團購美食推薦>DRKO有機黃豆

異國美食料理



鴨間稻~有機糙米麩(無糖)400公克/罐





上班的時間很無聊,面對著電腦都快睡著...還好有樂天購物網~讓小資女的我們可以享受團購美食的樂趣!!

最近很流行韓國零食餅乾泡麵~沒去過韓國也要吃過呀~

還有經典團購熱銷甜點在樂天都能一網打盡!!常常看到人家推薦的團購美食排行榜,其實裡面都有耶!今天心血來潮上聽朋友推薦上了樂天購物網看看,一不小心就跟同事團購Moong Dal Washed (Split) 綠豆仁,當下午茶來吃吃~好療癒的小確幸唷@@這個美食Moong Dal Washed (Split) 綠豆仁之前看到人家推薦過,一直很想吃但都沒吃過~~現在團購到了真的超開心的~~~

以下就是我們團購美食Moong Dal Washed (Split) 綠豆仁的介紹喔不吃會後悔

商品訊息功能:

#NEWS_CONTENT_2#

商品訊息描述:


? ? ? ? Moong Dal Washed (Split)?



  • 品名:綠豆仁


  • 成份:綠豆仁


  • 重量:907公克








The Image are for reference purpose. The actual product may differ from the image.?美食

網站上的圖片僅供買家參考 , 實際的商品以出貨的包裝為主 .











商品訊息簡述:

Moong Dal Washed (Split) 綠豆仁 Moong Dal Washed (Split) 綠豆仁排名 Moong Dal Washed (Split) 綠豆仁排行榜 Moong Dal Washed (Split) 綠豆仁上豐蔥抓餅

Moong Dal Washed (Split) 綠豆仁mit伴手禮 Moong Dal Washed (Split) 綠豆仁王老五鴨賞 Moong Dal Washed (Split) 綠豆仁網路電視台

Moong Dal Washed (Split) 綠豆仁廖家宜蘭蔥餅 Moong Dal Washed (Split) 綠豆仁金棗鴨肉卷 Moong Dal Washed (Split) 綠豆仁買澎海味

Moong Dal Washed (Split) 綠豆仁2017 Moong Dal Washed (Split) 綠豆仁專賣店 Moong Dal Washed (Split) 綠豆仁批發 Moong Dal Washed (Split) 綠豆仁代購

Moong Dal Washed (Split) 綠豆仁哪裡買 Moong Dal Washed (Split) 綠豆仁網購 Moong Dal Washed (Split) 綠豆仁批發商 Moong Dal Washed (Split) 綠豆仁推薦

Moong Dal Washed (Split) 綠豆仁台南 Moong Dal Washed (Split) 綠豆仁店 Moong Dal Washed (Split) 綠豆仁品牌 Moong Dal Washed (Split) 綠豆仁商店

Moong Dal Washed (Split) 綠豆仁專賣店 Moong Dal Washed (Split) 綠豆仁批發 Moong Dal Washed (Split) 綠豆仁代購 Moong Dal Washed (Split) 綠豆仁哪裡買

