Dallas Mavericks star Klay Thompson probably thought he could just hang out and enjoy the offseason after his team whiffed on the playoffs by a mile, but he’s got some off-court drama to deal with.

Thompson has been dating Megan Thee Stallion since last summer, but on Friday, the rapper decided it was time to break up.

The only thing is that she did it on social media and hurled some big-time accusations at him.

So much for a quiet couple of weeks in Cancun…

TRISTAN THOMPSON RESPONDS TO RAPTORS COACH DARKO RAJAKOVIĆ’S SUGGESTION CAVALIERS STAR LACKED CLASS

Megan Thee Stallion hopped on social media and let ‘er rip in her Instagram Stories, really putting Thompson on blast.

“Cheating, had me around your whole family playing house… got ‘cold feet,'” she wrote. “Holding you down through all your HORRIBLE mood swings and treatment towards me during your basketball season, now you don’t know if you can be ‘monogamous’????

“b–h I need a REAL break after this one… bye yall’

MYLES GARRETT ABSENT FROM BROWNS OTAS AS ROMANCE RUMORS SWIRL WITH OLYMPIC STAR

Whoa… Megan Thee Stallion, tell us how you really feel!

I’m no relationship expert, but I know it’s never good to have your lady fire off something like that.

Not long after, Ms. Thee Stallion gave a statement to Page Six in which she stated, in no uncertain terms, that she and Thompson are donezo.

“I’ve made the decision to end my relationship with Klay. Trust, fidelity and respect are non-negotiable for me in a relationship, and when those values are compromised, there’s no real path forward,” she said.

ZERO BS. JUST DAKICH. TAKE THE DON’T @ ME PODCAST ON THE ROAD. DOWNLOAD NOW!

“I’m taking this time to prioritize myself and move ahead with peace and clarity.”

Uh-oh… the 2026-27 NBA season can’t come soon enough for at least one person.

Things seemed all right as recently as a month ago, according to reports, and in February, he coughed up some serious bread for a tropical vacation and a Bentley for her 31st birthday (because one of those things wasn’t enough, apparently).

It’s a shame to see things end like this, but at least they decided to call it a day before bringing a bunch of little Thee Stallions into it.

A 77-year-old retired pastor stands outside a hospital in Northern Ireland and gives a short message based on a Bible verse that many learned as children: “For God so loved the world…”

For that, Clive Johnston is now on trial.

His alleged offense is not harassment, obstruction or intimidation. It is preaching a sermon —  including the words of John 3:16 — within a legally defined “buffer zone” near a hospital where abortions take place. Prosecutors argue that he may have “influenced” those accessing such services, thus breaching the law.

That word — “influence” — is doing extraordinary work.

WALKING ACROSS AMERICA SHOWED ME WHY FAITH AND FREE THOUGHT CAN STILL WIN

Johnston did not speak about abortion. He did not approach anyone. The case rests on the idea that passers-by might have inferred his beliefs about abortion from his Christian message that had nothing to do with abortion, and that this alone could constitute unlawful “influence.”

If that standard holds, it not only regulates conduct, it regulates belief, through a kind of guilt-by-association. Put simply: the Bible is on trial.

For American readers, this may sound implausible. The United States has long treated religious expression as a core liberty, protected even — and especially — when it is controversial. But in parts of the United Kingdom and across Europe, a different approach is taking hold.

STATE DEPT. SAYS IT IS MONITORING CASE OF UK WOMAN FACING CHARGES FOR HOLDING SIGN IN ABORTION ZONE

In Finland, Päivi Räsänen, a former interior minister, has recently been convicted of “hate speech” over a pamphlet she wrote in 2004 outlining her church’s teaching on marriage and sexuality. In England, individuals have been convicted for silently praying on certain streets.

These are not isolated incidents. They reflect a broader shift: a growing willingness to treat public expressions of Christian belief not as contributions to democratic debate, but as potential harms to be managed.

If quoting the Bible can be criminalised in case it offends, then what is unfolding is not simply a domestic legal dispute. It is a test of the values that underpin one of the world’s closest alliances.

FEDERAL COURT UPHOLDS TEXAS LAW REQUIRING TEN COMMANDMENTS IN PUBLIC CLASSROOMS

The United States and the United Kingdom have long described their bond as a “special relationship,” rooted in shared history, shared language and, crucially, shared commitments to fundamental freedoms — including free speech and religious liberty. That assumption is now under strain.

Speaking ahead of his trial, the U.S. State Department warned this week that cases like that of Clive Johnston represent an “egregious violation” of fundamental rights and “a concerning departure from the shared values that ought to underpin U.S.-U.K. relations.”

Alliances depend on more than mutual interests. They depend on a baseline agreement about the rights of citizens — what can be said, what can be believed, and whether the state exists to protect those freedoms. When that baseline shifts, so too does the relationship.

The irony is that this moment of legal restriction comes just as faith is resurging across the West. In both the United States and Europe, members of Generation Z are rediscovering Christianity in unexpected numbers. Churches report growing youth attendance. Bible sales are rising. A generation once assumed to be post-religious is beginning to take belief seriously again.

CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS OPINION

But while the resurgence is shared, the response is not.

