Soxbadger

Always love me some culvers. Butter burgers with bacon, its why the state of Wisconsin produces so many offensive linemen.

It really depends on the atmosphere. Wrigleyville will be more rowdy. Wells/River North will be fancier (better food/tables etc). I personally dont mind Wells/River North areas during the day because they arent as crowded and you can get some nice food. I refuse to wait in line at night, so those areas are usually off limits. The problem of course is that youll likely have a hotel downtown, so it probably will make the most sense to go in the River North area. Or if youre feeling hipster you can go west of the highway and ironically watch the basketball games while you pay $6 for your ironically overpriced pbr.

How pricey do you want the bars?

Its a little more complicated than that. If her parents enrolled her in the school, than it possibly could be their obligation regardless of what she did. I mean unless she signed the agreement, there is no privity of contract between her and the school. I mean if she wanted to be clever she should have broke her parents up, then in the divorce had her mom ask for the college tuition to be part of the separation agreement. People are so stupid.

Whether or not Chicago can sustain itself does not really impact whether Chicagoland area is a donor in terms of tax dollars. California likely cant sustain itself, but its still a donor state to the Federal govt when it comes to taxes. Its kind of apples and oranges.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 4, 2014 -> 04:02 PM) OK? But that's still a completely skewed scale of spending despite having the largest school district in the state, about a fifth of all students. Its not really skewed. The Chicagoland area (that includes Lake/Cook county) likely pays a disproportionate amount of the taxes in IL. The majority of the money is also likely spent here, but Id bet if you did the math that Lake/Cook county are subsidizing the rest of the state and that some of our tax money is going to fund things in southern IL. Which is why Southern IL would be silly to split. But Id be glad to let them.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 3, 2014 -> 04:10 PM) How so? There was a heckuva lot more shooting in the Georgia campaign than there has been in this one. US and Russia signed a treaty about Ukraine. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memo...rity_Assurances It would be hard for the US to let Russia take any of the land we already agreed to protect.

Its more than Georgia/Ossetia. I think that Russia is going to back down, but they are definitely testing their power right now.

QUOTE (Iwritecode @ Feb 27, 2014 -> 03:46 PM) I could be confusing it with the Arizona law that was just vetoed but it’s not about allowing businesses to discriminate against gays. They can already do that. It’s about freedom for business owners to discriminate without fear of lawsuits. You cant create that law. Anyone can sue for any reason, even no reason. Its ultimately up to a judge to determine the validity of a case. And heres the funniest part. If this is a law, and someone sued, they could potentially take it to the Kansas Supreme Court, where the law could be invalidated as unconstitutional under KS law. So no, this does nothing to prevent lawsuits, if anything it creates an environment to file more lawsuits. Its so illogically dumb, just so dumb.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Feb 27, 2014 -> 01:45 PM) Well, to preserve their right but also to prevent lawsuits. They're worried about a court deciding that sexuality is a protected class, which has happened in a couple other states. They're preventing that decision from happening. If the court determines that, no amount of laws besides an amendment can overcome it. So Im still not sure what the point is. If the Supreme Court says "You cant discriminate against people who marry goats" and Kansas has a law that says "You dont have to serve at a goat marriage", Supreme Court wins, right? Or if Kansas has a law that says "You can discriminate against goat marriage" and then passes a law "You cant discriminate against goat marriage" the second law naturally overturns the first... So this just seems to be hatred for the sake of hatred. Thats my problem with it, that they could already do this, so there was no need to create a law.

QUOTE (farmteam @ Feb 27, 2014 -> 01:24 PM) While I don't agree with him on this, I will say that Jenks made pretty clear that it comes down to how you value different Constitutional rights. He values them equally. No one save for illinilaw has really done a good job of responding to him on that main point. Like it or not, the Second Amendment exists and isn't going anywhere. Since it's admitted that there are restrictions on that right, the question really becomes what restrictions are reasonable. Well as everyone knows I dont care what the current laws are/were. At one point (insert your favorite minority) couldnt vote. If we sat and simply said "the law is what it is" wed be a s***ty backwards country. So the question right now isnt about what the 2nd amendment is (its entirely irrelevant), its about whether the Kansas law is appropriate/necessary. As Ive clearly stated multiple times, the Kansas law is superfluous because you can already refuse to serve gay people in Kansas. Jenks response has been "its proactive", to what end Ive asked. If Kansas creates a law that says you cant discriminate services based on lgbt, then this current law has clearly been overturned. Unless we just think that Kansas will have 2 conflicting laws? Its nothing more than a distraction. A better comparison is actually abortion. While abortion is legal, no Dr has to perform an abortion. Its the exact same thing. While being gay is legal, no one is forcing you to cater their wedding. And honestly, I dont care if you want to be a racist bigot. Just own it. Id be fine with this law if it required each store to put a sign on the front that says "We dont serve gay people." That way they dont get my straight people money either. Want to be a racist bigot, just own it, just man up. Its just cowardly. I mean what happens if they serve a gay person unknowingly? Can they then sue because they were damaged? It just opens up nonsense, its stupid.

