₦airaland Forum

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IIDjOIRs02E

Ronaldo's penalty vs Copenhagen
Watch from 4.20

Was this a penalty? Then how mcuh was the contact vis a vis Payet's alleged dive.

The worst, Payet got a red card.

[quote author=Area_boy]You dont get it do you?. Imagine you walk into a shop and someone says. We dont serve short people here, or fat, or tall, or people that eat garri or people that dont eat pork, or people that wear a veil.

How will that make you feel?[/quote]That is not the situation. They are not the same.

I have a muslim gate man. Despite he being my employee, I know my. Boundary with him. I don't expect him to be at my gate in the afternoon of Fridays when he should be at the mosque. When he is praying in my car park, I don't walk past his front because it offends his religious beliefs. Etc etc. Etc

I am logging out now. Till night.

[quote author=Area_boy]You cannot refuse someone service under those terms. The law is there for a good reason..[/quote]Devilish laws only coming up recently. They were never part of their constitution. Laws encouraging man to sleep with dogs,goats and horses.

[quote author=Area_boy]Don't give her the money, she goes ahead and executes her intention nonetheless and come home with a baby for you.
Use your common sense sometimes na. Haba[/quote]How is that my business if I had already told her fornication is a grevious sin. I will go and give thanks that I didn't participate in such a sin. Let her born na.

sbaks: but wait 'o'! If he doesnt want to bake for you, go to another baker na! why force him! He is free to choose the occasions to bake for. 'Wetin be their own sef' This is infridgement of right. Its not fair on the baker

Exactly!!!

A zillion likes.


Imagine, they will soon compel him to bake for a couple of a man and an animal. Remember bestiality is legalized in certain circles of USA. .... Wouldn't it be better to die than participate in such an unGodly act? Devils.

Kay 17: ^^ same also to people who do not believe Jesus is the son of God, right? Can Christianity in this light claim to be a loving religion, when the love is directed only to Christians?!

As a christian, if your daughter comes to you and say "daddy pls give me money to buy condom so that I can have sex with my class mate" , will you say you love her and then give her the money even though you know she wants to commit a sin?

Homosexuality is a sin. Homosexual marriage is a mockery of God's true marriage plan for mankind. What christian will participate in such a sin. Forget all these brainwash (ill)logic being spread by illuminati men who want to destroy the world. A christian's obedience is to God first and not man's law. Homo is a man's law, satanic law.

[quote author=Area_boy]shut up!

does the man refuse Muslims? or people of other religious background.

The moment you guys hear homosexual, you come out and start shouting anger of god.


STFU & GTFO [/quote]Homosexuality is a direct rebellion against God. That's the belief in the christian and muslim circle.

Kay 17: So its ok and good for a Christian to discriminate against non christians for the mere fact they don't follow Christian religious instructions?! In other words, a christian can only love a christian.

To a christian, people who engage in homosexuality are provoking the angle of God and hell bound. To not let them know the danger of such act is like hatred towards them and their souls. To call their dead consciences to the to the magnitude of their evil act and potential loss of their souls to hell for eternity is showing mercy and love to them.

[quote author=Area_boy]During segregation in America, Most of the people in favor of it also went by on "personal" (or religious in some cases) beliefs. Shop owners had the right to refuse someone service just on the color of their skin and nothing more. Imagine how those people felt, being treated like outcasts and sub human. Eventually a law was passed and that era is long gone. That law is what protects the rights of minorities.

Can you please tell me what is different here? Refusing someone service only for their sexual orientation?

Drop all your religious convictions and just be "fair" for once. Our world will be a better place [/quote]The example I gave is enough. If I knew you were an abortionists, it would be against my christian believe to supply you with materials that could aid your abortion/murder. You can go to another shop.

As far the example you gave, there is a big difference. Jesus does not distinguish between Jews or Gentiles. It was never christian teaching. But Jesus said "if your right hand causes you to sin, cut. It off".

We must respect individual beliefs and faith. You cannot tell an Imam to allow pagans to use his mosque for party or for Christians to use his mosque for service.

Marriage between a man and a man, or a woman and another is unGodly and against the natural marriage law. It is provocative to call a christian to come and bake cake for such an evil.

Kay 17: I'm for greater individual rights against public interests. I don't support the decision, because it is punitive against conscientious rights.

@elampiro

Don't you think it was unChristian for the baker to act prejudicially against NON-christians?!

No. Sodomy is a grievous sin against God. A true christian wouldn't participate in abortion, sodomy and pagan rituals.

Some sins are a direct rebellion against God's laws. Every christian knew what happened to Sodom and Gomorrah. If I sell scissors and you come and tell me to sell my products to you to carry out an abortion, I will not sell. If I sell I would have been part of your murder of the unborn consciously..

Just passing.

This man is a true christian. A hero. Not a lukewarm or a kindergarten christian who compromises. The government has outlawed prayers and preaching in public places, as if not enough, they want to force christians to participates in pagan and devilish rites. This is real persecution.

