Maybe - if the minimum wage law in question only applies to restaurant employees, or employees generally, as Uber eats drivers are independent contractors, not employees.
Lurker123
joined 2 years ago
Is it a pink cow with blue spots, or a blue cow that is mostly covered in pink splotches?
I’m not sure there’s a person who really believes both of these. I think people who believe premise one actually believe this to be a generally true statement about people (or a generally true statement about some racial subset of people) rather than a statement about all people. This dovetails nicely with their love of billionaires due to them being “hard workers” because it shows the billionaire is somewhat unique and better than most people in that regard.
I feel like you had additional context to this question that you meant to add, but just totally forgot.
As it stands, yes of course. If your house in condemned or otherwise subject to eminent domain, if your house is seized to pay creditors for non-mortgage debt (in some states), if somebody else has superior title to your home and you aren’t protected by being a bonafide purchaser, etc.
El chapo
I’m an economic- Aires left
What’s calling HR gonna do? They’re just gonna pretend that putting ant-killing gel around Jim’s workplace wasn’t a reasonable accommodation and that they didn’t have to do it. Maybe they’ll fabricate some conversation where Jim said he didn’t want it when the lawsuit comes.
At least when I shit my pants after drinking milk, it’s because I’m a baby, not lack toes in toll Iran.
Ah, apologies for the misread, and moreover for incorrectly ascribing a statement to you.
That said, it’s not really relevant to the main point - namely the definitions there do not appear to have a settler exception. Whether those are fair or accurate definitions is of course another question entirely…
Damnit I literally spit took my coffee
Haha well under that definition, my post would not be genocide because I neither intended it to be such, nor, by your statement did it cause “serious” mental harm. Moreover, based on the UN article it looks like the “in part” requirement has been interpreted to mean a “substantial part.”
But fair enough, the point is well taken. I’m not a language prescriptivist, so just because the UN used the meaning in a certain way does not make it the meaning of that word. That said, it seems to me that the common usage (based on the wiki article that cites a few different usages) probably does not have a settler exception.
view more: next ›
That’s true, whether it is strawberry or raspberry milk answers the question.