QUOTE (illinilaw08 @ Feb 27, 2014 -> 01:11 PM) Or a Muslim business owner refusing to serve a woman who isn't in a burka? What about Orthodox religions that say you cant sit on the same chair as a female that may have been on her period? Can I prevent all women from sitting on any chair because I dont want the risk? Originally Posted by Leviticus 15:19-30 And if a woman have an issue, and her issue in her flesh be blood, she shall be put apart seven days: and whosoever toucheth her shall be unclean until the even. And every thing that she lieth upon in her separation shall be unclean: every thing also that she sitteth upon shall be unclean. And whosoever toucheth her bed shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even. And whosoever toucheth any thing that she sat upon shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even. And if it be on her bed, or on any thing whereon she sitteth, when he toucheth it, he shall be unclean until the even. And if any man lie with her at all, and her flowers be upon him, he shall be unclean seven days; and all the bed whereon he lieth shall be unclean. And if a woman have an issue of her blood many days out of the time of her separation, or if it run beyond the time of her separation; all the days of the issue of her uncleanness shall be as the days of her separation: she shall be unclean. Every bed whereon she lieth all the days of her issue shall be unto her as the bed of her separation: and whatsoever she sitteth upon shall be unclean, as the uncleanness of her separation. And whosoever toucheth those things shall be unclean, and shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even. But if she be cleansed of her issue, then she shall number to herself seven days, and after that she shall be clean. And on the eighth day she shall take unto her two turtles, or two young pigeons, and bring them unto the priest, to the door of the tabernacle of the congregation. And the priest shall offer the one for a sin offering, and the other for a burnt offering; and the priest shall make an atonement for her before the LORD for the issue of her uncleanness. So basically I can make a rule that women have to tell me they are on their period, because they are unclean for 7 days, and if I touch them Ill be unclean.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Feb 27, 2014 -> 01:10 PM) In your view...they'll obviously claim it's a shield, protecting them from having to perform a service they don't want to perform per their beliefs. I mean, they jumped the gun since Kansas currently doesn't have a law saying they HAVE to serve them, but if that day comes, and then they try to pass this law, how does it not become a shield to protect them? Well they cant have both laws. How can you have law A that says you have to serve them and law B that says you dont have to. Seems that all you need is law A that says you have to serve them except in certain circumstances. And even more to the point, is there any current issue where gay couples are forcing wedding planners to provide services? I mean isnt this just a case of freak out? Do you really think that a gay couple is going to want to pay a lot of money to someone who doesnt want to be there? This is just common sense. Its like back when my parents planned my Bar Mitzvah, do you think they went to a bunch of Neo Nazis to make the centerpiece? Do you think we called up a bunch of antisemites to be the DJ? Its to make gay people feel unwelcome. No matter how much window dressing there is, thats what this law is about. Its about telling gay people they arent wanted. And guess what, I dont think thats how the govt should be used. Maybe Im wrong, maybe the govt should be used for every petty argument that may ever happen.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Feb 27, 2014 -> 11:48 AM) You're still not getting it. The legitimate reason put forth by these groups is religious freedom. You clearly don't buy that, but lots of other people do and so has our legal system in the past. And "you can simply not do X, Y and Z" or "Just don't do X, Y and Z here" has rarely worked as an argument in these cases, so I don't know why you think it's important here. We don't tell people to stop speaking because they can just easily shut up or talk in their homes. You don't lose your rights simply because there is an easier alternative. Lastly, I'm not cloaking anything. I'm pointing out how people emphasis rights more than others. People in this very thread keep talking about how awful discrimination is and we should never change the laws and blah blah and yet we still have minority and gender only contracts, affirmative action, etc., the freaking definition of discrimination on race and gender. We're cool with it because we think there's a legitimate reason for doing so. Well, the people of Kansas think there's a legitimate reason for not having to serve gay people if they don't want to. edit: I should say "some people in Kansas" not "the people of" Where have I argued against religious freedom? I believe I said that the Kansas law is an unnecessary waste of time. Religious freedom should be a shield, not a sword. Id be against any law that said private companies cant have Christmas trees, etc. But in this case, religion is being used as a sword to attack others they dont agree with. Might as well say that Christians dont have to serve Jews because they killed Christ. I mean why not? Everyone has the right to believe in whatever fairy tale they want.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Feb 27, 2014 -> 11:24 AM) No no, let me be clear here: I don't find that to be a legitimate reason to restrict a right of public accommodation (even assuming that sexuality is a protected class) under existing laws. What i've said is that the logic and legal arguments behind the two are the same - you need a legitimate reason to curb or restrict that right. I've called Balta a hypocrite because he'd gladly infringe upon someone's right to carry a weapon over the right to publicly accommodate someone. That's him simply valuing what he agrees with over what he doesn't agree with, which is no different than what the legislators in Kansas and other states are doing (they think their religious freedom right trumps the right of public accommodation/anti-discrimination). The fact that the two deal with a person and an object or one is more dangerous is irrelevant. And yes, the 2nd amendment arguments are obviously more complex, but "guns are dangerous" as a legitimate reason has, thus far, been applied only in limited situations, usually in government or quasi-government areas. If that reason had been accepted concealed carry in public wouldn't exist. And the legitimate reason to curb/restrict guns is danger. The legitimate reason to curb/restrict gays is.... Thats why its a pointless comparison, its apples/oranges. Danger isnt irrelevant, or at least it shouldnt be irrelevant. Neither is the fact that one is something you can leave behind, whereas the other isnt. You can leave your gun at home, you cant leave your gay. You just dont want to actually respond to the issue, you want to cloak it into some completely irrelevant gun argument.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Feb 27, 2014 -> 11:05 AM) Religious objection is the logic, whether you agree or disagree with it. And it's absolutely comparable under the law. How do you, of all people, not see that? Religion is based on FAITH and BELIEF. It is inherently illogical, even the most devout religious person has to admit that. No one knows if being gay will make them go to hell, its a BELIEF. How is gun and gay comparable under the law? I dont see that. Now lets say that gay people wanted to bring vials of bubonic plague into a store, that would be comparable to a gun. Sure nothing may happen, but there is a risk, and I completely understand why a store owner would want someone to leave their bubonic plague at home.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Feb 27, 2014 -> 10:52 AM) No, i'm treating rights equally. Something you obviously disagree with. ???? Guns are an object, sexual preference is not. If a gay person wants to go to store X, they cant simply "leave their gay at home". Sorry this is stupid and we both know it.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Feb 27, 2014 -> 10:43 AM) But this argument has been rejected by the courts in the concealed carry arguments. I mean, this is obviously where the "no guns" sign cases are going to go and be decided, but we're not there yet as far as I know. Again, i'm not equating the two. I'm equating the logic behind it. Balta still fears guns and doesn't want them in his place. A dude from Kansas fears or finds objectionable gay people and doesn't want them in his place. You can draw all the real-world distinctions you like, but under the law the hurdle of legitimacy is the same. And as much as you'd like to consider a gun as an object no different from a shirt or shoes, it isn't the same. The problem is that there is no logic behind not wanting to serve a gay person. There is absolutely logic behind not wanting people with guns in your store. Guns present a risk. Thats why when you go to court, there is a metal detector and no one can bring in a gun. Thats why when you fly on a plane, etc. Are there gay detectors? Do we fear that gay people on a plane is dangerous? Gay people in court? So lets stop with this fallacy that somehow its comparable.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Feb 27, 2014 -> 10:44 AM) That was a pretty well documented rumor on Soxtalk from what I recall. I had forgotten all about it. Yep I remember refreshing like crazy over those days.

