illinilaw08

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ May 20, 2015 -> 08:07 PM) Perhaps Littlefinger expected Ramsay to basically rape or degrade Sansa, believing that it will push her in a direction he wants. I'm sure he's aware of Ramsay's actions in the past and the Bolton family's current state, and because of that, I'm sure he's aware that both Ramsay and Roose know full well that they can't flay the last remaining Stark. This is a direct quote from an interview with one of the producers: “The difference between the Ramsay Snow of the books and the show is the Ramsay of the show is not a famous psycho. He’s not known everywhere as a psycho. So Littlefinger doesn’t have the intelligence on him.” I think that's the most insane part of all this. Littlefinger NOT knowing Ramsay's reputation is not fathomable in either universe. And it's that lack of knowledge that sets this entire arc in motion. The article with the quote is linked here: http://www.ew.com/article/2015/05/17/game-...amsay-interview

QUOTE (TaylorStSox @ May 20, 2015 -> 03:43 PM) Littlefinger knows most people in the North are still Stark loyalists. By riding in with the Knights of the Vale and saving her, he is given legitimacy. The story has been the same from the beginning, he's playing everyone off one another while slowly gaining more power. He's Lord of Harrenhall, Warden of the Eyrie and, if he has his way, Warden of the North. He cares about nobody other than himself. The Sansa rape was a plot device that moves several pieces of the plot ie Sansa, Theon, Littlefinger, The Boltons and, soon to be Jon Snow. But that response doesn't answer the two biggest issues with Littlefinger's plan. He needs Sansa alive, yet he does no research re: Ramsay. If Sansa is dead, do you really think the fiercely independent North bows to Littlefinger - even if he avenges Sansa's death/routs the Boltons? Littlefinger barely has control of the Vale - and only through Robin Arryn. Again, acknowledging that the books and show are different entities on this point, why would the Lords of the Vale agree to go to war on Robin Arryn/Littlefinger's say so?* On the rape, it's a plot device that, like the Jamie-Cersei rape, halts the momentum it seems like the show was trying to build for the character. Jamie is on a redemptive arc, but then he rapes Cersei setting back any growth he's shown as a character. Sansa finally starts to gain some agency/stop becoming a victim. Half a season into that arc, she gets raped while Theon watches. I get that it's a plot device to replace Jeyne Poole and I've been dreading the scene all season. I'm saying it was poorly done and slows/halts Sansa's character growth. She's back to the damsel in distress that needs to be saved - by either Theon or Brienne. Also of note, don't get me started on how dumb the Dorne scenes were this week. After how well they portrayed Oberyn last season, the portrayal of the Sand Snakes has been comically awful. EDIT: * I acknowledge that Robin Arryn is the ruler of the Vale, but as we've seen in King's Landing, the decisions of a weak leader are not really respected. Littlefinger is an outsider in the Vale - the foundation has not been laid for him to be able to send the Vale to war.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ May 20, 2015 -> 02:43 PM) 1) Was the hardened choice going to marry into the family that killed your family and took your home? I mean, maybe rape wasn't on the table explicitly, but you gotta figure it wasn't going to be all roses and sunshine there. 2) Does Littlefinger really care? Sansa is just a pawn in his game. Whatever happens, happens. That's the way I took it all anyway. He's a cold, calculated dude. On number 1, when Sansa made that decision, she was escorted by Littlefinger and Knights of the Vale. But more to the point, the producer's quote was in a response to a direct question about the rape. Marrying into the Bolton family may have fit the quote, but the rape scene doesn't. On number 2, book Littlefinger certainly cares about Sansa. Now, admittedly book Littlefinger and show Littlefinger are two separate entities. But when asked about Sansa being left with Ramsay, the producer's response was that Littlefinger didn't know about Ramsay's history. That answer makes no sense in the context of who Littlefinger is - a cautious guy who knows everything. More to the point, however, Sansa is more than a pawn. She's the last remaining Stark (that Littlefinger knows of). If he's gunning for Warden of the North, he needs Sansa to help him hold the North. Littlefinger has no allies in the North (other than the Boltons who he necessarily needs out of the way). The Knights of the Vale aren't going to be an occupying force in the North. Just like Lysa and Robin Arryn were the key to Littlefinger gaining (and maintaining) control of the Vale, Sansa is the key to Littlefinger gaining and maintaining control of the North - a huge need for Littlefinger if his ultimate goal is the Iron Throne. Leaving that critical asset in a situation where she is surrounded by enemies - including a dude who has been flaying people all over the North - without so much as a bodyguard or a scant amount of research regarding the guy he's marrying her off to is so out very out of character.

