Jenksismyhero

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 13, 2014 -> 02:19 PM) Strong history of bigotry against that class in particular? Can you draw a distinction for why you'd be against protections for being fired for being LGBT but would support protections for being fired based on race or religion? Strong HISTORY, but not really a current problem anymore than the other types of people out there who suffer from discrimination but aren't protected either.

I think it was great through season 3 (that finale is still the best finale ever, at worst top three) and then good until the last few episodes where it started to fall apart. But it was still the best night of the week when the new episode aired and the next morning was also great to talk to everyone about it. The ending was going to be terrible no matter what they did. They set themselves up for that years before. But as a whole the show was still awesome and the void really hasn't been filled by anything since. There are no "OMG I have to get home to watch this" or "let's watch this as a group" shows out there.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 13, 2014 -> 02:10 PM) You know what's a worse thing? Anti-LGBT bigotry. And anti-ugly, and anti-stupid, and anti-obese, and anti-white sox, and anti-gingers, and anti-D1 education and on and on and on. Everyone should be a protected class apparently. You should have zero say in who you employ or who you serve in your own business. That's what you're saying.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 13, 2014 -> 02:10 PM) We also still have a majority of states where gay couples can't get married, where it's legal to fire someone for being gay, and now we've got Kansas passing a bill legalizing anti-gay discrimination along other lines as well. We have a good track record of laws actually working very well to combat this very problem and a pretty horrible track record of "the market" doing so. Why should we suddenly reject using the thing that has worked well in the past in favor of the thing that never works well and for which there's little reason to believe that it will do so now? Again, think about it. Why would this even be an issue if, as you say, the "PC Police" have won nobody anywhere can be anti-LGBT? A whole bunch of conservative Republicans were elected in Kansas while being anti-LGBT, they just passed an anti-LGBT law and they are not going to lose office because of it. Why would we expect the same population that elects and supports these Republicans and this law to suddenly turn against any business that won't serve a gay couple? You can be fired in Illinois for a million reasons. You can't be fired for about 7 specific ones. Why should being gay deserve some special recognition over any of those other reasons?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 13, 2014 -> 02:05 PM) Gay people are still denied service, fired from jobs, denied marriage equality, ranted about by bigots on TV/radio, and demonized by public officials. If you hadn't noticed, even though it's 2014, one state's legislature just passed a horrendous bill legalizing anti-LGBT discrimination. It is still very much an actual problem. Ugly/fat/stupid people are denied service, fired from jobs, ranted about and made fun of by people on TV/radio. Let's protect them too. Marriage has nothing to do with being allowed in a store that doesn't want you there.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 13, 2014 -> 02:00 PM) Jenks' concern about equal protection/public accommodations laws creating more litigation (which is apparently a bigger concern than equal treatment?) makes me wonder: how much litigation is there these days over race- or sex-based refusal of public service incidents? Or has the existence of these laws prevented those incidents from happening in the first place? I didn't mean that the law would create some flood of litigation. I'm just saying, anytime you put a law on the books and someone claims they were damaged, there's a lawsuit. And I just don't think it's a good thing.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 13, 2014 -> 01:51 PM) "The market" has a pretty s*** record of weeding out discrimination against minorities while government laws have a pretty good record of breaking it. Do you feel the same about public accommodations laws in general? edit: think about what you're saying "the market" will do here. "The market" has given Kansas complete Republican domination that lead to this horrible bill being passed in the first place. I don't imagine much backlash coming from the Republican electorate there in the next elections. Now why would we expect "the market" to suddenly weed out the sort of discrimination that the democratically elected Kansas legislature just explicitly enabled? Come on, the "market" has changed the view of homosexuals radically. In about 2 decades we've gone from a country that made gay jokes openly and frequently to a country that can't tell people that someone is transgendered without a lynch mob forming on the gay side of the aisle.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Feb 13, 2014 -> 01:52 PM) So what happens if the majority of apartment buildings make a rule that they wont rent to Jewish people, because Jews killed Jesus and that offends them. Its fair that Jews have to live in the few apartments that will allow them? Im not saying I have the answer here, Id prefer that everyone can be a douche and judged for it, I just also concede that historically the majority has made terrible rules to screw with minorities, so I do give some deference to the idea that I cant trust the majority to act fairly. Maybe its a cynical jaded perspective, but I think its the safer perspective. Here's where I go back to my point about it being 2014. Are the majority of gay people denied entry into a business these days? Are they precluded from living somewhere? Are they being rounded up and hanged from trees? No. Back when most equal protection laws were passed that was actually the case. So those laws made sense to combat an actual problem.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 13, 2014 -> 01:51 PM) "The market" has a pretty s*** record of weeding out discrimination against minorities while government laws have a pretty good record of breaking it. Do you feel the same about public accommodations laws in general? True, but again I think the world today is different then 50 years ago. The PC police have won and businesses are afraid to offend ANYONE. So let the outliers try it and they'll be targeted and that will be that. I can be fat or ugly and denied service. Why is being gay any different? And i'm fine with most public accommodation laws although I do think (and there may be, I'm no expert there) exceptions if the laws require a significant financial burden.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 13, 2014 -> 01:49 PM) Seems like it's just aimed at the thread topic? I'd imagine duke's on the road. I'm sure it was, but I thought Balta had also called Duke a pyschopath before.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Feb 13, 2014 -> 01:44 PM) I was referring to the current law, not what we may think the law should be. I'm pretty sure based on that Colorado case from the 90's this law won't be around very long, even if gays aren't a federally protected class. Heck it might even violate Kansas law, I dunno. Are they a protected class there?