The United States has, for now, resisted Europe’s censorial trajectory. Its constitutional tradition reflects a confidence that citizens can encounter competing ideas — even uncomfortable ones — without the state policing their expression. But that confidence is not guaranteed. The value of freedom of expression needs perpetually reinforced to a population which may feel too easily drawn to the false compassion of “safe spaces” and “hate speech bans”.

Clive Johnston’s case across the Atlantic may seem small: a single man, a single sermon, a single Bible verse. But it raises a question with transatlantic consequences. If preaching the Bible in ‘the wrong place’ can be treated as a form of unlawful influence by one of America’s closest allies, what does that say about the durability of the freedoms they claim to share?

The special relationship has long been described in near-sacred terms. But it rests, ultimately, on shared values. It may not be quite accurate to say it is living on a prayer. In this case, it may be living on something more fragile: whether a man is free to speak a Bible verse in public.

As Virginia heads to the state Supreme Court, Virginia Attorney General Jay Jones (D) will have to up his game a bit. For starters, he will have to actually defend the redistricting resolution as constitutional when prompted. In a recent interview with CNN, even the host of the friendly network expressed frustration that Jones could not seem to get himself to actually defend the dubious language of the ballot measure.

Many of us have expressed skepticism over the process and language of the resolution that passed this week, effectively wiping out all but one GOP district in the purple state.

Virginia was considered the gold standard among states rejecting gerrymandering with fairly divided districts in a state that is divided right down the middle. It then elected Governor Abigail Spanberger, who assured voters that she was adamantly against gerrymandering and then immediately called for the most radical gerrymandered map in the nation after she was elected.

The candidate who declared that “opposing gerrymandering should be a bipartisan priority” rushed a resolution to the voters that would have made Eldridge Gerry himself blush.

ERIC HOLDER ACCUSES GOP OF ‘STEALING SEATS’ WHILE DEFENDING ‘FAIR’ DEMOCRATIC REDISTRICTING PUSH

That map passed by slim margin as Democrats moved to wipe out the representation of half of their neighbors, leaving Republicans with just one of eleven districts.

The problem is that the Democrats were too clever by half in crafting a campaign that even the Washington Post declared as shockingly dishonest and misleading for voters.

The deceit began with the language of the resolution itself. While Virginia law requires clarity in such resolutions, the language was obtuse and vague, declaring that it would “temporarily adopt new congressional districts to restore fairness in the upcoming elections.” There was nothing “temporary” about the plan, which would continue for years. More importantly, it is unclear what is meant by “restore fairness” in a map that would wipe out virtually every GOP district.

In addition, the process used to rush the resolution to the ballot was abridged and unprecedented. This mess was too much for Tazewell Circuit Judge Jack Hurley who enjoined the map approved by voters. It is now awaiting an oral argument before the Virginia Supreme Court next week.

Jones was, of course, aware of all of this when he received the most predictable question from CNN host Brianna Keilar who quoted the misleading elements cited by Judge Hurley and asked “does he have a point that it’s misleading?”

Jones went into an account of how the “yes side prevailed” and called Hurley “an activist judge.” Keilar reasonably followed up, noting “I know that you’re calling him an activist judge, but he is citing the Virginia Constitution and legal experts that we’ve spoken to say what he’s saying is going to create some pretty big challenges for you in court that you will have to overcome.” She then repeated the question.

SOROS-LINKED DARK MONEY NETWORK FUELS VIRGINIA REDISTRICTING PUSH BACKED BY NATIONAL DEMOCRATS

Again, Jones had that deer in the headlights look and went into a babbling spin: “Well, look, I’m really proud of Virginia. I believe the right to vote is sacred, not just as Virginians, but as Americans. This is the birthplace of democracy.”

This exchange went up until, to her great credit, Keilar ended the interview with “I don’t hear you answering the substance of my question.”

The problem is that the campaign and the resolution, as the Washington Post noted, is flagrantly misleading and dishonest. Jones relies on the majority on the Supreme Court to shrug away the problems. Democrats are also hoping that justices who have to face the voters themselves are unlikely to negate a popular vote. Indeed, it does not appear that such a vote has ever been overturned in the state.

CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS OPINION

If the Court stands with the law and throws out the vote, Democrats could face the ultimate disaster. They just spent a fortune to narrowly pass the resolution. In so doing, they alienated half of the state, who took it rather personally that Democrats were trying to wipe out virtually all of their representation in the state after recently promising never to engage in such gerrymandering. They are not likely to forget this effort and virtually every Democrat in the state fought to pass this resolution. Some of these Democrats have to rely on Republican votes in the purple state to secure statewide office. They are unlikely to force this effort into some memory hole for the victims of the gerrymandering, particularly if the courts also declare that they were acting unlawfully.

Finally, the use of unlawful means to gerrymander a state only further destroys the credibility of the Democratic mantra of being defenders of the Constitution and democracy. The optics are only going to be magnified by an attorney general who was elected by Democratic voters after threatening to kill political opponents and their children. There was no vagueness in Jones’ prior approach to political opponents. His election was viewed as the ultimate triumph of political rage by the very same voters who just effectively negated the representation of half of the state.

In the end, it will be up to the Virginia Supreme Court to “to restore fairness in the upcoming elections.” There is no question that this resolution shredded state law and tradition.

The question is whether the justices themselves have the courage to demand more from the Commonwealth of Virginia.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM JONATHAN TURLEY