QUOTE (bigruss22 @ May 20, 2015 -> 01:21 PM) That's pretty much it, the shock is probably moreso in that Sansa has been a pretty delicate character and has avoided most of the physical torment up to that point all for it to lead to marrying Ramsay/getting raped. Yes she was abused by Joffrey but for the most part she left "unharmed", only to end up with Ramsay. http://grantland.com/hollywood-prospectus/...he-sand-snakes/ I largely agree with the thoughts in this Grantland post re: the Sansa rape scene, but to sum up: 1) The producer referred to the rape scene as "a hardened woman making a choice." That is not the scene that was depicted. Sansa did not choose to be raped, she had no say in the matter. 2) Putting Sansa in that position was a narrative shortcut that makes no sense from Littlefinger's standpoint. It makes no sense that Littlefinger hasn't heard of Ramsay who has flaying people all over the North, but that's the producer's explanation for why Sansa was left unprotected. Like the post says, some of the depictions of rape on the show have been tone deaf. Taking Jamie Lannister - a character on a redemptive arc - and having him rape Cersei in the Sept was such a terrible decision for a character on a redemptive arc. Likewise, with Sansa, if the intention is to show Sansa as "a hardened woman making a choice," that's not the scene that they showed.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 14, 2015 -> 02:23 PM) Jon Heyman ‏@JonHeymanCBS 11m11 minutes ago Miami, FL tulowitzki meeting w/ agent today regarding trade issue. however, it still may be a few days. tough call for franchise SS. I don't know how the Rockies get value for Tulo. The injury history will have teams looking for a discount, but he's locked up through 2020 on a reasonable deal.

QUOTE (kevo880 @ May 14, 2015 -> 11:38 AM) I've never been to either of those bars, I need to check them out! I live in the Regis/Berkley neighborhood and a brewery called Goldspot just opened a few blocks from my place. It's not my favorite brewery, but considering it's a 2 minute walk they have gotten a good amount of my business. De Steeg is another one that is walking distance for me. Crazy that the only entrance is from the alley behind Tennyson St. I heard 3 of the brewers from Avery are starting there own brewery on Tennyson that should be opening soon as well. Yeah, Call to Arms is the one from the Avery guys - should be walking distance for you as well - I'm excited for that one to open. Haven't been to Goldspot, but the wife and I have been meaning to give them a try. Hogshead, De Steeg and Joyride are the breweries in walking distance for us (West Highland). De Steeg is the wife's favorite brewery, but you are right - finding the entrance can be an ordeal.

QUOTE (kevo880 @ May 14, 2015 -> 09:22 AM) I'm late to the party here, but growing up about 15 minutes away from Greenbush I have to say it has been a huge addition to SW Michigan. Great beers and something that was very needed in the area. I went to college in Kzoo so I have a small preference to Bell's over Founders, but both are great as well. I've been out in Denver for the last 5 years and I saw someone mention Prost Brewing. I've only been once and found it enjoyable. Right down the road is Denver Beer CO and I have spent a lot of time there. Delicious beers and great atmosphere. New Belgium in Ft. Collins is one of the coolest businesses, let alone breweries, that I have ever heard of. That would be a dream place to work. They treat their employees like gold and their employees are all part owners. I finally checked out the new Avery Brewery in Boulder last weekend and was blown away there as well. Not only do they have my favorite IPA, but their food is incredible. They smoke a ton of their food right outside the taproom and they keep the windows open so the smell makes it so you can't say no to eating there. I could go on and on about CO breweries though. If any of you ever come out here it is definitely worth checking out some of the different breweries in the area. Seems like there are new ones popping up every week, but the big ones really are worth the hype. Denver Beer Co is a favorite of mine (I've lived out here the last year and half). So are Hogshead, Diebolt, Ratio, River North, Beryl's, De Steeg, and Cannonball Creek (in Golden but still). Like you, I could go on and on about CO breweries. EDIT: In my experience, the best two bars for good beer (not breweries) in the Denver area are Falling Rock, right near Coors Field and Colorado Plus in Wheat Ridge. Colorado Plus has 70+ rotating taps of CO microbrews (3 or 4 taps are stuff they make) and the food is really good as well.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ May 7, 2015 -> 10:02 AM) Yeah Im not a big IPA fan myself, I like German Pilsners mostly. Rock, if you like German Pilsners, hit Prost next time you are in Denver (about a block West of I-25 from downtown).

