What counts as &quot;Reisebedarf&quot; at German gas stations? According to the Ladenschlussgesetz, gas stations in Germany are allowed to be opened during the night and Sundays, but are only allowed to sell gas, car things (like oil) that are needed for people to travel onwards and Reisebedarf (my attempt at a translation: travel necessities) Now, I have been at a gas station on Sundays and at night many times and it did not appear like they change what they sell for those times. Meaning they still sell, for example, alcohol, frozen pizzas, flowers, shaving gel, etc. Is "Reisebedarf" defined anywhere?
§ 2 (2) of the Gesetz über den Ladenschluß defines Reisebedarf: Reisebedarf im Sinne dieses Gesetzes sind Zeitungen, Zeitschriften, Straßenkarten, Stadtpläne, Reiselektüre, Schreibmaterialien, Tabakwaren, Schnittblumen, Reisetoilettenartikel, Filme, Tonträger, Bedarf für Reiseapotheken, Reiseandenken und Spielzeug geringeren Wertes, Lebens- und Genussmittel in kleineren Mengen sowie ausländische Geldsorten. Shaving gels are "Reisetoilettenartikel", alcohol and frozen pizzas are "Lebens- und Genussmittel" (but only allowed in ‎small quantities), and flowers are "Schnittblumen".
When is a drink classed as alcohol in the UK? In england-and-wales alcohol, which requires a license to sell etc, is defined by s.191 of the Licensing Act 2003: 191 Meaning of “alcohol&quot; (1) In this Act, “alcohol” means spirits, wine, beer, cider or any other fermented, distilled or spirituous liquor (in any state), but does not include— (a) alcohol which is of a strength not exceeding 0.5% at the time of the sale or supply in question, (b) perfume, (c) flavouring essences recognised by the Commissioners of Customs and Excise as not being intended for consumption as or with dutiable alcoholic liquor, (d) the aromatic flavouring essence commonly known as Angostura bitters, (e) alcohol which is, or is included in, a medicinal product or a veterinary medicinal product, (f) denatured alcohol, (g) methyl alcohol, (h) naphtha, or (i) alcohol contained in liqueur confectionery. ... In scotland, s.2 of the Licensing (Scotland) Act 2005 mirrors the 2003 Act: (1) In this Act, “alcohol”— (a) means spirits, wine, beer, cider or any other fermented, distilled or spirituous liquor, but (b) does not include— (i) alcohol which is of a strength of 0.5% or less at the time of its sale ... In northern-ireland, Art.2 of the Licensing (Northern Ireland) Order 1996* states: “intoxicating liquor” means spirits, wine, beer, cider and any other fermented, distilled or spirituous liquor, but does not include— (e) any liquor which is of a strength not exceeding 0.5 per cent at the time of the sale or other conduct in question ... Therefore, alcohol free (0.05%) and de-alcoholised (0.5%) drinks are not considered alcohol for licencing, sale etc and so are not restricted in law across the United Kingdom. (*The Order is secondary legislation made under the Licensing Act (Northern Ireland) 2016)
Is it discrimination? Yes, because discrimination is a broad term that covers any situation where someone might reserve something under specific criteria. In this case, it sounds like the restaurant reserves tables for people who will be eating. If you'e only having coffee, they only allow you in a certain section. Unless you live in some city with a very strange law that prevents discrimination based on what you plan to order, there is nothing illegal about doing that. Discriminating based on your order is not a protected class by the federal government. If you're trying to claim that you were discriminated against based on race, you have to actually prove that happened somehow. Based on your summary of the situation, it doesn't sound like that is what happened. Simply being of another race does not automatically qualify it as racial discrimination. As an example, finding proof might involve asking or looking around to see if "tables are for people ordering food only" is an established restaurant policy that applies to everyone. If there's a sign up somewhere, then it's clear they were just following a policy.
There is, as far as I can see, no legal definition of picnic in England and Wales. In the absence of such, the convention applied by the UK courts is to use the normal meaning of the word; usually by reference to the Oxford English Dictionary (which is behind a paywall so I've used its free online version here)... An occasion when a packed meal is eaten outdoors, especially during an outing to the countryside. (My emphasis)
This an instance of the general rule ignorantia legis neminem excusat: ignorance of the law is no excuse. If the municipal ordinances state that a particular place does not allow parking at certain times, then if you park there you have violated the law and will get ticketed. There is no requirement that there be signs prominently posted saying that you must obey the law in this particular location. A law might itself require there to be postings, for example speed limit law pertaining to school zones typically are stated in terms of "posted" boundaries. Assuming that the ordinance doesn't have such a "as posted" requirement, you have no legal leg to stand on, and the burden must be shifted to your political leg. If, for example, you were in Pennsylvania, 75 PaCSA 3353(d) permits local parking ordinances: The department on State-designated highways and local authorities on any highway within their boundaries may by erection of official traffic-control devices prohibit, limit or restrict stopping, standing or parking of vehicles on any highway where engineering and traffic studies indicate that stopping, standing or parking would constitute a safety hazard or where the stopping, standing or parking of vehicles would unduly interfere with the free movement of traffic. Signs are kinds of traffic control devices. Since PA does not statutorily prohibit overnight parking, any local restrictions on overnight parking would require signage. Thus restriction such as this one that "The following vehicles shall not be parked between 9:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. on the streets...", applying to commercial vehicles among others, would require a sign. That borough has an interesting ordinance stating that In the event of a conflict between the Codified Ordinances of the Borough of Lansdale and the provisions set forth in the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Code at 75 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 3351 through 3354, as amended from time to time, the provisions of the Codified Ordinances of the Borough of Lansdale shall control. Generally speaking, local ordinances are subordinate to state law, so this provision is legally questionable (although: the borough does not actually deny the signage requirement, so technically this is not a conflict, it is just ignoring state law – if there is no signage). The borough could of course argue that they were unaware of the state requirement to post no-parking signs, but ignorantia legis neminem excusat.