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Feb 13, 2014 -> 01:35 PM) Jenks, What about replace with race, religion? So would it be okay to not serve a Jew because my religion said so? Maybe a woman? What about an Asian? We both know that it would not be okay to say "I wont bake you a cake because youre a white guy marrying a black girl" Now maybe you think that should be okay, I dont know. Should we just let everyone be racist and say we have the right to be dicks? Its great if youre a white man, maybe not so great if youre anything else. Should we legislate fairness? I don't when it requires someone to act in a way they don't want to. From a government perspective, yes. Everyone should be treated equally and fairly. But for private citizens? No. I think if you want to be a dick, you can be a dick. Again, with today's technology and our culture, if you step outside the realm of social acceptability you are quickly out of business. I'd rather let nature play its course there instead of forcing another set of requirements on someone.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 13, 2014 -> 01:34 PM) So you're cool with this sort of bigotry or? I wouldn't say i'm cool with it, but if that's what the state of Kansas wants to do, and if that's how certain businesses want to operate, so be it. This is 2013. With social media and everything, that kind of stuff won't be tolerated and those businesses will be targeted quickly. Frankly I'd rather "the market" weed this stuff out in lieu of putting more laws on the books that create more litigation.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 13, 2014 -> 09:04 AM) Link Lol, wonder who you're aiming this at? Where is Duke these days? Did he get suspended?

Replace gay with ugly, red headed, fat, rich, stupid, a white sox fan, etc. and that's the law of the land already. Edit: Actually I'm wrong, because the law of the land is that you can discriminate against those types of people without having to justify the discrimination based on a religious belief.

QUOTE (ChiSox_Sonix @ Feb 12, 2014 -> 03:18 PM) A spin on it would be Frank being the only one who would be able to get custody of Liam and keep him from going into a foster/adoption home, so Fiona donates part of her Liver to Frank so he can live and be awarded said custody Ah, now that makes sense.

Isn't the idea of combining Melo and Rose just asking for problems? Both guys need the ball to be effective. Is Melo going to be alright being a second fiddle? Is Rose going to be OK with Melo taking final shots? You know both of those things will happen.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 13, 2014 -> 10:21 AM) So does that mean his buyout after the 2015-2016 season ends is $1 million? So there's a $7 million savings if he is the coach for the next 2 seasons compared to if he's only the coach for the next 1 season? So that buys him 2 full seasons after this one. I can tolerate that. Right, that's how I read it. One of my Indiana buddies has gone from "Indiana is back and we're never going to suck again!" two years ago to "well, back to being mediocre." He's convinced Vonleh is gone and without any other decent post player (on the roster or as commits) they'll be just as bad next year. He's also firmly in the fire Tom Crean camp now.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 13, 2014 -> 09:52 AM) I'll tentatively agree with you that the 2014-2015 season is going to be a key one in determining his long-term future. What's his contract status? He's signed through 2020. His buyout is 8 million in 2014-2015 and 2015-16, 1 million 2016-17, and 500k from 2017-2020. http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball...tract-extension

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 13, 2014 -> 08:11 AM) This game was the line that got one of my friends/fellow alums/season ticket holders saying it was time for a coaching change. Let's see if the AD has the balls to make a change or wait until it's 2 years too late like Guenther. Next year will be that defining year IMO. He's still getting recruits, but at least so far, those recruits aren't panning out. I don't see them being much better next year unless Vonleh stays, Ferrill stops making awful turnovers (and flopping non-stop) and some of their big recruits can make an impact.

And yet another situation where the offense dribbles for 30 seconds and throws up a prayer. Maybe run a set play?

Jesus Christ Groce. They have one good player. Maybe double him?

has anyone registered www.firetomcrean.com yet?

lol, rice with the 5 step travel. college officials are terrible.

wow, indiana. epic meltdown