stvdv
Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
That's hearsay for me...I was too young at the time (1970), but I "know" it's trueAnd a lot more weed
(This post is in jest)
Yes, I know "warning are no joke"
Last edited:
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
That's hearsay for me...I was too young at the time (1970), but I "know" it's trueAnd a lot more weed
(This post is in jest)
Yes, that might be true, even in the 70th. These things go in waves, now we have quite a tight wave, maybe in 50 years people get more relaxed again...or maybe first a bit more tight even (I think it will be this one, for the coming decennia)Depends on what you’re doing.
Also pretty sure they still needed parental/guardian consent before filming
All will be Tommies...might be10 years from now, a video will fall thru a wormhole
in time, arriving here on RF. This is our future.....
You don't think that Starbucks employees sign employment contracts?Doubtful
You think that "contract law" prohibits one party to a contract doing more for the other party than what is absolutely required?The hate is unjustified. The pledge doesn’t include union employees because that employer-employee relationship is absolutely governed by the collective bargaining agreement. Starbucks cannot offer the abortion travel benefit as a matter of contract law. Next time the CBA is up for negotiating, the parties can choose to include that benefit.
Yes, I get all that. My issue is mostly with Starbucks' messaging: I think it's deceptive for them to say that they're providing a benefit to employees generally when they know a significant percentage of their employees will be ineligible.As for the benefit being tied to healthcare plans, I’m unsure of the reasons or details, but suspect it’s for administrative ease. In other words, Starbucks is using a system already in place to administer the benefit rather than trying to reinvent something.
The vast majority of employees in America do not sign employment contracts.You don't think that Starbucks employees sign employment contracts?
In the context of a CBA and the current scenario, yes.You think that "contract law" prohibits one party to a contract doing more for the other party than what is absolutely required?
Because I was referring to what you're calling "contract law" and not actual contract law.In the context of a CBA and the current scenario, yes.
I’m curious. Why did you put contract law in quotes?
There was no date stamp on the video.All will be Tommies...might be
That 10 years you just made up, so you maybe can see it happen, right?
That’s a short sighted legal view. I’m curious…what are your qualifications?Because I was referring to what you're calling "contract law" and not actual contract law.
Parties to a contract can do more than the minimum. The only reason that an employer wouldn't do that unilaterally out of the goodness of their heart is because then they'd lose a bargaining chip they could use in their next negotiation to get some concession from the union.
There's nothing in contract law that would stop Starbucks from doing for unionized staff what they're doing for non-unionized staff: give them a new benefit at no additional cost to the employee and with no changes to their existing benefits.
Egg cells and sperms are not human beings.And masterbation ban will also follow...potential human life wasted, would be such a waste, esp. if it were a genius or would that be discrimination
A fetus is a developing human being. It is not quite there yet.Egg cells and sperms are not human beings.
A foetus is.
A fetus is a developing human being. It is not quite there yet.
I am not so sure about that, but at least Italy allows a fairly reasonable date.All right. But the law here forbids the abortion of a healthy child, unless it is performed within the 15th week.
So evidently, after the first trimester the fetus becomes sentient.
I said "potential"Egg cells and sperms are not human beings.
A foetus is.
How do you draw that distinction?Egg cells and sperms are not human beings.
A foetus is.
The definition of the term is useful.How do you draw that distinction?
Every definition of the term "human being" I quickly googled excludes fetuses, sperm and eggs.The definition of the term is useful.
That's odd. Most of them are "man, woman, or child of the homo sapiens species" or "member of the homo sapiens species". Both of which include fetuses and exclude sperm and eggs.Every definition of the term "human being" I quickly googled excludes fetuses, sperm and eggs.
Begging the question a bit, eh?That's odd. Most of them are "man, woman, or child of the homo sapiens species" or "member of the homo sapiens species". Both of which include fetuses and exclude sperm and eggs.