0
Want this question answered?
Be notified when an answer is posted
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
Is there any racial discremination in US?
Yes, sadly there is still racial discrimination all over the US especially in the United States.
What is the importance's of the bill of rights?
the bill of right is what the citizen are entiltle to do freely, free to speak their mind and write about it. Also protect citizen from religion discremination, and to bear arms
What causes discremination?
Discrimination can be caused by factors such as prejudice, stereotypes, ignorance, fear of the unknown, and unequal power dynamics. It often arises from a lack of understanding, empathy, or respect for individuals or groups perceived as different. Structural inequalities and systemic biases can also contribute to discriminatory attitudes and behaviors.
Is it discrimination if you has type 1 diabetes for the Department of Transportation to not certify you?
YES it is I am a type 1 and have been for 42 years. I also drive construction equipment. I canot how ever drive interstate commercial vehicles. I can be a Huge over weight slob who cant hardly pull him self into a truck and pass the medical. How fair is that. I can also go buy a diesel pusher motor home drive the interstate at 75 here in Idaho and not have to have a cdl How fair is that. We have been lumped into a category of HIGH risk. It's bullsh!t Its unfair . Its discremination
Did women influence passage of the Equal Pay Act of 1963?
Yes, they did! Many women helped to make the Act possible over the course of generations. More specifically, Esther Peterson, the head of the Women's Bureau (and a friend of JFK) and Eleanor Roosevelt (the widow of former president Roosevelt) pressured JFK to establish a President's Commission on the Status of Women. He appointed Eleanor Roosevelt as Chair of the commission and Peterson as Executive vice-chair. The work of the commission is largely responsible for the passage of the Equal Pay Act of 1963.
Why are the Bill of Rights important?
•The first was that the very concept of a Bill of Rights was to get was monarchy. •The second reason was that the Bill of Rights was used, by Antifederalists, as a rallying point to argue in favor of the pre-constitutional status quo--a confederation of independent states, operating under the glorified treaty that was the Articles of Confederation. •The third was the idea that the Bill of Rights would imply that the federal government's power is otherwise limited. •The fourth reason was that a Bill of Rights would have no practical power; it would have functioned as a mission statement, and there would have been no means by which the legislature could have been forced to adhere to it. •The fifth reason was that the Constitution itself already included statements in defense specific rights that might have been impacted by the limited federal jurisdiction of the time.
What legal action can be taken against a casino that does not report indecent exposure in their casino?
If it is a native American casino, NONE!!! they are a 'country' all it's own so to speak. They have their own courts, with their own judges, obviously they will not favor your lawsuit.As far as them following laws, they are only obligated to follow FEDERAL LAWS not STATE LAWS! (example: sexual harrasment, discremination, etc. does not pertain to the reservation.)I have worked in many casinos on reservations, this can prove to be unfair (most of the time, unless you are accused of being a sexual harraser.)The Slot Guru says:Depending upon the situation, they would handle it with in-house security for a minor incident to local law enforcement (Tribal, County or State) for a more serious situation. Even those Tribes with their own law enforcement officers often have reciprocal agreements with local, County or State law enforcement agencies. In response to the info above; Indian casinos are subject to all Federal laws, including those regarding sexual harrasment, etc. They are also subject to some State laws if those laws are specifically addressed in the Tribal / State Compact. An example of this would be Indian casinos in Michigan and California must follow State liquor laws because those States insisted on this during Compact negotiations.
How are woman treated in India?
India gets its 15 minutes of shame on American television by Chidanand Rajghatta WASHINGTON, March 22: Mahatma Gandhi may have dismissed ``Mother India,'' Katherine Mayo's hypercritical book in the 1930s on the sub-continent, as a ``gutter inspector's report.'' But evidently, the drain still stinks. In what many Indians here found to be a painful but fairly credible depiction of the situation in modern day India, CBS television's highly acclaimed ``60 minutes'' programme on Sunday took a scathing look at the practice of untouchability in the country -- a degrading custom that is yet to be eliminated despite the Government having officially outlawed it. In 15 searing minutes, CBS cameras captured the shame of India -- the daily ritual of humiliation that millions of so-called untouchables undergo far away from the elite, who are in denial. There was Narayanamma, who cleaned and carried human excreta -- euphemistically called nightsoil -- somewhere in Karnataka despite the Government having banned the practice; Dalits in Tamil Nadu who are not allowed to draw water from the well andwho had to remove their footwear each time they passed ``high caste'' villagers; and the ``lower caste'' farm labourers of Bihar rising up to challenge the landlords. Some of the footage was truly disturbing -- and disgusting. In one horrendous shot, a Dalit woman in Tamil Nadu is shown collecting water from a muddy pool when she is tripped by a stray pig also wallowing in the same water. The story returns repeatedly to an unnamed village in Karnataka where women work to physically clear human excreta. ``If I had some other employment, I would never do this... I don't ever want my children to do this work,'' Narayanamma cries into the camera. The story was anchored by Christiane Amanpour, a peripatetic American-Iranian reporter for CNN who is married to State Department spokesman James Rubin and who works for occasional stories for CBS under a special contract. CBS 60 minutes is the most watched news programme in the United States and India's 15 minutes of shame would have been seen by some 25 millionviewers on Sunday evening. Amanpour mentions the fact that a Dalit has made it to the post of the President of India (a largely ceremonial post), but nothing can erase the stark images the CBS cameras capture. The so-called untouchable villagers falling at the feet of ``high-caste'' landlords; Dalits being served tea outside tea stalls; and a ``poojari'' making them wait outside a temple to offer prayers. ``Not even the shadows of the so-called untouchables were supposed to fall on the upper caste folk,'' Amanpour reports, falling back on one of the most- related stories of the Indian caste system. And what does the Indian Government have to say about it? ``They don't want to talk about it,'' Amanpour says at the end of the story. Expectedly, the CBS piece inflamed many in the Indian community who found it offensive and patronising. In fact, even before the story was telecast, several people railed about it on a South Asia internet chat forum run by Columbia University. One angry participant arguedthat if US television networks needed to look for ``untouchables'' they could look at the suffering Iraqis or their own Black population. Another wellknown academic hoped that Amanpour would report on the growth of the Bahujan Samaj Party (she did not) and Dalits who made it to leadership positions ``to make it a more balanced party.'' On the other side there were those who argued that CBS had every right to cover the story the way it did, just as the Indian press was free to cover race relations in America. ``The programme made the viewer more than uncomfortable. It made us cringe with shame...Amanpour and CBS did a good job of covering the `nonsense' that needs to be beaten to death a thousand more the public water taps and are condemned to live in the outer fringes of society.''