Nothing more needs to be said.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Feb 26, 2014 -> 12:06 PM) because despite not being listed as a protected class, people ARE suing and wasting courts time and taxpayer money. Really? Do you have evidence of a glut of Kansas lawsuits involving gay people not able to use the caterer of their choice? I think we should be reigning in the amount of laws that we create, not creating more superfluous ones. But thats just me, maybe you want more unnecessary laws. More govt restriction, right?

Its also just for fun. Sometimes as a fan of a team youve seen almost as much tape on a player as the scouts. I think Ive got a pretty good idea on Wisconsin players.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Feb 26, 2014 -> 10:15 AM) Would we be having this conversation if a Jewish baker refused to bake a cake for Hitler's birthday for a group of skinheads? The better question is would we draft a law that specifically states Jews dont have to provide services for Skinheads? The answer is no. This law is unnecessary. You can already deny service to anyone for any reason provided that they are not a protected class. Last I checked gay people are not a protected class, so the question is, why is Kansas wasting their tax payer money on this bill? The law is nothing but hate, its to make people feel unwelcome. Its classic tyranny of the majority.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/s...,0,475825.story Man busted for meth, Im pretty sure thats a Los Pollos Hermanos shirt in his mug shot. Awesome.

No one knows the people at your wedding better than you. If you think that is something theyd find amusing and not a waste of time, go for it. Im not sure about the gorilla mask, but maybe there is some sort of inside joke that I dont get.