QUOTE (ZoomSlowik @ May 7, 2015 -> 11:17 AM) I haven't had a ton of scotch ales, but I thought Robert the Bruce was a good one. That was actually my first Three Floyds beer. Wee Mac from Sun King down in Indianapolis is a really good scotch ale.

QUOTE (Jake @ May 1, 2015 -> 09:20 AM) One thing about this camera business is that we should be careful what we wish for. There are clearly some things to be gained from body cameras or cameras inside of police vans or jail cells. With that said, I'm not eager to sign away my right not to be videotaped. It is not a big leap to go from "we need cameras around police activity" to "we need cameras anywhere crimes may be committed." Particularly with body cameras, police departments will need to develop procedures regarding their use that comply with 1st Amendment protections and to ensure proper retention of videos. The ACLU has written two policy papers on the issue in the last couple. The most recent is linked below. https://www.aclu.org/police-body-mounted-ca...s-place-win-all

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Apr 29, 2015 -> 10:30 AM) Someone else highlighted this point in this thread, but I'd like to reiterate what they said. When speaking of Chicago, the requirements to become a police officer were lowered (it used to require 2 years of college, it now requires none), and as a known dangerous job that starts at about 43k a year, complete with a pension package that grows worse by the year (newer police pensions payouts are much lower than older), worse medical benefits, etc...it's hard to attract good people for such a dangerous job with crappy benefits. So, in saying that, is it a surprise that policing across the nation seems to be gathering more and more bad apples? Just to clarify, NSS and I were discussing the Denver PD regarding a decrease in requirements to join the force. A quick Google search seems to indicate that the Chicago PD does in fact still require a minimum of 2 years of college. Though Google is certainly not infallible.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Apr 28, 2015 -> 10:56 AM) There are lots of ways to address that problem - of the right people wanting to become cops. Let's tell a story of two departments I happen to know some things about: New Orleans and Denver. Even before Katrina, New Orleans was generally recoginized as the most poorly-run and corrupt large city department in the country (or among them anyway). Now let's look at their hiring and training practices. Their qualifications are (or at least were, haven't checked lately) basically 21 years old, high school diploma, no felony or serious misdemeanor convictions, and physically able to do the job. And their pay? Just above minimum wage. Officers usually make more money working private security off duty with no controls to speak of. Now look at Denver, generally considered one of the best departments in the country and with among the highest rates of citizen happiness with their performance. They require a degree (2 or 4 year, or 2 years' worth towards one if former military), no criminal convictions whatsoever (traffic violations are OK to a limited extent). They also are known for doing more in-service training than most departments. And they are paid better than almost all their cohort cities, with cops starting (last I checked) somewhere in the 50's per year or maybe 60k. They offer tuition reimbursement for graduate school or finishing bachelors, and they only allow outside contract work via their own internal agency. Now that's expensive of course - their approach is to have fewer officers per capita than other departments, but better ones. They get much better candidates that way. And by being business-smart and internalizing overtime and outside private work, they get more revenue too. That's just one parallel example. You can make things better if you want to. When you talk to Denver cops about why they like that department, the union doesn't even come up. I live in Denver - while I won't opine on the quality of the police force here (no complaints from my end), or its reputation nationally, I do know that they only require a high school diploma or GED to get on the force. http://denvergov.org/Portals/590/documents...203%20Final.pdf

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Apr 28, 2015 -> 09:09 AM) That's a problem, and the best way to weed that out is City Hall forcing changes from the top down. Which again would be black democrats in a city like Baltimore. Didn't see this posted earlier in the thread, but, in my opinion, a pretty balanced take from The Atlantic. http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archiv...utm_source=SFFB