Baker says he’d rather go to jail after judge orders him to bake cakes for gay ‘weddings’

by Kirsten Andersen

⁠
Wed Dec 11, 2013 15:47 EST

DENVER, December 11, 2013 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A Denver cake baker who was ordered by a judge last week to service same-sex “weddings” or face punishing fines has told Fox News that he would rather shut down his business and serve jail time than violate his beliefs and play a role in facilitating gay nuptials.

In an interview with Fox’s Elisabeth Hasselbeck, cake maker Jack Phillips said, “You know, [I’ll serve jail time if] that’s what it takes.  It’s not like I have chosen this team or that team. This is who I am, it’s what I believe.”

“Does becoming a business owner mean you have to check your convictions at the door?” Hasselbeck asked. “Why is it important for you to have a business and not have to abandon personal religious beliefs just to make a buck?”

“I don't plan on giving up my religious beliefs ... I don't feel that I should participate in their wedding, and when I do a cake, I feel like I'm participating in the ceremony or the event or the celebration that the cake is for,” Phillips said. “My priorities would be towards my faith rather than towards my safety or security.”

Phillips, who owns Masterpiece Cakeshop in the Denver suburb of Lakewood, has been under fire since July 2012, when David Mullins and Charlie Craig filed a discrimination complaint after Phillips refused to sell them a wedding cake. 

While Colorado’s constitution states, “Only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as marriage in this state,” Mullins and Craig had nonetheless planned to “marry” in Massachusetts, where a court order made same-sex “marriage” legal in 2004.  Afterward, they planned to hold a reception in Colorado.  When they visited Phillips’ cake shop to ask him to provide a wedding cake for the event, he declined, explaining that his religious beliefs prevented him from participating in same-sex “weddings.”  Phillips said he would be happy to sell them brownies or other treats to serve at the reception, just not a wedding cake.

The two men reacted with angry disbelief.  “It was the most awkward, surreal, very brief encounter," Mullins told Denver Westword at the time. “We got up to leave, and to be totally honest, I said, ‘F--- you and your homophobic cake shop.’ And I may or may not have flipped him off.”

After the two men departed Phillips’s business, they filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission with the help of the ACLU, arguing that Phillips violated the state’s anti-discrimination laws, which were expanded in 2008 to include sexual preference and gender identity.

Phillips and his lawyers have argued that the religious nature of his objection to gay “marriage” warrants an exception to the anti-discrimination law, which also names religion among its protected classes.  

But on December 7, Judge Robert Spencer ruled in the gay couple’s favor, equating Phillips’s deeply held religious beliefs against gay “marriage” with racial bias.  To allow Phillips to refuse to serve gay “weddings,” the judge argued, “would allow a business that served all races to nonetheless refuse to serve an interracial couple because of the business owner's bias against interracial marriage.”

Wrote Spencer, “it may seem reasonable that a private business should be able to refuse service to anyone it chooses. This view, however, fails to take into account the cost to society and the hurt caused to persons who are denied service simply because of who they are.”

The judge also rejected Phillips’s argument that he was simply obeying the state constitution by refusing to recognize a same-sex relationship as “marriage.”

“Although [Phillips and his lawyers] are correct that Colorado does not recognize same-sex marriage,” wrote Spencer, “that fact does not excuse discrimination based upon sexual orientation.”

Phillips’s attorney, Nicolle Martin, told the Associated Press that Spencer’s decision was “reprehensible” and “antithetical to everything America stands for.”

“[Jack Phillips] can't violate his conscience in order to collect a paycheck,” Martin said. “If Jack can't make wedding cakes, he can't continue to support his family. And in order to make wedding cakes, Jack must violate his belief system.”

Martin says her client has not ruled out an appeal.

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/baker-says-hed-rather-go-to-jail-after-judge-orders-him-to-bake-cakes-for-g

afrodoc: I did not watch the match but that did look like a dive to me not a penalty AND the sending off was not harsh.
Diving has to be eradicated from this game and there should be a zero tolerance policy. Anybody here who has ever played competitive football at any level would be irritated by the ease with which these "giripa" men fall to the ground, its irritating.
Continue giving red cards to Suarez, Ashley Young and their followers......sooner or later they will start staying on their feet.

There was a clear contact. It was the defender's leg to the striker's foot before the ball arrived. That wasn't a clean tackle at all.

dayokanu: Like elampiro

That dude probably gets his info from pool sheets also

Pools papers are more informative than your complete sports, world soccer, etc.


You that is calling clear contact a dive. Meanwhile, elsewhere, your burndisleaguedown fans accepted there was a contact but that the guy over did his fall. So they concluded it was a foul and a simulation, hence the ref booked for simulation. LWKMD.

One of the guys there was trying to remedy the situation, he said it should have been a yellow to both players. Lol. I don laf tire.

.

dayokanu: You must be blind in spirit
heavy contact ko. Poleaxed ni

Which one is blind in spirit in football? We are talking physical you are talking spiritually.

