cabiness42

Sad, but true. However, the one check that our system of religious freedom has is that if your view is too extreme, the public will not allow you to succeed even if you legally hide behind religion. 40 years from now, even if there are religion-based reasons to legally discriminate against gays, it won't work because it will be such a minority view in society that nobody will patronize your business if you hold those views. CFA is proof that we aren't there right now.

I suppose that there are enough churches that still believe this that it would have to be allowed as a religious exception. Unlike homosexuality though, I think that belief is held by a small enough percentage of the population that no company outside of some small employers in the South are going to be able to succeed with that belief.

Here's the biggest problem with the anti-gay marriage position: Even if you accept that the bible's teachings on homosexuality are true (which I do), there still isn't a rationale for banning gay marriage. First of all, the sin is having sex, not getting married, and banning gay marriage is not going to eliminate or even reduce the amount of sin. Secondly, our constitution doesn't allow for laws that are based purely in religion if they don't also meet the standard of having a positive societal impact. Murder and theft are sins that are also illegal because there is clear harm to one or more victims. Adultery, lust, greed (to the extent that it doesn't cross the line into theft), and failing to keep the sabbath are all sins (that many anti-gay activists are guilty of, by the way) that are not regulated by law because they don't have clear victims. It's inconsistent to have legal restrictions on homosexuality but not on these other sins. I will say that when (not if) we do reach the point of federally-recognized same-sex marriage, that I am in strong favor of allowing private employers the right to have a religious objection to extending benefits to same-sex partners. I also think the tax code will need a major overhaul in order to survive the massive influx of childless married couples, but that's a whole other subject.

So you're basically just recapping what NBC showed in primetime? No mention of the cycling time trials or the basketball or soccer action?

He didn't build that.

That woman probably paid cash to somebody who is on public assistance for about 80% of the card's value. The woman gets a 20% discount on groceries and the other person gets cash to buy smokes/alcohol/drugs that they couldn't buy with the card.

I'm assuming you mean the Horseshoe up by you (Hammond) and not the one by me at the other end of the state. I haven't been there, but I would expect that a $100 weekday tournament in Hammond gets anywhere between 50-100 players. If this is your first time in a casino poker room, one bit of advice: never bluff, people in low buy-in ($100 or less) tournaments don't fold. They call thinking their top pair with a terrible kicker is good even with flush and straight possibilities on the board.

I never have a problem reconciling my hate for gottlieb.

I haven't seen this mentioned yet, but I think the Sox qualify for draft pick compensation if they buy out Peavy's option and then make him a qualifying offer. No reason not to do that unless Peavy decided to sign an extension before then.

I have a very hard time seeing a left-handed utility infielder with a decent OBP passing through 26 teams.

You haven't listed Danks, who has to be paid even if he isn't healthy. I don't see any way that Danks, Floyd, Peavy, and Liriano are all on the payroll next year. At most three of the four and maybe only even two, depending on how Humber finishes out the season.

AL Central: SOX Detroit -2½ Cleveland -7 AL Wild Card: LA Angels +½ Oakland Detroit -1½ Tampa Bay -1½ Baltimore -1½ Boston -3½ Toronto 5 Cleveland 6 8/2 Games: MIN @ BOS 7:10 LAA @ TEX 8:05 CLE @ KC 8:10 TOR @ OAK 10:05

Declining the option is pretty much a given, no matter how good he has been or will be. Sox are not dishing out $22M to any one player. If Jake likes it in Chicago enough to give the Sox a bit of a discount, then he will stay. If he insists on testing the market, somebody will overpay for him, just like they did for Buehrle. I'd rather re-sign Liriano for $11M per year than Jake for $17M per year.

Not sure that Fontenot gets to the Sox on waivers. Also not sure why Philly didn't try to trade him yesterday when they wouldn't have had to worry about waivers.

PEAVY!! DE AZA!!

How about the Sox score 3 more runs and then Myers can pitch the 9th?

Willingham strikes out way too often to be sending Mauer on 3-2 there.

Sharp lineout to PaulieDunn, and the runner from 3rd was going on contact and easily doubled up.

Bobbled exchange at 2B

Yes, and you still want Rios batting after Dunn with Dunn walking so much. You could argue swapping Rios and Konerko, but moving Dunn from #3 makes no sense. If you move Dunn behind Rios and Konerko, you might as well tell him to swing at everything because his walks are going to be worth much less.

He would have to be an upgrade over Hudson/Olmedo, wouldn't he?

As frustrating as Dunn can be, he walks a ton, and you waste a lot of his walks if you don't have your two bets hitters batting AFTER him. Also don't want Dunn and AJ hitting back-to-back. AJ sees less LOOGYs in the late innings because they won't stay in to face Konerko-Rios after Dunn.

Please tell me that you haven't gone through life believing everything Cubs fans tell you.

2-1 Twins, Youkilis leading off the top of the 4th.

Playing the role of Denard Span at today's performance: Ben Revere