Moong Dal Washed (Split) 綠豆仁網購

有關同婚釋憲司法院釋字第748號解釋摘要英文版全文如下：Constitutional CourtRepublic of China (Taiwan)Press ReleaseOn the Same-Sex Marriage CaseOn the consolidated petitions of Huei-Tai-12674 filed by Chia-Wei Chi andHuei-Tai-12771 filed by the Taipei City Government, regarding the constitutionality ofsame-sex marriage, the Constitutional Court announces the J.Y. Interpretation No. 748at 4 PM on May 24, 2017.The rulings of the Court are as follows:(1) The provisions of Chapter 2 on Marriage of Part IV on Family of the Civil Codedo not allow two persons of the same sex to create a permanent union of intimateand exclusive nature for the committed purpose of managing a life together. The saidprovisions, to the extent of such failure, are in violation of both the people’s freedomof marriage as protected by Article 22 and the people’s right to equality as guaranteedby Article 7 of the Constitution.(2) The authorities concerned shall amend or enact relevant laws, in accordancewith the ruling of this Interpretation, within two years from the issuance of thisInterpretation. It is within the discretion of the authorities concerned to determinethe formality for achieving the equal protection of the freedom of marriage.(3) If relevant laws are not amended or enacted within the said two years, twopersons of the same sex who intend to create the said permanent union shall beallowed to have their marriage registration effectuated at the authorities in charge ofhousehold registration, by submitting a written document signed by two or morewitnesses in accordance with the said Marriage Chapter.The main reasons of this Interpretation are as follows:(1) For more than three decades, Petitioner Chia-Wei Chi has been appealing tothe legislative, executive, and judicial departments for the right to same-sex marriage.After more than a decade, the Legislative Yuan is still unable to complete its legislativeprocess on those bills regarding same-sex marriage. This case involves the verycontroversial social and political issues of whether homosexuals shall enjoy the equalprotection of the same freedom of marriage as heterosexuals. The representativebody is to enact or revise the relevant laws in due time. Nevertheless, the timetablefor such legislative solution is hardly predictable now and yet these petitions involvethe protection of people’s fundamental rights. It is the constitutional duty of thisCourt to render a binding judicial decision, in time, on issues concerning thesafeguarding of constitutional basic values such as the protection of people’sconstitutional rights and the free democratic constitutional order.(2) Those prior J.Y. Interpretations mentioning “husband and wife” or “a man anda woman”, in terms of the factual backgrounds of the original cases from which theyarose, were made within the context of opposite-sex marriage. Thus far, this Court hasnot made any Interpretation on the issue of whether two persons of the same sex areallowed to marry each other.(3) Unspoused persons eligible to marry shall have their freedom to marry, whichincludes the freedom to decide “whether to marry” and “whom to marry” (see J.Y.Interpretation No. 362). Such decisional autonomy is vital to the sound developmentof personality and safeguarding of human dignity, and therefore is a fundamental rightto be protected by Article 22 of the Constitution.(4) Creation of a permanent union of intimate and exclusive nature for thecommitted purpose of managing a life together by two persons of the same sex willnot affect the application of the Marriage Chapter to the union of two persons of theopposite sex. Nor will it alter the social order established upon the existingopposite-sex marriage. Furthermore, the freedom of marriage for two persons of thesame sex, once legally recognized, will constitute the collective basis, together withopposite-sex marriage, for a stable society. The need, capability, willingness andlonging, in both physical and psychological senses, for creating such permanentunions of intimate and exclusive nature are equally essential to homosexuals andheterosexuals, given the importance of the freedom of marriage to the sounddevelopment of personality and safeguarding of human dignity. Both types of unionshall be protected by the freedom of marriage under Article 22 of the Constitution .The current provisions of the Marriage Chapter do not allow two persons of the samesex to create a permanent union of intimate and exclusive nature for the committedpurpose of managing a life together. This is obviously a gross legislative flaw. To suchextent, the provisions of the Marriage Chapter are incompatible with the spirit andmeaning of the freedom of marriage as protected by Article 22 of the Constitution.(5) Article 7 of the Constitution provides, “All citizens of the Republic of China,irrespective of sex, religion, race, class, or party affiliation, shall be equal before thelaw.” The five classifications of impermissible discrimination set forth in the saidArticle are only exemplified, neither enumerated nor exhausted. Therefore, differenttreatment based on other classifications, such as disability or sexual orientation, shallalso be governed by the right to equality under the said Article.(6) Sexual orientation is an immutable characteristic that is resistant to change.The contributing factors to sexual orientation may include physical and psychologicalelements, living experience, and the social environment. Major medical associationshave stated that homosexuality is not a disease. In our country, homosexuals wereonce denied by social tradition and custom in the past. As a result, they have longbeen locked in the closet and suffered various forms of de facto or de jure exclusion ordiscrimination. Besides, homosexuals, because of the demographic structure, havebeen a discrete and insular minority in the society. Impacted by stereotypes, theyhave been among those lacking political power for a long time, unable to overturntheir legally disadvantaged status through ordinary democratic process. Accordingly,in determining the constitutionality of different treatment based on sexual orientation,a heightened standard shall be applied.(7) The Marriage Chapter does not set forth the capability to procreate as arequirement for concluding an opposite-sex marriage. Nor does it provide that amarriage is void or voidable, or a divorce decree may be issued, if either party isunable or unwilling to procreate after marriage. Accordingly, reproduction is obviouslynot an essential element of marriage. The fact that two persons of the same sex areincapable of natural procreation is the same as the result of two opposite-sex persons’inability, in an objective sense, or unwillingness, in a subjective sense, to procreate.Disallowing two persons of the same sex to marry, for the sake of their inability toreproduce, is a different treatment having no apparent rational basis.(8) The basic ethical orders built upon the existing institution of opposite-sexmarriage will remain unaffected, even if we allow two persons of the same sex toenter into a legally recognized marriage pursuant to the formal and substantiverequirements of the Marriage Chapter, as long as they are subject to the rights andobligations of both parties during the marriage and after the marriage ends.Disallowing two persons of the same sex to marry, for the sake of safeguarding basicethical orders, is a different treatment, also obviously having no rational basis. Suchdifferent treatment is incompatible with the spirit and meaning of the right to equalityas protected by Article 7 of the Constitution.(9) The authorities concerned shall complete the amendment or enactment ofrelevant laws in accordance with the ruling of this Interpretation, within two yearsafter the announcement of this Interpretation. It is within the discretion of theauthorities concerned to determine the formality (for example, revision of theMarriage Chapter, enactment of a special Chapter in Part IV on Family of the CivilCode, enactment of a special law, or other formality) for achieving the equalprotection of the freedom of marriage for two persons of the same sex.(10) If the amendment or enactment of relevant laws is not completed within thesaid two-year timeframe, two persons of the same sex who intend to create apermanent union of intimate and exclusive nature for the committed purpose ofmanaging a life together may, pursuant to the provisions of the Marriage Chapter,apply for marriage registration to the authorities in charge of household registration,by submitting a document signed by two or more witnesses. Any such two persons,once registered, shall be accorded the status of a legally recognized couple, and thenenjoy the rights and bear the obligations arising on couples.Justice Jui-Ming Huang recused himself and took no part in the deliberation, oralarguments or the decision of this case.Justice Horng-Shya Huang filed a dissenting opinion in part. Justice Chen-Huan Wufiled a dissenting opinion.


AAFABF9390D0FF0B
arrow
arrow
    文章標籤
    美食 團購美食推薦 異國美食料理
    全站熱搜

    kny299h7k7 發表在 痞客邦 留言(0) 人氣()

    E-mail轉寄