南昌市哪治焦虑症好南昌哪里看幻想比较好,南昌市第十二医院治精神科收费贵吗,南昌市第十二医院专业么口碑如何,南昌市的精神医院哪家好,南昌临淄区比较好的治疗精神病医院,南昌那个医院躁狂好点,南昌治疗焦虑症哪个医院比较好

A Five Guys in Daphne, Alabama has fired or suspended several of their employees after they refused to serve local police officers, the restaurant posted on their Facebook page.According to the Daphne Police Department, on July 7 three Daphne officers entered the restaurant and after realizing they forgot to put their masks on due to the restaurant's mask policy, so they returned to their patrol cars and came back inside wearing their masks.According to WJW, when the officers came back into the restaurant, the employees refused to serve them, so they left and went somewhere else to eat.After hearing of the incident, the restaurant closed so the store and its employees could work with the police department "for further education and customer service training." 777

A half-dozen senior advisers to President Donald Trump have repeatedly voted by mail, according to election records obtained by The Associated Press. That undercuts the president’s argument that the practice will lead to widespread fraud this November. Education Secretary Betsy DeVos votes absentee in Michigan, the records show. Campaign manager Brad Parscale voted absentee in Texas in 2018 — after not voting at all when Trump was last on the ballot. The campaign’s chief operating officer Michael Glassner and deputy campaign manager Bill Stepien have both repeatedly voted by mail in New Jersey. Trump's campaign says it is raising legitimate concerns about the security of the election. 701

A British woman was saved by the Croatian Coast Guard after spending what she said was close to 10 hours treading water overnight in the Adriatic Sea after falling off a cruise ship.Kay Longstaff spoke to Croatian news outlet HRT shortly after arriving back on land."I fell off the back of the Norwegian Star," said the woman, who lives in Spain, according to her Twitter account. "I was in the water for 10 hours, so these wonderful guys rescued me. I'm very lucky to be alive."Longstaff, 46, was then led by medical personnel to an ambulance. 552

A day after Judge Amy Coney Barrett mostly sidestepped questions on her judicial views of politically-charged topics, Barrett returned to the Capitol on Wednesday for another marathon session of questioning in her Supreme Court confirmation hearing.On Tuesday, Democrats continued their attempt to pry Barrett into sharing her judicial views on topics like abortion, public healthcare, LGBTQ+ rights and gun control — topics which Barrett is considered to take a conservative slant. However, Barrett continued to repeatedly invoke the "Ginsburg rule.""Justice Ginsburg, with her characteristic pithiness, used this to describe how a nominee should comport herself at a hearing. No hints, no previews, no forecasts," Barrett said on Tuesday.Ginsburg — whose seat Barrett seeks to fill following the longtime justice's death in September — coined the phrase during her confirmation hearings 27 years ago. While she did not set that precedent, she's credited with the concise phrasing that has been recited by many prospective justices in the decades since.But The Associated Press notes that Ginsburg was open on her views of at least one hotly-debated topic — abortion."The decision whether or not to bear a child is central to a woman's life, to her well-being and dignity," Ginsburg said in 1993 during her confirmation hearing, according to the AP. "It is a decision she must make for herself. When Government controls that decision for her, she is being treated as less than a fully adult human responsible for her own choices."As Democrats lobbed questions at Barrett regarding her judicial views, the judge offered few insights. Here's how she answered on the following topics:AbortionLike she did on Tuesday, Barrett attempted to avoid answering specific questions regarding her personal views on abortion. However, Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham asked Barrett specifically about legislation he introduced that would prevent a woman from receiving an abortion after 20 weeks. When asked if Barrett would listen to both sides of that case, Barrett said she would.Graham went on to say that if Barrett were to be confirmed, it would punch through a "reinforced concrete barrier" facing conservative women, adding it would be the first time in history that a woman who is "unashamedly pro-life" would be appointed to the Supreme Court.Affordable Care ActBarrett mostly stuck to the "Ginsburg Rule" by attempting not to tip her hand when it came to sharing judicial views. However, questioning from Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vermont, forced Barrett to admit that while she had written negatively about the Affordable Care Act and some Supreme Court rulings upholding it in the past, she had not ever written favorably about the law.Cameras in the Supreme CourtThe Supreme Court has famously been one of the most secretive branches of government. Cameras and recording devices weren't allowed in high court hearings until this year when arguments were forced to be held via teleconference due to the COVID-19. In fact, it wasn't until 2018 that the court published case filings online.However, Barrett said Wednesday that she would "keep an open mind" about allowing cameras in the courtroom moving forward.Climate changeSen. Richard Blumenthal asked Barrett directly if she believed if humans are causing climate change. She declined to answer the question directly and added that she didn't think it was relevant to her job.Her comments come a day after she said during the first day of questioning that she has "no firm views" on climate change and added that she's "not a scientist."COVID-19 lockdownsFeinstein also asked Barrett about a Supreme Court ruling earlier this year in which the court said Wisconsin could not extend mail-in voting during its primary elections. The primary took place on April 7 — in the throes of pandemic-related lockdowns.Feinstein asked Barrett specifically about her view of the case. Barrett declined to give one, again citing the fact that she did not want to provide a judicial view.PolygamyWhen asked by Graham if a group of Americans had a right to polygamous marriage, Barrett declined to give a direct answer, keeping in line with avoiding direct judicial answers.Presidential powersLeahy asked Barrett specifically if a president had a right to pardon himself for any crimes he may have committed. Barrett responded that such a hypothetical was not settled law and that she did not want to speculate lest a similar case come before the courts.ImmigrationSen. Cory Booker, a New Jersey Democrat who ran for the party's presidential nomination, question Barrett on her views on separating children at the border. "Do you think it is wrong to separate a child from their parent, not for the safety of the child or parent, but to send a message? As a human being, do you believe that that is wrong?"Booker asked. "That's been a matter of policy debate and that's a matter of hot political debate in which I can't express a view or be drawn into as a judge," Barrett responded. What's nextSenators will meet privately to review Barrett's FBI file and background check. On Thursday, witnesses for and against Barrett's confirmation will go before the committee. _____Tuesday's hearings were also beset by technical issues. During Blumenthal's questioning, the committee was forced to take a brief recess when microphones in the room stopped working. Upon the committee's return, microphones again went dead as Blumenthal was wrapping up his time, forcing another brief recess.On Tuesday, Barrett also often invoked the "Ginsburg Rule" when discussing abortion, an upcoming case that could decide the legality of the Affordable Care Act, gun control and voting rights.Barrett was also asked about comments from President Donald Trump, who has hinted in the past that Ginsburg's seat must be filled prior to the election in the event the Supreme Court needs to make a crucial ruling. Barrett did not commit to recusing herself should such a case arise, but said she would consider the case and the recommendations of other justices.Barrett's thorniest stretch on Tuesday came in a denouncement of discrimination of LGBTQ+ people when she used the term "sexual preference." The term, generally deemed to be outdated, is classified as "offensive" by GLAAD because it implies that sexuality is a "choice" that can be "cured." Barrett later apologized for using the term when confronted by Sen. Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii.The 22 Senators on the committee were each given 30 minutes to question Barrett on Tuesday. Senators will each be given 20 minutes for questioning on Wednesday. Chairman Lindsey Graham, R-South Carolina, says he hopes to wrap up the confirmation hearing Thursday, and that Barrett is on track to be confirmed later this month, about a week before the 2020 election.Several swing-vote Republicans have already indicated that they will vote to confirm Barrett, suggesting that she will likely be confirmed. 6963

