Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
A conscientious objector is an "individual who has claimed the right to refuse to perform military service" [1] on the grounds of freedom of conscience or religion. [2] The term has also been extended to objecting to working for the military–industrial complex due to a crisis of conscience. [3]
Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, 584 U.S. 617 (2018), was a case in the Supreme Court of the United States that addressed whether owners of public accommodations can refuse certain services based on the First Amendment claims of free speech and free exercise of religion, and therefore be granted an exemption from laws ensuring non-discrimination in public ...
Source of income discrimination describes when landlords refuse to rent to tenants using housing vouchers or other government assistance.Housing advocates argue the practice keeps vulnerable communities from accessing housing, although landlords point to lack of protections for tenants as their right to refuse service.
Gay rights advocate Michael Hendricks (right) is another draft evader who affected Canadian life. It remains a matter of debate whether emigration to Canada and elsewhere during the Vietnam War was an effective, or even a genuine, war resistance strategy.
The Right of Conscience Rule was a set of protections for healthcare workers enacted by President George W. Bush on December 18, 2008, allowing healthcare workers to refuse care based on their personal beliefs. [8] Specifically, the rule denied federal funding to institutions that did not allow workers to refuse care that went against their ...
Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (1973), was a U.S. Supreme Court case that ruled that in a case involving a consent search, although knowledge of a right to refuse consent is a factor in determining whether a grant of consent to a search was voluntary, the state does not need to prove that the person who granted consent to search knew of the right to refuse consent under the Fourth ...
An important legal requirement for common carrier as public provider is that it cannot discriminate, that is refuse the service unless there is some compelling reason. As of 2007, the status of Internet service providers as common carriers and their rights and responsibilities is widely debated (network neutrality).
Rennie v. Klein, 462 F. Supp. 1131 (D.N.J. 1978), was a case heard in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey in 1978 to decide whether an involuntarily committed mental patient has a constitutional right to refuse psychiatric medication. It was the first case to establish that such a patient has the right to refuse ...