新技美容spa - 1538022511 | ITHC造型沙龍 - 1531174721 | 台北-洛碁大飯店(松江館) - 1532472307 |
我最愛旅遊了，除了欣賞各地的人文風景外，享受各式飯店、民宿不同的設施和風格更是一大樂趣，今天和大家分享一個便宜訂房的方式，雖然只是小小的折扣，但對常旅遊的我不無小補，因為也只是多幾個步驟就可以省錢，何樂而不為呢!
找飯店？Travigo，相信大家對這句話都不陌生，因為Travigo會列出各大訂房網的房價供大家比較和選擇，所以我們就先上Travigo找適合這次旅遊的飯店囉~
先輸入想訂房的地點、房型等條件，讓Travigo幫我們找到適合的飯店
再來就是比較各大訂房網的價格和優惠
目前台灣最常用的三大訂房網分別是 Agoda、Hotels.com 和 Booking.com，如果你找到的適合的飯店或民宿是在上述這三大訂房網有賣的話，那就可以照以下的方式省錢囉!
這三個訂房網都有和一個購物的入口網站 Shop.com 合作，分別會提撥2~3%的現金回饋給消費者，所以除了訂房網原有的優惠(例如:訂10間送1間等)外，還可以獲得房價2~3%的折扣喔!現在就來看看怎麼做唄~
第一步先在Shop.com 註冊一個免費帳號，Shop.com 在各個國家都有不同的網站，註冊一個帳號，可以在世界上所有的Shop.com 網站登入使用喔! 註冊請 點我。
因為三家訂房網分別和台灣、香港、美國的Shop.com 合作，所以登入的網站畫面會有些許的不同，但是操作的方式都一樣，回饋的金額也都會集中在同一個帳戶裡喔!
Hotels.com 登入網址請 點我
Agoda 登入網址請 點我
Booing.com 登入網址請 點我
以台灣配合的 Hotels.com 來說，我是這樣做的，先進入述連結網頁後可以看到 Hotels.com 回饋的現金是3%，然後再點立即購物，連結到 Hotels.com 的官網
輸入你之前在shop.com註冊的e-mail後(還沒註冊請點我)，點選"我想要現金回饋"
連到hotels.com官網後，依照你平常訂購的方式即可
約等2個月 Hotels.com 和 Shop.com 結完帳後，就會收到現金回饋囉，超過 NT$320元就可以直接轉帳到指定的銀行帳戶囉!
之後可以在Shop.com 的網站上看到你累積的現金回饋金額喔~~
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 Court
Republic of China (Taiwan)
Press Release
On the Same-Sex Marriage Case
On the consolidated petitions of Huei-Tai-12674 filed by Chia-Wei Chi and
Huei-Tai-12771 filed by the Taipei City Government, regarding the constitutionality of
same-sex marriage, the Constitutional Court announces the J.Y. Interpretation No. 748
at 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 Code
do not allow two persons of the same sex to create a permanent union of intimate
and exclusive nature for the committed purpose of managing a life together. The said
provisions, to the extent of such failure, are in violation of both the people’s freedom
of marriage as protected by Article 22 and the people’s right to equality as guaranteed
by Article 7 of the Constitution.
(2) The authorities concerned shall amend or enact relevant laws, in accordance
with the ruling of this Interpretation, within two years from the issuance of this
Interpretation. It is within the discretion of the authorities concerned to determine
the 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, two
persons of the same sex who intend to create the said permanent union shall be
allowed to have their marriage registration effectuated at the authorities in charge of
household registration, by submitting a written document signed by two or more
witnesses 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 to
the 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 legislative
process on those bills regarding same-sex marriage. This case involves the very
controversial social and political issues of whether homosexuals shall enjoy the equal
protection of the same freedom of marriage as heterosexuals. The representative
body is to enact or revise the relevant laws in due time. Nevertheless, the timetable
for such legislative solution is hardly predictable now and yet these petitions involve
the protection of people’s fundamental rights. It is the constitutional duty of this
Court to render a binding judicial decision, in time, on issues concerning the
safeguarding of constitutional basic values such as the protection of people’s
constitutional rights and the free democratic constitutional order.
