Happy 21st B-DAY to JakeN7

[fola]

Happy Birthday Amigo!




Go Bulls!

 

[fola]

I think he mentioned it in the introduction thread.

 

[clonetrooper264]

If the Bulls win this game that would be quite the birthday present =) Happy Birthday Jake

 

[JakeN7]

Thanks guys. Lets just say last night and this morning were pretty rough. Managed to catch most of the game though which was great. What a win!

 

[Newskoolbulls]

Happy Birthday Jake. Derrick Rose wants to know how did you like his gift?

 

[BlackHawkPaul]

Article</p>


 </p>


 </p>

 

[Chief Walking Stick]

Oh..... this *** subject again.</p>

 

[TSD]

I cant believe this shit.  Especially this crap.</p>


 </p>


 </p>


<span style="color:rgb(17,17,17);font-family:Georgia, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif;font-size:16px;">“Discrimination is horrible. It’s hurtful … It has no place in civilized society, and that’s precisely why we’re moving this bill,� he said. “There have been times throughout history where people have been persecuted for their religious beliefs because they were unpopular. This bill provides a shield of protection for that.�</span></p>


 </p>


<span style="font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="color:rgb(17,17,17);font-size:16px;">are you fucking kidding me?? Did he just say not letting them discriminate is discrimination?!</span></span></p>
<div style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif;">

Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/2014/02/12/4817862/kansas-house-approves-response.html#storylink=cpy</div>

 

[BiscuitintheBasket]

In Mother Kansas the businesses ignore gays to prevent discrimination,</p>

 

[supraman]

I liked it. Hear me out before you flame the ever loving shit out of me. First in a free society a private business owner should have the right to do business with whom he chooses. Now that ain't the good part, the good part is the first time this happens it will be big news, that place will get boycotted and most likely end up going out of business or change its ways. It is a dumb law but society will cancel this law out.</p>

 

[winos5]

Chick-Fill-A says hi!</p>

 

[LordKOTL]

The part that bugs me is this:</p>


 </p>


The bill covers private and public employees. Government agencies would still be required to provide services, but individual clerks could refuse to serve same-sex couples based on their religious beliefs on marriage. </p>


 </p>


See, I have a problem with this.  If a private company or a government employer takes the stance that they will serve anyone regardless, an employee should not be able to *publically* refuse service.  Yeah, they can go to their boss privately and tell them that they don't feel right providing a service to gays/lesbians, and then their boss privately can assign someone else with no such qualms and either (1--if public) they themselves suck it up and render service or (2--if private) tell the "client" that company policy doesn't allow them to provide services to gays/lesbians,a nd then the company gets whatever backlash the public deems appropriate.</p>


 </p>


The article doesn't have that distinction.  For all we know some lowly government clerk who "doesn't believe in homosexualty" can outright publically refuse service--and I have an issue with that.  The way it's worded it could mean that the freaking mailman can refuse to deliever mail, or the post office desk clerk can refuse to accept a package from an out-of-the-closet *** person.</p>

 

[MassHavoc]

Maybe I'm in the minority here or I'm not reading the article correctly, but I really don't have a problem with this bill? It's dumb in the grand scheme of things but to me it looks like it's just protecting personal freedoms or an individual no matter how dumb that person is. It looks like all it is "aimed at keeping individuals, groups and businesses from being compelled to help with same-sex weddings." I'm fine with that, no individual, private group, or private business should be compelled by the government to do anything. Now, if this was a government organization they should be compelled, or a government funded organization they should be compelled or lose their funding, but in general we shouldn't try to force private citizens to do things they don't want to do. Like was said above, the marketplace will probably take care of the rest.</p>

 

[MassHavoc]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="LordKOTL" data-cid="221602" data-time="1392393928">
<div>


The part that bugs me is this:</p>


 </p>


The bill covers private and public employees. Government agencies would still be required to provide services, but individual clerks could refuse to serve same-sex couples based on their religious beliefs on marriage. </p>


 </p>


See, I have a problem with this.  If a private company or a government employer takes the stance that they will serve anyone regardless, an employee should not be able to *publically* refuse service.  Yeah, they can go to their boss privately and tell them that they don't feel right providing a service to gays/lesbians, and then their boss privately can assign someone else with no such qualms and either (1--if public) they themselves suck it up and render service or (2--if private) tell the "client" that company policy doesn't allow them to provide services to gays/lesbians,a nd then the company gets whatever backlash the public deems appropriate.</p>


