So you use a man’s political donation against anyone who disagrees with your idea of anti-discrimination, and you accuse me of invoking a straw man?

Now you’re saying Bob McNair is against trannies taking a dump?

Why not? You’re implying McNair is terrible for being opposed to this proposed legislation. But the reason may matter. Barry Goldwater was opposed to the Civil Rights Act because he didn’t think gov’t had any right to tell business what to do. Robert Byrd opposed the Civil Rights Act because he hated blacks, and…

To *certain* religious people, anyway. The anti-discrimination set seem to not be bothered by muslim misogyny, homophobia, and anti-semitism. They know the Duggars are easy targets.

Doesn’t any criticism imply something shouldn’t be (or have been) allowed or done? Like a Brian Hoyer arm-punt, this argument won’t fly far. If you say “drunk driving is bad”, you’re almost certainly implying “drunk driving should never be done”.

The responder to the OP considered McNair’s action (their emphasis, not mine) problematic. If discrimination is unjust or prejudicial treatment based on myriad reasons too long to list here, then the implication is that due to his opinion, McNair should not have been able or allowed to undertake the action he…

Is it not discriminatory to label someone then assume s/he is a vessel for all the negative connotations associated with that label?

Please learn how to read. I didn’t say his right to freedom of speech or opinion had been violated. I said he risked being discriminated against based on his opinion and (legal) actions vis a vis a piece of proposed legislation. Ironic, but I wouldn’t expect you to get that.

When did McNair claim discrimination? He simply voiced an opinion and backed it up with a donation, something he’s legally entitled to do.

It’s unfortunate you used the word “logic”, then followed it up with an obvious logical fallacy (the false comparison). There is no such thing as a right to have patrons (if you’re a restaurant). But there is such a thing as a right to freedom of speech and expression.

Sure. What’s wrong with being against a particular piece of legislation anyway? Isn’t it discriminatory to treat someone differently based on their opinions?

They forgot hair color, Facebook status, sports team affiliation, opinion on music, etc, ad nauseum, insert-identity-group-here.

Because all legislation should be passed without challenge.

Was that a rainbow envelope, by any chance? Singing show tunes?

PET himself would not have considered his family royalty. But a lot of our governing and cultural elites do.

Er, no. I stated initially that Loup would not have made huge difference in the series. That’s not the same as “useless”. In the 2nd post, I stated that there were few, if any, reliable arms in the Jays pen. That’s not the same as “Loup is precious and reliable”. If the Jays can keep Escobar to your 0-for-2 in this…

When asked to take off his eye black, Roger Goodell asserted that it was actually black eyes “gained” by mismanagement and bad decisions.

As dynastynyy27 said, Loup would not have pitched because the whole point of using Pennington was to save those precious few (if any) reliable arms that are still there.

“5 hour rule in effect”

“Agreed”