Sentences with phrase «rights claims when»

Not exact matches

When embarking on a new career path, it's common to feel like you're somehow faking it — that you don't really have the right to the identity you're claiming.

The right thing to do when confronted with a mistake is to own up to it, not to make a series of bizarre claims in defense then insult the profession of the people who correctly pointed out the error.

The company claims it can optimize ads to ensure they appear when the weather conditions are just right, and charge a premium to do so.

Malcolm Gladwell may or may not have been completely right when he claimed that becoming a true expert in any subject requires 10,000 hours of practice, but whether his exact number stands up to scrutiny, the underlying truth still holds — getting good at things is time - consuming and involves a lot of hard work.

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?»

For instance, when you claim that you want start exercising in order to lose weight, that's not the right «why» because it's that's not enough motivate enough for following through with the resolution.

We covered it during the 2016 presidential campaign, when Donald Trump falsely accused former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton of giving away U.S. uranium rights to the Russians and claimed — without evidence — that it was done in exchange for donations to the Clinton Foundation.

When confronted by human rights organizations regarding the violent evictions, former Canadian ambassador to Guatemala, Kenneth Cook, claimed these images of the eviction were taken during the 36 - year civil war that ravaged Guatemala from 1960 to 1996.

Ex-rights date - The ex-rights date refers to the date when an investor who buys stock can no longer claims any rights on the stock.

It is outrageous that the Department would penalize these borrowers for not submitting their borrower defense claims sooner, when they couldn't submit sooner because the Department has only now created a submission process 20 years after the right to the borrower defense was established.

Even a Europhile would have to admit he's right when he claims Europe has too little solidarity and too much austerity.

right Romney has so much integrity he claims to have «formed» a study group to find women for his cabinet when he was Gov of Mass..

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.

Spin it how you will, religion constantly gets a free pass in this country and when its ever called out for its discriminatory practices and beliefs it claims religion has the right to discriminate based on those beliefs... but everybody else doesn't have the right to even make the accusation that religion is getting all kinds of special rights allowing them to justify their own discrimination.

What is amusing to me is that when an atheist claims to be «good» without God, they are generally basing their judgement of right and wrong on Western European value systems.

I'm sorry but you're not making an argument to counter his, you have no references or citations to back up such a claim and so you revert to attacking this man by calling him gay??? really, you think your the world authority on the bible when then you start casting stones left and right and attacking your fellow man?

It was a campaign to educate people about the horror of abortion and to illuminate the patent absurdity of claiming that a fetus with no rights suddenly became a baby with rights when it got its navel through the birth canal.

When so many people with different versions of God (s) claim a monopoly of truth for their interpretation exclusive of all the others, the logical conclusion is that none of them are right.

Most things are, but it is worse when the people doing it are so fervent in their «knowledge» of what is right and moral and good and the stakes they claim are involved.

Among them are the rights to: bullet joint parenting; bullet joint adoption; bullet joint foster care, custody, and visitation (including non-biological parents); bullet status as next - of - kin for hospital visits and medical decisions where one partner is too ill to be competent; bullet joint insurance policies for home, auto and health; bullet dissolution and divorce protections such as community property and child support; bullet immigration and residency for partners from other countries; bullet inheritance automatically in the absence of a will; bullet joint leases with automatic renewal rights in the event one partner dies or leaves the house or apartment; bullet inheritance of jointly - owned real and personal property through the right of survivorship (which avoids the time and expense and taxes in probate); bullet benefits such as annuities, pension plans, Social Security, and Medicare; bullet spousal exemptions to property tax increases upon the death of one partner who is a co-owner of the home; bullet veterans» discounts on medical care, education, and home loans; joint filing of tax returns; bullet joint filing of customs claims when traveling; bullet wrongful death benefits for a surviving partner and children; bullet bereavement or sick leave to care for a partner or child; bullet decision - making power with respect to whether a deceased partner will be cremated or not and where to bury him or her; bullet crime victims» recovery benefits; bullet loss of consortium tort benefits; bullet domestic violence protection orders; bullet judicial protections and evidentiary immunity; bullet and more...

When such a claim is made and when homosexual activity is consequently condoned, or when civil legislation is introduced to protect behaviour to which no one has any conceivable right, neither the Church nor society at large should be surprised when other distorted notions and practices gain ground, and irrational eruptions increase.&raWhen such a claim is made and when homosexual activity is consequently condoned, or when civil legislation is introduced to protect behaviour to which no one has any conceivable right, neither the Church nor society at large should be surprised when other distorted notions and practices gain ground, and irrational eruptions increase.&rawhen homosexual activity is consequently condoned, or when civil legislation is introduced to protect behaviour to which no one has any conceivable right, neither the Church nor society at large should be surprised when other distorted notions and practices gain ground, and irrational eruptions increase.&rawhen civil legislation is introduced to protect behaviour to which no one has any conceivable right, neither the Church nor society at large should be surprised when other distorted notions and practices gain ground, and irrational eruptions increase.&rawhen other distorted notions and practices gain ground, and irrational eruptions increase.»

