Answer:
B all of the others are either needed requirements to live, shelter, food etc. In most states car insurance is required by law.. Cable service is really considered a luxury.
when you turn 9 upside down it becomes 6
Answer:
Heterosexism
Explanation:
Hi!
Your question is incomplete and missing the requirements, but by googling the question I could find that this belongs to Sociology chapter 12.
The answer for your question would be heterosexism because heterosexism is defined as " a systematic disadvantage embedded in our social institutions, offering power to those who conform to hetereosexual orientation while simultaneously disadvantaging those who do not"
Answer:
The majority of African Americans living in the United States during the first half of the nineteenth century were enslaved, working as forced laborers on farms in the American South and West.Although slave owners denied them their basic rights and liberties, enslaved people resisted slavery through small acts of defiance as well as large-scale uprisings.Free people of color lived in cities in the North and the Upper South. They played a prominent role in the growing abolition movement of the early nineteenth century.
plz mark me as brainly
Explanation:
Answer:
on grounds of 'Equal Protection' laws of the 14th Amendment.
Explanation:
Both Brown V. Board of Education and parents involved in Community Schools v. Seattle presented their case on grounds of 'Equal Protection' laws of the 14th Amendment.
In Brown V. Board of Education, the court ruled that 'separate but equal' was an unconstitutional provision and that the practice of segregation was 'inherently unequal'. It further ruled out that these unequal provisions violated the equal protection laws.
Similarly, the parents involved in Community Schools v. Seattle claimed and argued that racial tiebreaker in district schools subjugated and infringed 'Equal Protection' laws of the 14th Amendment.
Though the initial plan of the racial tiebreaker system was to prevent racial imbalance in schools, the court adjudged that the system was unconstitutional because it, more or less, contributed to unequal opportunity in getting admissions.