A former Google engineer is accusing the company of firing him after he spoke out about incidents of racism, sexism and harassment.Tim Chevalier is suing Google for retaliation, wrongful termination and failure to prevent discrimination and harassment, according to a lawsuit filed in San Francisco on Wednesday.Silicon Valley -- and Google in particular -- has been shaken by fierce debates over diversity issues. Highly charged arguments between Google employees have at times burst into public view as the company wrestles with how to address the concerns.The lawsuit by Chevalier, who identifies as transgender and disabled, claims Google's culture is discriminatory. He alleges that some employees use the company's internal social-networking and messaging systems to belittle and bully women, people of color and LGBTQ colleagues."Chevalier pushed back on the online bullying he and others were experiencing, using the same internal messaging systems to try to educate his employer and coworkers on how to change Google's working conditions to be inclusive and supportive of underrepresented minorities, such as himself," the lawsuit says.His lawsuit alleges that rather than trying to address the concerns he was raising about other employees' behavior, Google fired him in November, citing the political nature of his posts."It is a cruel irony that Google attempted to justify firing me by claiming that my social networking posts showed bias against my harassers," Chevalier said in a statement provided by his lawyers. "The anti-discrimination laws are meant to protect marginalized and underrepresented groups -- not those who attack them."Google spokeswoman Gina Scigliano declined to comment directly on Chevalier's allegations. She said that lively debate is important to Google's culture, but that there are limits."All employees acknowledge our code of conduct and other workplace policies, under which promoting harmful stereotypes based on race or gender is prohibited," Scigliano said in a statement. "This is a very standard expectation that most employers have of their employees. The overwhelming majority of our employees communicate in a way that is consistent with our policies. But when an employee does not, it is something we must take seriously. We always make our decision without any regard to the employee's political views."In the lawsuit, which was first reported by tech news site Gizmodo, Chevalier alleges that some Googlers would call coworkers "immoral" because of their sexual orientation. Employees also questioned the competency of women and minorities on internal message boards, he said."Company social networking forums can be incredibly useful, but employers have an obligation to prevent them from becoming a cesspool of bullying and harassment," David Lowe, an attorney for Chevalier, said in a statement. "Firing the employee who pushed back against the bullies was exactly the wrong step to take."Debates inside Google about diversity issues erupted in August when one of the company's senior engineers at the time, James Damore, published a controversial memo claiming women are underrepresented in technology because of psychological and biological differences, not sexism.In his memo, Damore claimed to "value diversity and inclusion," but he took issue with Google's approach, which he described as overly political and alienating to "non-progressives."Damore, who was fired over the controversy, and another former Google engineer, David Gudeman, are suing the company, alleging that it discriminates against white men and conservatives.Chevalier waded into the internal debates over Damore's memo last summer, according to his lawsuit. It says that in September, a Google human resources representative spoke with Chevalier about some of his emails and posts on internal forums regarding the memo and other politically charged subjects.Google is also facing a gender-pay lawsuit claiming the company paid women less than their male counterparts.  4016