clyons

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Apr 10, 2015 -> 12:17 PM) I'll give these tacos a whirl. At the old park they had tacos in the area under the LF seats. They were pretty dope, but never made the trip across the street. That's right, and I've been waiting patiently for 24 years!

QUOTE (OmarComing25 @ Apr 10, 2015 -> 10:45 AM) What kills me more is how mediocre we've been since then. If we had a few more division titles and a few more 90 win seasons then I would look back on '05 more fondly, as it stands it just depresses me more because the game 163 win has been the only thing worth cheering about since then. You are certainly entitled to your feelings and opinions, and I get what you are saying about it being "one and done," but if anything about that championship depresses you, you might want to readjust your perspective a bit.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Apr 10, 2015 -> 09:27 AM) If you happen to go to a game and try something, I want to read what you think about it. Give me a good reason to go get something, or avoid it. Brooks Boyer was on with Mully & Hanley this morning and said a new Taco Barn was opened that everyone needs to try. Combine that with a helmet full of ribs and a walking taco, and I am strongly considering ditching work and going to try and sneak in the park at lunch time And if you had something last year feel free to put your critique down as well Mmmmmmmmm Tacos. And what's not to like about a helmet full o' ribs? Looking forward to both.

I would normally scoff at such an outlandish prediction. However, since this one comes from a man with a gargantuan baseball boner, I'm all good.

QUOTE (shipps @ Apr 2, 2015 -> 10:45 AM) Its seems like any year in the past that there were high expectations and a buzz around the Sox the season ultimately ended in disappointment. Whenever the overall view of the team is that they greatly improved on paper through FA or trades it just doesn't translate to wins and success. I really hope that this isn't just another one of those years. I'm a bit ashamed to say I feel this way, too.

Looks pretty darn nice: http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseb...0402-story.html

I fell for it.

Van Halen cranked on Jimmy Kimmel the last two nights, but short-haired, cheese-grinning David Lee Roth disturbingly reminds me of Nick Swisher.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 31, 2015 -> 11:37 AM) The requirement is 15 or more employees before the ADA kicks in. Bakers and photographs don't normally employ that many people. I should have clarified. But I think there is a difference between accommodation and discrimination on service, i.e., not selling you a beer. I might be wrong on that, I'd have to do some research. Seems to me those are two different questions: you can make the appropriate accommodations for disabled people to be in your business and be in compliance with the ADA. But is not serving someone with a disability like alcoholism a violation of the ADA? edit: I have a hard time believing the law says that a bartender HAS to serve an alcoholic. That's forcing a private individual to, in essence, inflict harm on a person. What else have I said that's wrong? The 15 or more employee threshold applies to the ADA's employment provisions only; there is no analogous size requirement relative to public accommodations. You are making too much of a distinction between a private business and a public accommodation. The former IS the latter, so long as it generally holds itself open to the public. The distinction more in keeping with your point would be a private club. And no, discrimination on service is pretty much legally equivalent to denial of access to a public accommodation. Different semantics, but same general claim. Also, regarding the serving of an alcoholic, there are whole lines of cases that hold that fear of inflicting harm upon a person is not a defense to a discrimination claim, since, among other things, many of those "fears" are rooted in discriminatory stereotypes. And I think you also overstated the burden required to establish protection on religious grounds and placed too much emphasis on conformance to "mainstream" religious tenets. A religious belief doesn't have to be shared or popular to be "sincerely held."