 </p>


The article doesn't have that distinction.  For all we know some lowly government clerk who "doesn't believe in homosexualty" can outright publically refuse service--and I have an issue with that.  The way it's worded it could mean that the freaking mailman can refuse to deliever mail, or the post office desk clerk can refuse to accept a package from an out-of-the-closet *** person.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>


Thanks for this clarification, I probably didn't read the article far enough to get so some of the main points but I agree with the above</p>

 

[LordKOTL]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="MassHavoc" data-cid="221604" data-time="1392394278">
<div>


Thanks for this clarification, I probably didn't read the article far enough to get so some of the main points but I agree with the above</p>
</div>
</blockquote>


 </p>


Thanks.  Really though, I have no problem is an individual is "unconforable", as it were, dealing with something they were taught all their life was "evil".  Conversly though, a clerk is not the face of an organization, public or private nor should they dictate policy.  If you work at the DMV and don't like dealing with gays, fine, let another clerk deal with them or if none will, your boss will tell you to suck it up or you'll get fired.  After all work sucks--if it didn't they wouldn't have to pay us to do it.  But that same DMV clerk cannot tell a *** person looking to renew their driver's license that they won't renew their license and no one will. </p>

 

[TSD]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="MassHavoc" data-cid="221603" data-time="1392394195">
<div>


Maybe I'm in the minority here or I'm not reading the article correctly, but I really don't have a problem with this bill? It's dumb in the grand scheme of things but to me it looks like it's just protecting personal freedoms or an individual no matter how dumb that person is. It looks like all it is "aimed at keeping individuals, groups and businesses from being compelled to help with same-sex weddings." I'm fine with that, no individual, private group, or private business should be compelled by the government to do anything. Now, if this was a government organization they should be compelled, or a government funded organization they should be compelled or lose their funding, but in general we shouldn't try to force private citizens to do things they don't want to do. Like was said above, the marketplace will probably take care of the rest.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>


 </p>


 </p>


How do you not have a problem with this?  Lets imagine some *** couple gets stranded in some podunk ass town in illinois like Wataga or some shit where, they cant get their car fixed cuz their ***, cant get food cuz their ***.   In the grand scheme of things in most "normal" cities it won't change a *** couples day to day life, but in some fringe cases could alter it drastically.</p>


 </p>


And I say again replace *** with black, and would you still not have a problem with it?  We already struck down those laws.</p>


 </p>


This veil of "religious freedom" is stupid, there are religions that allow human sacrifice but we wont allow that and people have been charged and convicted when trying to pray children to health that die from preventable diseases.   This is nothing more than a smoke screen to legalize their discrimination, it has nothing to do with religious freedom.  </p>


 </p>


 </p>


Furthermore are *** people going to have to identify themselves?  I've rented hotel rooms with one other guy before, I guess on the face we could have been a *** couple, for all they knew.</p>

 

[puckjim]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Supra" data-cid="221594" data-time="1392389055">
<div>


I liked it. Hear me out before you flame the ever loving shit out of me. First in a free society a private business owner should have the right to do business with whom he chooses. Now that ain't the good part, the good part is the first time this happens it will be big news, that place will get boycotted and most likely end up going out of business or change its ways. It is a dumb law but society will cancel this law out.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>


Should a private business owner have the right to not serve blacks if he doesn't want to?  Women?  </p>

 

[puckjim]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="LordKOTL" data-cid="221607" data-time="1392394600">
<div>


Thanks.  Really though, I have no problem is an individual is "unconforable", as it were, dealing with something they were taught all their life was "evil".  Conversly though, a clerk is not the face of an organization, public or private nor should they dictate policy.  If you work at the DMV and don't like dealing with gays, fine, let another clerk deal with them or if none will, your boss will tell you to suck it up or you'll get fired.  After all work sucks--if it didn't they wouldn't have to pay us to do it.  But that same DMV clerk cannot tell a *** person looking to renew their driver's license that they won't renew their license and no one will. </p>
</div>
</blockquote>


Then you should be fired from the DMV.</p>

 

[Chief Walking Stick]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="puckjim" data-cid="221609" data-time="1392396471">
<div>


Should a private business owner have the right to not serve blacks if he doesn't want to?  Women?  </p>
</div>
</blockquote>


 </p>


http://www.augusta.com/</p>


 </p>


Didn't they not allow women until a year or two ago?</p>

 

[Tater]

If I owned a business, I would serve Grimsalainens. I wouldn't serve Rangers fans either.</p>