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Apr 17, 2015 -> 03:16 PM) You would think the video guys have the same angles as NY. I don't know if it is uniform. If I had a vote, it would be. As for the situation, if you didn't have access to a replay, but the guys you pay to watch them tell you it was a "clear safe" I doubt you challenge. You may need to later. I do know if he was told clear safe and he challenged anyway and was denied, if the Sox got out of the jam but later got beat on a bad call he couldn't challenge, he would get roasted. What is the purpose of a video crew? As for Alexei, he jumps up and down saying he is safe at first when he is out by almost a full step. I would take the replay guys take. Maybe they had bad angles, but as I said, I think bith teams should have access to the same views that would be used to decide a challenge. I was watching a Bulls game a couple of weeks ago where they reviewed a ball out of bounds. I clearly was off the opponent from what appeared to be the best angle was the opponent was awarded the ball. They said the replay guys didn't have access to that angle, so it is possible the Sox video guys were looking at the same views NY would have had. Please clarify your position for me. My take is that there was an organizational failure on this play. 1) The Sox broadcast didn't have the best angle of the tag. Why didn't they? 2) The Tigers broadcast had that angle. Did the Sox video crew have access to the Tigers feed and, if so, why weren't they looking at all possible angles to put Robin in the best position to succeed? 3) Even in light of the above, given score and situation, Robin still should have challenged because runner on 2nd with nobody out in a tie game in the bottom of the 9th merits making the umps take a look. Even if you are taking Robin's statement at face value, and the video crew told Robin Alexi definitively missed the tag, and Robin is excused from challenging the call, there is still a failure by the organization because the information relayed to Robin was wrong. Objectively, the White Sox had bad information that potentially cost them the game. My take, reading your arguments in this thread, is that you are arguing there wasn't anything the Sox could do. Is that a correct reading of your take on the play?

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Apr 17, 2015 -> 02:24 PM) You would have to ask the White Sox what replays their people look at. I don't know. There were a few people on here looking at the CSN replays who first said the tag was not made. Right. But the Tigers clearly had a better replay of the tag. So: 1) Why didn't the Sox have that replay? 2) Why wasn't the Sox video crew monitoring the Tigers broadcast feed to see all possible angles? 3) Given the situation, score, and Alexi's reaction, why didn't Robin challenge anyway? I can't understand throwing up your hands and saying, "well, what could we do?"

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Apr 15, 2015 -> 09:31 AM) The technique was perhaps not well thought out, but yeah, I have a lot less concern about that than I do pretty much all the other shootings we've been discussing here. This guy was clearly an imminent lethal threat to the public who'd been evading officers and was currently armed and firing a weapon. Yeah, I just read through the CNN story on this incident, and, assuming the facts in the story are true, I don't have a huge issue with the way the officers handled things. Generally speaking, I think people get outraged over police force stories because the officer in the moment gets to be judge, jury, and executioner while getting a much, much greater benefit of the doubt than the general population - which runs pretty contrary to the way criminal justice is supposed to work. In a scenario like this one, however, I have a hard time finding fault with the use of force.

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Apr 7, 2015 -> 08:21 AM) I had to hear the "refs robbed us" complaints all day yesterday on the radio from Kentucky fans. Notre Dame didn't lose to Kentucky because of the refs. Kentucky didn't lose to Wisconsin because of the refs. Wisconsin didn't lose to Duke because of the refs. And this is from somebody who is very disheartened to see the championship won by a team that Notre Dame beat twice, the last time very convincingly in the ACC tournament. To me, the problem with the officiating in this Final Four was that they missed three critical objective calls late in games: 1) I'm no Kentucky fan, but the missed shot clock violation on the Hayes putback was awful. Get that call right and Kentucky is still up 2 with 2:20 or so left and has the ball. 2) The Winslow on the end line call. Winslow was able to use the baseline to get Okafor an easy and one (though I think he missed the free throw). 3) The out of bounds call under 2:00. My only defense for the refs there is that it wasn't clear until CBS found the blown up still shot of the ball on Winslow's fingers. If the refs didn't have access to that view, then I'm not sure there was enough to overturn the call. But if they didn't have access to that view, the better question is why the refs didn't have access to the best replay in the closing minutes of the tournament. All 3 of the above were objective calls that were just missed. Given the importance of both games, and the precious nature of points and possession in late game situations, those are inexcusable misses by the refs.