83-79; short of a wild card

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 31, 2015 -> 10:43 AM) Under the ADA, with mixed success it seems (how dumb is it that people sue for losing their job while operating cars while drunk during work?) Either way, that doesn't apply to private business owners and i'm not sure it would apply to serve/not serve situations. Does an employer have to provide accommodations for an alcoholic? Potentially yes. Does a university operated beer stand have to serve an alcoholic? I don't think so. Respectfully, you are completely wrong about this. The ADA has employment and public accommodation provisions, and alcoholics are protected under both. How in the world does it not apply to "private business owners?" And the people who sue for being drunk at work lose those cases on summary judgment. The law is pretty clear. Some of your posts in this thread are really inaccurate as a matter of law; none more than this one.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 31, 2015 -> 09:17 AM) I agree they're picking and choosing the sin, but it's legal to not serve alcoholics, adulterers, thieves, etc. etc. In some states, it's illegal to not serve someone who is gay. This is false. Alcoholism is a protected disability. It is only legal to not serve drunks.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 26, 2015 -> 02:11 PM) At some point the court has to decide whether your religious practice is a religious belief or a personal preference, as that link points out. An easy way to do that is if you and a billion others like you follow the same practice, versus you being the only one. I'd argue it would still be relevant to any analysis. Sure, that's the easy way, but as you know, hard cases make bad law.

This crap goes out to Dan Bernstein for responding to a critique of a professional colleague by focusing on her quote, boobs unquote. Dan Bernstein, you mysoginistic, infantile, hypocrite, who you crappin'?

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 26, 2015 -> 01:39 PM) How many people practice it? How important is it to the religious traditions of Christianity? A court is going to decide that. They have in cases involving the use of federally banned drugs, facial hair of inmates, requests of inmates for prayer materials, etc. It's not some unknown issue. We can determine if someone's claim is credible or not to decide whether it would be a substantial burden. And for the third time, GOOD! Let someone make that claim. Let's see Twitter and 24/7 cable news do a story about the local restaurant that refuses to serve black people because he doesn't want to mix races. I mean look, I'm not sure if we're at that point yet, but we're sure as hell closer than we were in the 60's. I'm saying in a perfect world that would be the case. The bolded factors are legally irrelevant, at least with respect to religious accommodation under Title VII. The EEOC's official position is that religious beliefs can be "unique to an individual," so long as they are "sincerely held." Evidence as to what others believe is not necessary, given the "intensely personal characteristics of adherence to religious belief." http://eeoc.gov/policy/docs/religion.html#_Toc203359487

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 26, 2015 -> 12:16 PM) I think it'd be fine with it actually. There are places I don't go because I know i'm not wanted. I don't walk into Cubs bars wearing Sox gear because it's not worth the aggravation. Does it really matter if they go the extra step of telling you they won't serve you? On top of that, no major retail shop/restaurant is going to take the chance of doing being so openly discriminatory. Not only because of the money lost from those customers, but also because of the PR nightmare it would cause. You think Chick-Fil-A is going to put out a statement that gays are no longer served in Indiana? Not a chance. At best you're talking about mom and pop shops like the photographer in Kansas that didn't want to photograph a gay wedding. So what, gay people can't go to the homophobic photographer. Is that really a big deal? Your Cubs vs. White Sox analogy is really wide of the mark.

QUOTE (CrimsonWeltall @ Mar 26, 2015 -> 10:41 AM) Sure, you can claim anything is against your religion. You certainly can. Remember, the KKK is a "Christian organization." http://www.christianpost.com/news/kkk-lead...e-group-116614/

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 26, 2015 -> 10:20 AM) IMO if you're not receiving government money, you should be able to exclude whoever you want. But that's just me. You don't want to serve Cubs fans? Fine, don't. You don't want to serve gays? Fine, don't. It's 2015. Unless you're in the deep south in a town of 200, that kind of business isn't staying open very long. Exactly, and like it or not, that really hasn't been the law in this country for over 50 years.

Thank you, Sweet Jesus: http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2015/0...reboot-official

Marcia Brady, but only if she's really hungry.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Mar 12, 2015 -> 03:44 PM) Nobody wants those Benet b****es anyway. Time to throw down, Rock!

Very happy for you both!

QUOTE (gatnom @ Mar 12, 2015 -> 02:38 PM) Illinois is a golf school. And gymnastics. Don't forget about gymnastics. But hey, it has awesome new facilities in which to showcase its underachieving "major" revenue sports.

QUOTE (knightni @ Mar 12, 2015 -> 11:04 AM) In the Giants game today, we'll get to see an old man make a fool out of himself in front of thousands... and Will Ferrell will be there too. #BeltinBill Nice

Just really pissed off right now. Fire Mike Thomas.