When claims to rights are severed from the just requirements of morality and the common good, the inevitable result is a distorted understanding of human rights that all too often leads to the violation of the rights of others.

It is entirely possible that, at a time when very important decisions have to be made and acted upon for the good of humankind and the planet as a whole, far too many people will focus their attention on their own immediate vicinity and insist on claiming their individual right to act within it as they wish.

When any religion, in this case islam, espouses ideas that are in direct conflict with the Constitution and openly work to impose an alien political / religious system called sharia on the United States, at some point the right to claim constitutional protection is lost.

When you say Chick - fil - a denies people the rights they claim for themselves though, I take a little exception to that... after all, what group doesn't do that?

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.

I am sick of you Right Wingers Claiming to be holier than though when your anything but.

The Sanskrit mantras when translated may be as disappointing as Italian opera in translation — words like wheel, bedpost, bridge and collar abound — but in Sanskrit the mantra claimed by one's trainer to have the right nuances of sound and meaning for the believer.

Ultimately the religious will never give up their gun's because they don't really have any faith in God to save them and feel they have to take the key's to life and death away from Jesus, then sit back and claim they are defending God and their rights when really they are shouting loud and clear «I DO N'T TRUST YOU TO PROTECT ME JESUS!!

Felix Ngole from Barnsley has claimed him human rights were breached when university bosses ejected him from a postgraduate social work course after he participated in a debate on Facebook.

But, you are right, David, when you claim that serving God doesn't always bring a trouble - free life.

When you must resort to making inane claims that those who disagree with you actually know you are right... you have totally lost all claim to intelligent discourse.

Individuals are free to believe what ever they want, it is when they try to validate actions or policies which limit rights of others they should be required to support their claims and / or face the backlash.

«How can the Egyptian government claim to protect its citizens» rights to freedom of belief when anyone who attempts to change their faith is refused official recognition and subsequently prosecuted and tortured?

In fact one (of many) miscues in the gospels is when Jesus is claimed to have ordered his apostles to «take up the cross» — the cross would not have had meaning to Jesus when he was living... unless of course... oh right... the cross had been around as a religious symbol for thousands of years... oops.

When asked to prove this, they tend to get bumbly with their statements and claim that they are still right bcause it's not disproven.

When the nation was established as a democratic republic, the people of the former English colonies, acting in their various constitutional conventions, transferred all governing power to their states and to the federal government, reserving for themselves only certain rights and powers they previously claimed to enjoy as subjects of the British Crown.

When ANY American claims that a particular right is «inalienable» — regardless of their beliefs about God or religion — they are paying homage to the idea of Divine Rights as derived from the concept of Natural Law and are IMPLICITLY agreeing that our rights are Divine in oRights as derived from the concept of Natural Law and are IMPLICITLY agreeing that our rights are Divine in orights are Divine in origin.

Maybe Hauerwas is right when he claims that «Niebuhr's god is not a god capable of offering salvation in any material sense.

You are welcome to your beliefs and I respect your right to have them, but when you claim authority from God and claim to know absolute truth, you become a zealot and a charlatan.

I do not care what faith is claimed when human dignity, life itself, & civil rights are violated.

No one has the right to claim to posses forgiveness especially when those men are more sinful than you yourselves.

Those who claim to have all the answers are the most likely to ignore the truth when it is right in front of them.

Indeed, in a world of many points of view, there is a deep philosophical problem involved in trying to defend the claim that one point of view is right and all others wrong when fundamental beliefs and values are involved.

We embody the truth when we live the right kind of life, but we should not claim to know it with certainty because it is still work in progress — an object of aspiration — and we will not know till the end.

So when a black student at a Connecticut high school was disciplined in 1996 for wearing pants that drooped (exposing his underwear), not only did he claim a right to wear what he liked, but some community leaders hinted at racism, on the theory that many young African - American males dress this way.

It is not right to support her claim that she was excommunicated for asking questions when she has all the above going on.

The pictures of him too, those are funny, because he's standing there claiming God isn't there, trying to rally people, and when it comes right down to it, he's simply ignorant of God existing, and doesn't know it.

I bet you can't beat this... In South Africa my people, the Afrikaners have a what could be translated as remembrance day on wich they celabrate an awful day in history when a big Zulu tribe attacked the Afrikaners for invading their land (wich for some unknown reason my people thought they had a right to claim).

This comes surprisingly close to saying that Manuel II got it right when he claimed that Islam had been spread by the sword; and it does prompt an important question: of those many Muslims who took offence at the Pope's use of Manuel II's words, why did so few of them respond that he was in error, since Islam is essentially a religion of peace?