QUOTE (Tex @ Mar 31, 2015 -> 03:06 AM) There is producing a cake and there is producing cake celebrating an event the baker finds objectionable - gay wedding, lynching, killing of a cop, killing of an unarmed black teenager by a cop, etc. Remember there freedoms, if we can call it that, potentially protect everyone. Every single one of your examples is a criminal act - with the exception of the gay wedding. I don't think those examples are on point.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 27, 2015 -> 04:15 PM) I don't see the talent in the program being much higher than with Weber. Yeah, better than the last couple of years maybe, but overall Weber had the same types of 75-100 rated recruits as Hill/Nunn. JCL is the first really good recruit, but Bruce got Richmond and Leonard. Shoot, even the hind-sight terrible Abrams/Egwu/Henry/Shaw was top 15 in the country at the time. And I think having guys that sell the program is big, especially if the message is keeping Illinois guys home. You don't think someone like Dee would be an asset? It's the same reason they just hired Juice for the football program. You want to make inroads with Illinois kids and the best way to do it is using recruiters who were in the program and can really sell it. An asst coach selling the school when he's been here for 2-3 years doesn't work as well, IMO. I think Deon Thomas and Kenny Battle and those guys have some credibility throughout Chicagoland. Maybe not with the players directly but with their coaches, parents, etc. who remember who they are and what they did. Black was ranked around the same as JCL (at least on Rivals). Weber had the ship righted from a recruiting standpoint in '09 and '10. But it took a number of years and a number of bad classes to get there. Groce recruited at that level almost from the word go. I would be thrilled if Illinois gave a job to Dee eventually - much like the way they handled Jerrance Howard. Dee has the personality for the job, but he's playing professionally still (pretty sure), so that's a moot point. As far as the other guys go, if they were willing to take a video coordinator job (or whatever Jerrance started as) and work their way up, great. But I still fail to see what qualifies any of those guys to be an assistant on Groce's staff... particularly if xs and os are the biggest problem. EDIT: And on Weber, if the '10 and '11 classes had played to their rankings, Weber would probably still be at Illinois. But they didn't. So the rankings of Weber's last couple classes are irrelevant.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 27, 2015 -> 02:26 PM) 100% agree with him. It's time Deon, Kenny, SOMEONE from those great Illinois teams gets a spot on the bench. Someone that bleeds orange and blue and can sell it. And can also coach them to be a good, physical team. Why? What has Kenny Battle done to deserve an Asst. Coaching job? Bill Self didn't have any former players recruiting for him. Jimmy Collins wasn't an Illinois alum. What makes a former player uniquely qualified to recruit and coach at Illinois? And the complaints about recruiting seem overblown to me. This year, barring whatever happens with late signings, Illinois has the 2nd best class in the B1G. I know there isn't a PG in that class, but there is a top 40 player from Indiana - a guy who Illinois was never supposed to have a chance with because no Illinois coach ever landed a meaningful player from Indiana. Until the last 2.5 games of this season, was motivation, or guys not bleeding orange and blue a problem? If you want to complain about x's and o's, fine. Do that. But I fail to see why Kenny Battle is qualified to improve the staff there. Or why a guy who, to my knowledge has never recruited before (or with Deon or Roger ever successfully recruited at a high level) is going to make a huge impact on recruiting because he was a part of a famous Illinois team. This is and has been a rebuild. The talent in the program is on the way up. If the results on the court don't follow in the next year or two, then Groce will be done at Illinois. But I just don't understand why being on the '89 or '05 team makes someone uniquely qualified to lock down Chicago.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Mar 26, 2015 -> 02:23 PM) Yes, here is a thought/tip -- carry bear spray and pay attention. Mountain jogging can be dangerous because dangerous animals tend to live in the mountains. If you listen to music while you run, consider turning it down so you can hear your surroundings a bit. No bears out here (Denver). Elk are probably the most dangerous animal I'll run into unless I push much deeper into the mountains. But I've been hiking forever, so that other stuff is standard practice (I've never carried bear spray and been pretty close - like within 30 feet - to grizzlies backpacking in Montana). No music when I run outside (99% of the time). I was asking more along the lines of gear - picking trail shoes, hydration systems, that kind of thing.

Anybody on here a trail runner? I'd always run the occasional trail at state parks in the Midwest, but now that I have mountains within 45 minutes of my house, it seems like a natural progression. Any thoughts/tips/ideas on getting started?

