DALLAS (WTNH) — A New London-based group is partnering with a Texas-based restaurant planning to open its first locations in Connecticut. 

New London Hospitality has signed a new area development agreement with Twin Hospitality Group Inc., the parent company of Twin Peaks Restaurant, for the development rights of three future locations in the state, according to a press release from Twin Peaks. 

The release lists New Haven, Hartford, Waterbury, Danbury and Stamford or Bridgeport as potential markets. 

According to the release, New London Hospitality is run by Deepak Verma and Kam Singh, who have experience in the hospitality industry and have worked with major hotel brands including Hilton, Red Roof Inn and Choice Hotels. 

“Deepak and Kam bring a powerful combination of hospitality expertise and operational discipline,” Twin Peaks CEO Kim Boerema said in the release. “Their experience growing multi-unit concepts makes them ideal partners as we enter Connecticut. We are confident they will help anchor Twin Peaks as a new favorite for sports fans throughout the state.”

Twin Peaks describes itself as “the ultimate sports lodge featuring made-from-scratch food and the coldest beer in the business, surrounded by scenic views and wall-to-wall TVs. At every Twin Peaks, guests are immediately welcomed by a friendly Twin Peaks Girl and served up a menu made for MVPs.”

“Twin Peaks delivers everything guests want in a sports bar — scratch-made food, 29-degree draft beer, and the best place to catch every game,” Verma said. “We look forward to introducing the brand’s signature lodge experience and welcoming Twin Peaks girls to Connecticut, establishing a new home base for local sports fans and food enthusiasts.”

Twin Peaks was founded in 2005 in Lewisville, Texas, a suburb of Dallas. There are 114 locations in the United States and Mexico. The closest location to Connecticut is in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

Now that deer season has wrapped up, hunters across Maine are returning to their usual off-season routine: processing meat, watching football and passionately debating the “right” way to hunt and fish.

Anyone who spends time in the woods knows opinions run deep.

So, what’s your hunting hot take? Is camo really necessary, or do deer not care what you’re wearing? Can they really smell a Swisher Sweet on your clothing? Should hunting licenses be harder to get, or should crossbows be classified as firearms?

It’s not just about laws, either — it’s about ethics, tradition and your personal style.

Your hot take might spark a friendly debate — or a fiery one — but either way, we want to hear it.

Share your thoughts in the comments or email Outdoors editors Susan Bard at sbard@bangordailynews.com.

Massachusetts will no longer require prospective foster parents to affirm gender ideology in order to qualify for fostering children, with the move coming after a federal lawsuit from a religious-liberty group. 

Alliance Defending Freedom said Dec. 17 that the Massachusetts Department of Children and Families “will no longer exclude Christian and other religious families from foster care” because of their “commonly held beliefs that boys are boys and girls are girls.”

The legal group announced in September that it had filed a lawsuit in U.S. district court over the state policy, which required prospective parents to agree to affirm a child’s “sexual orientation and gender identity” before being permitted to foster. 

Attorney Johannes Widmalm-Delphonse said at the time that the state’s foster system was “in crisis” with more than 1,400 children awaiting placement in foster homes. 

Yet the state was “putting its ideological agenda ahead of the needs of these suffering kids,” Widmalm-Delphonse said.

The suit had been filed on behalf of two Massachusetts families who had been licensed to serve as foster parents in the state. They had provided homes for nearly three dozen foster children between them and were “in good standing” at the time of the policy change. 

Yet the state policy required them to “promise to use a child’s chosen pronouns, verbally affirm a child’s gender identity contrary to biological sex, and even encourage a child to medically transition, forcing these families to speak against their core religious beliefs,” the lawsuit said. 

With its policy change, Massachusetts will instead require foster parents to affirm a child’s “individual identity and needs,” with the LGBT-related language having been removed from the state code. 

The amended language comes after President Donald Trump signed an executive order last month that aims to improve the nation’s foster care system by modernizing the current child welfare system, developing partnerships with private sector organizations, and prioritizing the participation of those with sincerely held religious beliefs. 

Families previously excluded by the state rule are “eager to reapply for their licenses,” Widmalm-Delphonse said on Dec. 17.

The lawyer commended Massachusetts for taking a “step in the right direction,” though he said the legal group will continue its efforts until it is “positive that Massachusetts is committed to respecting religious persons and ideological diversity among foster parents.”

Other authorities have made efforts in recent years to exclude parents from state child care programs on the basis of gender ideology.

In July a federal appeals court ruled in a 2-1 decision that Oregon likely violated a Christian mother’s First Amendment rights by demanding that she embrace gender ideology and homosexuality in order to adopt children.

In April, meanwhile, Kansas Gov. Laura Kelly vetoed legislation that would have prohibited the government from requiring parents to affirm support for gender ideology and homosexuality if they want to qualify to adopt or foster children.

In contrast, Arkansas in April enacted a law to prevent adoptive agencies and foster care providers from discriminating against potential parents on account of their religious beliefs. 

The Arkansas law specifically prohibits the government from discriminating against parents over their refusal to accept “any government policy regarding sexual orientation or gender identity that conflicts with the person’s sincerely held religious beliefs.”