health care checks. Hotel check in. Employment? maybe. Background Checks? doesn't matter. It actually does matter, because there is sometimes a law governing the documents that may be shown for a given purpose. For example, the I-9 form, for verifying someone's eligibility to accept employment in the US, has a well defined lists of documents that an employer must accept, and the passport card is one of those documents. A similar situation exists for Transportation Security Administration screening of air passengers. On the other hand, laws concerning proof of age for buying various products will vary from state to state, and retailers may or may not be required to accept any particular document. In the case of alcohol sales in North Carolina, for example, there is a brochure that lists "acceptable forms of identification" on page 17 and explicitly says that "passports may be in the booklet or card form." But that does not seem to create a legal requirement for the retailer to accept passport cards, because page 19 outlines the retailer's right to refuse, saying among other things that "there is no legal recourse by a customer who you have refused a sale." US passport law (22 USC Chapter 4 and 22 CFR parts 51 and 53) doesn't have anything to say about the passport's or passport card's role as an identification document; it speaks only of the more specific role as a travel document. So the general answer to your question, appears to be no. There is no law generally requiring people to accept a passport card if they also accept passports or driver's licenses. But in most specific instances, there may be a general requirement such as "government-issued identification" that includes passport cards in addition to passports and driver's licenses, or there may be a list that explicitly includes passport cards along with driver's licenses and passports.
british-columbia I am not aware of any judicial consideration of this issue. The Liquor Control and Licensing Act, s. 78(1) says: A minor must not, except as provided under this Act or unless the minor does so with other lawful excuse, ... consume liquor. (One of those exceptions are when the alcohol is supplied by the minor's parents, spouse or guardian in a residence for consumption in the residence. There are other exceptions, too. But I'll assume you're asking about a circumstance where no exception applies.) The Liquor Control and Licensing Act defines a &quot;minor&quot; to be a person under the age of majority established by the Age of Majority Act, which is age 19 today. The Liquor Control and Licensing Act, s. 57 makes it an offence to contravene s. 78(1). The Interpretation Act, s. 25.1 states that &quot;A person reaches a particular age expressed in years at the beginning of the relevant anniversary of the person's birth date.&quot; The Interpretation Act also clarifies that the reference to time &quot;is a reference to Pacific Standard Time&quot; (or Pacific Daylight Saving Time, when it is in effect). Thus, a person is a minor until &quot;the beginning [in Pacific time] of the relevant anniversary of the person's birth date.&quot; It is most clear in relation to the identification requirements when selling to a minor, but the Regulations (s. 158) refer to the date of birth as displayed on the person's identification card. This all suggests that when consuming alcohol in the greater Vancouver area, a person just about to reach the age of majority must wait until the date in the Pacific time zone is that which is displayed on their identification. Or barring any identification, until the date in the Pacific time zone is the date that is the person's birth date.
Regarding the situation in Germany, it is not a crime by itself to travel to Syria (or in fact any other country), nor to take residence there. When people are arrested after such a trip, it is because they are suspected of having committed a crime during their stay. In this context, the crime could be, e.g., murder, abduction, or rape, but there are more specialized crimes, too, such as: Forming terrorist organisations (§&nbsp;129a StGB; translation) Preparation of a serious violent offence endangering the state (§&nbsp;89a StGB; translation) Preparation of a serious violent offence includes participating in a terrorist training camp where people are taught how to use weapons, construct explosive devices, etc. The definition of the crime was recently extended such that it is already punishable to make an attempt at leaving Germany with the intention of travelling to and participating in such a training camp. It is important to note that this intention would need to be demonstrated in court in order to get someone convicted; and someone travelling with different intentions, such as a journalist, would obviously not render oneself liable to prosecution. Outside of criminal law, there are other measures that the authorities may take to try and prevent people from travelling abroad if they are suspected future terrorists. As these are administrative measures and not criminal prosecution, the requirements for evidence are less strict. It has long been possible under German law to deny someone a passport (§&nbsp;7 PaßG; translation), or to revoke a passport that was already issued. The idea is that, without passport, the destination country or any transit countries are going to reject the traveller. This didn’t work too well in the case of Syria because a national ID card is sufficient for German citizens travelling to Turkey, which shares a land border with Syria. Therefore, also very recently, it was made possible to deny or revoke an ID card in much the same way as a passport (§&nbsp;6a PAuswG; no translation currently available). (Note that the translations I linked to are official but non-authoritative. In particular, be warned that the translation for §&nbsp;89a StGB at least does not yet reflect the latest amendments.)