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 26, 2015 -> 01:38 PM) I'm saying we're close. Probably not there yet for every type of person that could be discriminated against, but far enough towards it that i'm not sure how big a deal it would really be. You're always going to have people that are racist, homophobic, anti-religious group, whatever. So are we at a point where there is a concern that there will be a massive discriminatory push towards those groups ala the 1960's? No, I think we're well beyond that point. You would think the country would have gone all anti-Islam over the last 15 years, but we really haven't. Some nut jobs here and there, but not for the vast, vast majority of people. As to this law, I'm not some huge supporter of it. I'm actually against it more because it's just a waste of paper more than it being intentionally discriminatory towards a group. However, I will say that like the gay person at the copy shop example, if you vehemently disagree with someone or something about a person, you should, as a private person and business owner, be free to not serve that person. You can do that for literally millions of reason but a select few. Obviously the select few of history of discrimination, but again, looking at the situation in 2015, are those protections necessary? If they are, what about in 10 more years? At some point, the fear of going back to 1960's segregation just doesn't exist. And if it does, enact new protection laws if you must. And no, even if this was pushed by some anti-gay intent, that doesn't really concern me. It's an incredibly small group that would ever be able to use this law as a shield from lawsuits. And we pass bills all the time that are supported by and/or intended for only a small minority of people. As to Chik-fil-a, they got a bunch of supporters (600k people clicking their mouse on the internet) out of how many millions of customers a day? I mean I think they're a perfect example supporting my theory here: they're openly Christian, they're openly against gay marriage, yet they've never shut their doors to the gay community even though in some states they'd be entirely within their rights to do so. There's too much at stake now for them to do that. To clarify, as stated in my post, according to the Wikipedia article, that day, each Chik-fil-A saw a 29.9% percent increase in sales on average for that day of the week. Based on Huckabee's anti-LGBT message. Society hasn't gotten to the point your posts have suggested. Furthermore, at what point does a law passed with discriminatory intent toward a minority group actually concern you?

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 26, 2015 -> 12:53 PM) Sure it does. You can't very well claim that I can sell my slave or stone someone to death as per my Christian practice when no one does that. Its a factor to consider. Again, sure you can. How many times have you said X. Do you teach it? Does your church teach it? How long has the belief been held, etc. etc. It'll be a factual analysis, and it's going to be on the Plaintiff to establish it. Again, the federal government already protects religious practice. The states are just molding these laws after the federal law. So there is case law on the books about what constitutes religious practice and what types of practice deserve protection, or at least factors to consider in making that analysis. They have, but I think there are far more supporters of gay people as well these days. I seriously doubt in most areas that someone screaming from the roof tops that gays won't be allowed would result in streams of people lining up to shop/eat there. So fine, we're not there YET. Again, this is my perfect world where that stuff is a minority opinion, which is the trajectory we're on. Jenks - here's the point I don't think you have addressed yet. I'm not clear if you are arguing that society, today, would run off discriminatory businesses that refuse to cater to LGBT individuals, or if you are referring to a "perfect" world distinguishable from ours. If it's the former, then I ask: 1) Why did Indiana (and other states) push this bill (and others like it) if not to allow small businesses to discriminate against the LGBT community? And doesn't that support necessarily run counter to your position. 2) As evidence of the above, according to Wikipedia, when Mike Huckabee organized that "Chick-fil-a Appreciation Day" in response to criticism of the franchise from same sex marriage supporters, more than 600,000 people RSVP'd to the event on Facebook, and a consulting firm projected that the average Chick-fil-a saw sales increase by 29.9% that day. Lots of progress has been made on LGBT issues since the 90s, but there is a long, long way to go before it reaches a point were it's not profitable for businesses to discriminate against the LGBT community throughout the US. Edit to include the Wikipedia link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chick-fil-A_s...age_controversy

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 26, 2015 -> 11:40 AM) All tough questions, and good ones, but IMO when it's about the government mandating you do something, that something shouldn't ignore a constitutional right that you have. These laws don't say "anyone can discriminate on anyone if they have a religious objection to it." There has to be a substantial burden involved. They can still be sued and it's their burden to prove the substantial standard. Given that I see the impact of the law being pretty low, I don't have an issue with it. And again, IMO, in a perfect world you should be able to discriminate all you want. Society will determine if your actions are acceptable or not. Until the 1960s (when the federal government finally acted), society in the South was quite happy to allow its businesses to discriminate based on race. This isn't a perfect world and allowing "society" to determine if actions are acceptable allows the majority to trample the rights of the minority.