the rights, property, or personal safety of The Defense Alliance of Minnesota, The Defense Alliance of Minnesota Affiliates, its users and the public.

As a result, if the entrepreneur's new startup derives in any way from work for a previous employer, the previous employer may have a claim for infringement of their intellectual property rights against the new business.

Such a claim typically comes without any voting rights, but voting rights can sometimes be triggered if the promised payments aren't made.

With so many active managers to choose from — nearly all of whom claim superiority — how will investors know if they've selected the right one?

But if you look at the bible and how christians use it by picking out what parts they agree with and dismissing the horror of it as «cultural of the times» it says to me that their sense of right and wrong is more evolved than the book they claim is the final authority of right and wrong.

The first part of Job is where Satan is claiming he knows the future and what Job will do if Satan can do his worst, and God cleans up on that too, telling him he's wrong as well... God again ending up right.

So if you believe there is a creator, then you have to think with all these people claiming there God is the true God which one is right?

If the Muslims claimed their God was the right one, or the Mormons claimed their God was the right one, or the Hindus claimed their gods were the true gods, would it be convincing to you if they said — «Look arounIf the Muslims claimed their God was the right one, or the Mormons claimed their God was the right one, or the Hindus claimed their gods were the true gods, would it be convincing to you if they said — «Look arounif they said — «Look around!

But if there is a lot of observable evidene to suggest the possibility of something beyond nature, then rejecting it out right on some presumptous logical high ground seems as counterintutive as those you claim default to God when they lack understanding.

If I understand this correctly, these christian groups are claiming that granting equal rights to everyone is somehow discriminating against them??? Sounds par for the course.

If a claim has no consequences for anybody but the claimant I couldn't care less, and then you are absolutely right.

In a time that promises the reconcilation of happiness and productivity through chemical mood control, we can claim a right to our «natural moods» only if we can show that they aren't — like everything else in the cosmos — finally random collections chemicals or just tools for species survival but are natural gifts or indispensable clues to the truth about who we are.

And if the secularists doing the balancing are old - fashioned Enlightenment rationalists, the development of this consensus will become one where the rights of the individual remain the ultimate criterion for judging the often conflicting claims of various particular communities.

Federal civil rights officials have absurdly claimed that they are the true heirs of Martin Luther King's moral legacy, by virtue of their having remained loyal to his «color blind» ideal — as if King's moral leadership consisted of this and nothing else.

and I took the liberty of chiming in because if a claim has consequences for anyone beside the claimant those other people have the right to examine the claim and demand evidence for its truthfullness.

Muchembled explains both the development of dueling among the nobility and rural revolts against the centralization of authority as reactions against state repression of traditional codes of violence: «In each case, the participants claimed an eminent right to a straight fight, even if it resulted in the death of the adversary.»

If the author can't even get that right, you can't trust anything this author claims.

If you are an atheist, fine, don't believe, that's your right... but why all the effort to disprove something you claim to know is false?

I bring my wiring for justice and for wrongs to be righted especially if we claim to be representatives of God.

If the strongest creatures survive in nature, then is it not natural for the state to claim that might makes right?

If Ehrman is right, it would seem that historical studies could never support the validity of miracle claims such as the resurrection.

Again, if I have been like that, then what you have done is right and the pain I experience of reading what you claim is due to your righteous indignation at my commenting.

People call «elite - style snobbery», but then claim to have the «truth» themselves, even if that truth is that everything is all good and you get to live in «heaven» as long as you pick what's right for you and do good things.

I agree they have a right to build a mosque, and if their motives are as they claim then it is is a great thing they want to do.

Accordingly, the remainder of this essay will proceed as follows: I will first seek to show that the meta - ethical character of every claim to moral validity includes a principle of social action by which a universal community of rights is constituted, so that no moral theory can be valid if it is inconsistent with these rights.

I don't know if I am right or not but I don't believe the Christian claim so the adjective I would use to describe my position is «unconvinced».

There can not be true peace if everyone is his own criterion, if everyone can always claim exclusively his own rights, without at the same time caring for the good of others, of everyone, on the basis of the nature that unites every human being on this earth.»

You have every right to state your belief the «Jesus is Lord»... but if you do so others have every right to oppose that idea and claim.

If one compares the supernatural claims of the gospels to those of Joseph Smith, the 11 witnesses claimed to be direct eyewitnesses, their testimonies were contemporaneously recorded, and there is an external record corroborating they were in the right place at the right time; the gospels were recorded second hand, well after the alleged events, and there is no extrinsic record corroborating their presence at the right place at the right time.

I do believe that claims such as the ones in the bible deserve to be scrutinized, especially when it is those claims that are being used to try to impede of everyones rights even if they don't believe in that religion.

Given that assumption, the right to choose one's religion is the right to free participation in a political discourse that is also full, a discourse in which no claim that purports to be a contribution to political decision is immune to criticism and, if contested, requires argumentative redemption.

Similarly, if — like Jonah — we claim to worship and fear God, but do not do what God says, then although we may believe many right and good things about God, and though we may have faith that rivals that of Abraham, our faith is useless and pointless.

If abortion is the absolute constitutional right that some claim, churches that censure abortion providers and advocates will eventually be perceived as fundamentally treasonous.

If you claim that hindu's or muslims or buddhist's are not serving the right God and therefore will spend an eternity being tortured just based on the fact they were born into a certain culture and taught a different religion by their peers, I don't think that would qualify as a «choice».

They suggested three ways in which RFRA might conceivably be interpreted (misinterpreted, really) to create bad consequences: (1) to give a church's opponents legal «standing» (a technical term meaning the right to sue) to challenge the church's tax - exempt status; (2) to allow taxpayers to claim their free exercise rights would be violated if a religiously affiliated organization receives government assistance under a secular program; and, most importantly, (3) to allow pro-abortion plaintiffs to claim a free exercise right to abortion if Roe v. Wade is overruled and states enact anti-abortion laws.

Even if you would know everything there is to know about Shinto, that does not give you the right to claim that god (or gods) is protecting a specific building from a tsunami, on the top of a hill, no less.

But the claim that we'll be judged by an icorporeal sentient being, but spared if we believe the right fairy tale, of the many ancient fairy tales, is an extraordinary claim.

So your amazing refutation of a lack of extra-biblical confirmation of any Jesus claim in the bible is «oh if there was then it would be in the bible» because apparently people don't make copies of things right?

(Of course, if Jesus is not what he claims to be, the scribes are right.

If it is valid that not respecting another's right to live forfeits any claim one can make for one's own life, it applies even to the killings erupting from anger, jealousy or revenge which make up such a large part of murder statistics but are not normally subject to capital punishment.

It is difficult, if not impossible, to imagine how we could consistently generalize the claim that nonsentient beings have rights.

In the ensuing international backlash against the bill, Lively claimed that he did not support the death penalty for hom.ose.xuality but that if the «offending sections» were modified, the proposed law criminalizing hom.ose.xuality «would be an encouraging step in the right direction.»