nedboy7

It's an interesting read. One I agree with. I do not see the Bible or Jesus being against gay people. This is a view held by many religious scholars and leaders. And I find it gross that a so called loving christian would have a problem with baking a ***** cake for a loving couple. They are not participating in the wedding. They are making a cake. And when you open a business it would be constitutional and respectful to follow the state law about discrimination. Don't forget other courts have ruled against this woman despite the new joke of a supreme court weighing in on it.

December 6, 2002 Perfect Fit By Seth Wickersham ESPN The Magazine To make it in the modern-day offense of the NFL, a receiver needs a perfect score on a multiple-choice exam. Smarts? A must. Link it with the speed to get open deep, the discipline to run crisp routes, the blocking to spring the ground game and the strength to break tackles. Top it off with the explosion to go all the way after the catch. There's one guy with a check in every box: Eric Moulds. No one else in the NFL can do it all like Moulds. Terrell Owens can catch with Moulds but blocks once a month. Rod Smith brings it in his blocks but isn't as fast. Randy Moss is faster than Moulds, but he's, well, Randy Moss. "Eric's big, physical and fast," says Miami corner Sam Madison. "Every time I see Buffalo on the schedule, I know I'm going to have to bring my A-game, because Eric brings his." 😈

As New Testament Scholar Daniel Kirk has pointed out, Christians today would do well by the tradition of the apostles and our current witness in the world to recognize that theological abstractions aside, God has already clearly embraced LGBTQ+ people into full communion, and it is now the church’s responsibility to simply honor that reality and rejoice (Luke 15). https://www.patheos.com/blogs/storiedtheology/2016/01/30/embracing-the-gentiles/

I believe it had a strong effect on the election. How is that related to gender politics.

I am not. I dont know a single liberal who is not sick of gender politics. Seems like it is way hyped than people care for other than a small group of screaming idiots.

Hard to tell after one game but it sure seems like there are some decent backup QBs in the league. Way better than we have had.

Liberal obsession. I think this is how you try to lose an election. By playing non stop gender politics where literally 90% of the people do not care.

Who is our ankle quality control coach?

Our D is bend dont break. Until this team wins a SB they are all trash. Actually even then they are will be trash cause JA carries the team. I have a right to find something negative at all times cause otherwise I get a participation trophy. McD is good at bromances but not Xs and Os. Weather doesn't effect the play on the field. I digress....

Remember when that was the issue? Bills can't win close games. Now we are. Now that's an issue.

Lot's of opinions on here. All of them deserving of being discusses. I found this article by the ABA interesting from a strict legal standpoint. https://www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj/publications/human_rights_magazine_home/the-ongoing-challenge-to-define-free-speech/not-a-masterpiece/ As to the former, the Supreme Court’s decision in Employment Division v. Smith (1990) seemingly answers the question. That case involved Native Americans in Oregon who argued that a state law prohibiting consumption of peyote infringed their free exercise of religion. They said that their religion required use of peyote in religious rituals. The Supreme Court, in an opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia, ruled against the Native Americans and concluded that there was no violation of free exercise of religion because the Oregon law was neutral in that it was not motivated by a desire to interfere with religion and because it applied to everyone in the state. The Court held that the free exercise clause cannot be used to challenge such a neutral law of general applicability. Justice Scalia, writing for the majority, rejected the claim that free exercise of religion required an exemption from an otherwise valid law. Scalia said that “[w]e have never held that an individual’s religious beliefs excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate. On the contrary, the record of more than a century of our free exercise jurisprudence contradicts that proposition.” Scalia thus declared “that the right of free exercise does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a valid and neutral law of general applicability on the ground that the law proscribes (or prescribes) conduct that his religion prescribes (or proscribes).”

Staying positive!! Not sure why.

This is disturbing.

This win is giving me an ulcer.

Rousseau. Thats about it.

Dorsey must have gone to the bathroom.

That's not funny anymore.

Jets have 0 points.

Knox earned his paycheck today.

A 65 yrd FG?

Great hit.

Good series.

One first down. 3 points. We win 3-0

Need a pick 6.

Bad quarter by Dorsey especially.