(2) Those prior J.Y. Interpretations mentioning “husband and wife” or “a man and
a woman”, in terms of the factual backgrounds of the original cases from which they
arose, were made within the context of opposite-sex maCP值最高的草山月世界民宿rriage. Thus far, this Court has
not made any Interpretation on the issue of whether two persons of the same sex are
allowed to marry each other.
(3) Unspoused persons eligible to marry shall have their freedom to marry, which
includes 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 development
of personality and safeguarding of human dignity, and therefore is a fundamental right
to be protected by Article 22 of the Constitution.
(4) Creation of a permanent union of intimate and exclusive nature for the
committed purpose of managing a life together by two persons of the same sex will
not affect the application of the Marriage Chapter to the union of two persons of the
opposite sex. Nor will it alter the social order established upon the existing
opposite-sex marriage. Furthermore, the freedom of marriage for two persons of the
same sex, once legally recognized, will constitute the collective basis, together with
opposite-sex marriage, for a stable society. The need, capability, willingness and
longing, in both physical and psychological senses, for creating such permanent
unions of intimate and exclusive nature are equally essential to homosexuals and
heterosexuals, given the importance of the freedom of marriage to the sound
development of personality and safeguarding of human dignity. Both types of union
shall 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 same
sex to create a permanent union of intimate and exclusive nature for the committed
purpose of managing a life together. This is obviously a gross legislative flaw. To such
extent, the provisions of the Marriage Chapter are incompatible with the spirit and
meaning 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 the
law.” The five classifications of impermissible discrimination set forth in the said
Article are only exemplified, neither enumerated nor exhausted. Therefore, different
treatment based on other classifications, such as disability or sexual orientation, shall
also 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 psychological
elements, living experience, and the social environment. Major medical associations
have stated that homosexuality is not a disease. In our country, homosexuals were
once denied by social tradition and custom in the past. As a result, they have long
been locked in the closet and suffered various forms of de facto or de jure exclusion or
discrimination. Besides, homosexuals, because of the demographic structure, have
been a discrete and insular minority in the society. Impacted by stereotypes, they
have been among those lacking political power for a long time, unable to overturn
their 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 a
requirement for concluding an opposite-sex marriage. Nor does it provide that a
marriage is void or voidable, or a divorce decree may be issued, if either party is
unable or unwilling to procreate after marriage. Accordingly, reproduction is obviously
not an essential element of marriage. The fact that two persons of the same sex are
incapable 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 to
reproduce, is a different treatment having no apparent rational basis.
(8) The basic ethical orders built upon the existing institution of opposite-sex
marriage will remain unaffected, even if we allow two persons of the same sex to
enter into a legally recognized marriage pursuant to the formal and substantive
requirements of the Marriage Chapter, as long as they are subject to the rights and
obligations 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 basic
ethical orders, is a different treatment, also obviously having no rational basis. Such
different treatment is incompatible with the spirit and meaning of the right to equality
as protected by Article 7 of the Constitution.
(9) The authorities concerned shall complete the amendment or enactment of
relevant laws in accordance with the ruling of this Interpretation, within two years
after the announcement of this Interpretation. It is within the discretion of the
authorities concerned to determine the formality (for example, revision of the
Marriage Chapter, enactment of a special Chapter in Part IV on Family of the Civil
Code, enactment of a special law, or other formalit最划算的茂林國家風景區訂房y) for achieving the equal
protection 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 the
said two-year timeframe, two persons of the same sex who intend to create a
permanent union of intimate and exclusive nature for the committed purpose of
managing 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 then
enjoy the rights and bear the obligations arising on couples.
Justice Jui-Ming Huang recused himself and took no part in the deliberation, oral
arguments or the decision of this case.
Justice Horng-Shya Huang filed a dissenting opinion in part. Justice Chen-Huan Wu
filed a dissenting opinion.
文章標籤
全站熱搜
留言列表