[quote author=A-40]Are you saying Payet was wrongly sent off? Controversial does not mean he didn't deserve the card bruh[/quote]He was wrongly sent off. It should have been a penalty to Marseille and a yellow card to the defender.

dayokanu: Watch the gif and see for yourself

There was a heavy contact. Can't you see it?

Even, I already seen it severally yesterday live and slow motions.

HT: MAR 1-1 BVB: AN interesting first half at the Velodrome. Lewandowski blasted the visitor in front, before Diawara helped Marseille back on level terms. Since then, it had been an even encounter before Dimitri Payet was shown a controversial red card.
http://www.goal.com/en-sg/match/122516/olympique-de-marseille-vs-borussia-dortmund/play-by-play



Meanwhile, this happened in the 34th minute.

dayokanu: When they say you dont know anything about football you keep arguing

https://d3j5vwomefv46c.cloudfront.net/photos/large/827009867.gif?1386793474

I cant get the Lewandoski foul gif yet but this is what goal.com your favourite website has to say about the incident

PENALTY? NO! Dortmund are incredulous! Steve Mandanda upends Robert Lewandowski in the build-up, and the referee immediately points the other way. Lady luck smiles on OM, for how long?

And Dortmund were then denied a penalty in the closing stages after Mandanda collided with Lewandowski, but this proved immaterial as Grosskreutz's effort from the edge of the area snuck into the bottom corner to ensure their progression

http://www.goal.com/en-gh/match/122516/olympique-de-marseille-vs-borussia-dortmund/report

I can't see the gif on my phone now. Till I get home much later.

It was a clear penalty.

Manchester United manager David Moyes was present at the Vicente Calderon on Wednesday evening and it is understood that he was taking a closer look at Atletico Madrid midfielder Koke during the Spanish side’s 2-0 victory over FC Porto.

Moyes is determined to add creativity and guile to United’s midfield in January and Koke, a vital part of the Atletico team that has emerged as a genuine threat to Barcelona and Real Madrid at the top of La Liga, has been identified as a leading target.

Koke only signed a new five-year contract with Atletico in September but it is understood that the deal contains a buyout clause, which is speculated to be around £30million. [Source Daily Mail]

dayokanu: Pool sheet analysts, How was Dortmund helped by the referee yesterday? By denying them a stonewall penalty?

If you are bold enough produce here:

1. The incidence of Marseille which caused them to be reduced to 10 men early in the game.
2. The incidence of Dortmund penalty.

The timing of both incidence will help redears here. I was changing channel monitoring both matches and I saw both incidences. I was so lucky to witness them.

[quote author=A-40]Dortmund were denied a stone-wall penalty in that game. You don't have to come here and give people zobo[/quote]How can you compare that which happened very late to what happened to Marseille very early?

Marseille sent off early for what should have been a penalty and a yellow card to a Dortmund defender. Marseille should have been 2-1 up with 11 men.

This year's UCL group stage, wit a bit of luck, we could have picked 18 points. We conceded late equalizer in Ukraine and missed a penalty plus a clear chance in Spain. We were comfortable in our matches as compared to recent years. We didn't have to come from behind in any of the matches. Is this a sign that Moyes tactics in Europe are wonderful?

Oghos1: Btw
All d ozil fans here,
Wanna catch a glimpse of bottom level ozil?
Kindly rewatch napoli arsenal again.

That's how he would have been playing week in week out had he come to united with dis current midfield

Napoli were mugu last night. They kept their rally too late. At one nil there was no urgency whatever until Dortmund got a goal at the other venue. But it's okay, I wanted the English team to go through. Dortmund were largely helped by the referee's mistake in the early minutes of the match.

OMG! evil Kagawa

Afrodoc returned with some interesting stats.

If SAF and Wenger were not selfish with money, United should have been in the league of Madrid, AC Milan, Barca in terms of UCL trophies. With Wenger experience, Arsenal should have one by now.

JayKayMaybachz: Kan u guts lehgooo dis rooney argurmnt for.ones?

You always forget to see who starts this Rooney's arguments.

But when I respond with facts, everyone will be getting disappointed that the argument is not going the direction they would have wanted it. lol

In other places, I can go months after months without talking about Rooney. This thread brought the consciousness. Did I even know I was such a fan before I came here? I only knew I counted on him to deliver for us always. Yes, always because I don't count performance on the pitch only on goals and assists. I looked at the overall play of players. Just as I had regard for Amokachie in his days at Super Eagles.

In 2010/11, my brothers and I were always hoping that Rooney's return would see us go top and win the league. It happened and we immediately saw our predictions came to pass. So, how could I have forgotten such a thing. This afternoon I was confident that once I got home at night I will dig out the facts.

I beg Rooney is important for us. Whether they like it or not. Let them be looking at goals. I look at performance. This season UCL he was the official man of the match in 4 of the 5 matches he played. The criticism is unwarranted.

Good night.

Moyes said to be spotted in Athetico Madrid vs Porto match. Is that where the midfielder is coming from? The person will be UCL tied.