// Required code

Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

The Flowers and the Wedding -- Just the FACTS, please

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by tabibito View Post
    Fair enough.

    The services are not offered to all. I want to use a health club - I go to a health club that caters to men. I don't go to a women's health club and demand that they provide me with their services. Nor would the law support my cause if I did - and rightly so. Their services are not provided for all. Same with women's financial services - for which no reasonable argument can be advanced in support of their discrimination.
    Correct- and I have addressed this. There is no problem with differing by genetics if the issue is related to those genetics. There is nothing bigoted about a business that caters to black hairstyles because there are differences between African American hair and Caucasian hair, men's fitness because there are differences between male physiology and female physiology, men's or women's health because there are physiological differences between men and women. This situation does not apply in the issue being discussed.

    Originally posted by tabibito View Post
    accepted.

    At this juncture, I could say, "At no point did I make this claim - so I have no further response." However, Regarding the last point, no - wholly incorrect. I see no reason to disadvantage people just because I disagree with them. For me, it cuts both ways. And no, my choice not to associate in those same activities does not cause harm to people who do. My choice to not make it seem that I endorse those activities is not acting against people who choose those activities. Portraying my choices as somehow harming or disadvantaging those people is invalid.
    So I taking this to mean that you support same-sex marriages as a civil institution. Let me know if that is not correct.

    Originally posted by tabibito View Post
    On what grounds? You have already stated that offering women's financial services is acceptable, if I remember rightly.
    I never said anything about women's financial services, and unless someone can show how women's finances are somehow different from men's finances, I see no basis for separating financial services by gender.

    Originally posted by tabibito View Post
    Never seen one of those - I wouldn't spend my money there. However, I have not acted against or taken offence at a diner which didn't serve caucasians - that I have encountered.
    A "blacks only" diner is as problematic as a "white's only diner," IMO.

    Originally posted by tabibito View Post
    Simple enough to rework it - "Flowers only for Biblical Marriage Ceremonies" would solve the problem for the florist.

    done - flowers are provided for Biblical Marriage Celebrations.
    As noted before - a business operating entirely within a given religion is perfectly free to exercise its religious freedoms. You're going to have a problem with your statement here because there are Christian sects that disagree with your interpretation and insist their position is "biblical." And if the business is generally providing services outside of the religion, then we are back to our starting place. To claim a religious freedom exemption, IMO, they have to be operating entirely within the confines of their religion.

    Originally posted by tabibito View Post
    Dehumanising people who hold views that you don't like.
    At no point have I spoken disrespectfully, or dehumanized anyone, so I have no further response.

    Originally posted by tabibito View Post
    Acting to bring them harm. By contrast, all they are doing is deciding who they want to work for. Providing flowers for a wedding is a contract, an adjunct to normal business, not part of normal business. Gay bars don't provide a welcome for heterosexuals who want the bar to provide them with an opportunity to promote heterosexuality as a good thing - I don't see that heterosexuals should be denied commensurate rights.
    I've responded to these points already, so I'll let my previous responses stand.

    Originally posted by tabibito View Post
    Contracts to provide goods and services are not "public market place" - provision of accomodation is "public market place." No labour or service outside the ordinary is involved.
    Tab, the presence or absence of a contract does not change the "public" nature of the business. If you have a flower shop on a city street open to the general public, then you are in the public square. If you begin to restrict your services based on the genetic identity of the clients - you are engaging in discrimination. We the people have a right to say, "that is not what we want for our country or state or city, we do not want people living in a state of rejection/fear because of the bigoted choices of business owners." If you choose to offer a service publicly, there is a history of the state being able to say "you cannot discriminate." You cannot discriminate in your hiring practices. You cannot discriminate in your selection of clients. You cannot discriminate in your compensation. This is not a new concept. It is simply being applied where it was not previously applied - just as in the civil rights era and the fight for women's suffrage. Like in those times, those who are used to this form of discrimination as "normal" take great umbrage at being told, "no more." But it is the just thing to do.

    Originally posted by tabibito View Post
    Yes, you have made that argument - the magazine would have no more rights than the florist who also caters to a niche market. I think I'm safe in saying that no-one here would declare that gay magazines which don't provide space to promote heterosexual interests should be shut down.
    I have not made that argument - so I have no further response. And magazines are protected by the First Amendment. I find magazines like "Black Enterprise" abhorent. I also find Affirmative Action abhorent. I understand why they exist and what they are trying to achieve, but I do not believe you can overcome racism by engaging in "reverse racism." If a person is not comfortable with "White Enterprise," IMO, they should be just as uncomfortable with "Black Enterprise."

    Originally posted by tabibito View Post
    And of course - if I decide that I don't want to work for someone - that person is not entitled to demand a reason for my refusal.
    If you are talking about seeking employment, you are correct. We are not talking about seeking employment. We are talking about providing a service - and denying that service to people on the basis of their membership in a genetic class (in this case, two people's assignment).
    The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

    I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

    Comment


    • Originally posted by myth View Post
      Good thing I didn't declare someone against anti-gay bigotry as anti-Christian, then. I declared an anti-Christian bigot to be one. And it seems others here agree with me.
      You (and they) have no shown that such bigotry exists, so I'll leave you to your misconception. I am comfortable knowing my position is against a particular position taken by some Christians (and Muslims, and Russians, and Africans, etc.). It is not against Christianity in general - or all Christians.

      Originally posted by myth View Post
      Good thing the florist wasn't "treating one group differently from another based on their membership in that group", then.
      They are - and I have shown this. They will provide a custom wedding cake to one couple because they have differing genitals - but reject the same service to another couple because their genitals match. Genitals are genetically determined, so the position is completely based on the genetic identities of the partners seeking the service. As noted, it is not different in kind to rejecting one couple because they have different skin colors, but accepting another because their skin color is the same. This simple equality has never been addressed by anyone here.

      Originally posted by myth View Post
      The florist refused to participate in a celebration of something against her religion. However, she has apparently been selling flowers to the aggrieved customer for years. So, your argument falls short on that front, else the florist would have flatly refused to sell flowers to the customer in the past.
      I have not seen any argument that refutes the core of my position, so simply asserting that it does isn't really getting anywhere. And religious belief is not a defense for bigotry in the public marketplace. All religious freedoms have limits.

      Originally posted by myth View Post
      LOL. You're upset that I've used the liberal left's worst insult against you. I get it. I actually like you, Carpe. But you're being intolerant of Christians because you cannot make distinctions with regards to these sorts of incidents (see above). That's bigoted behavior, even if you are not, at heart, a bigoted person. You are being intolerant of Christians' beliefs, plain and simple.

      Edit: Just wanted to clarify that I don't believe your intolerance is a result of any particular animus against Christians. But it's still intolerant, which is essentially what bigotry is.
      So, first, you are apparently under the mistaken impression that I am "upset." Nothing could be further from the truth. I just finished mowing my lawn, stopped to answer any posts, and now will go out and clean my garage. I'm sipping a coffee and enjoying the view outside my window. I'm articulating a position - not engaging in an emotional argument. I'm also not sure what you think you've said that is "insulting." You made a statement about me - it's not true - so that's pretty much the end of that. I'm not insulted. I'm not angry. I'm offering a correction to your perspective. If you continue to cling to your perspective, there's little/nothing I can do about it - so I'll move on. Your perception of me doesn't change who or what I am one whit. Its just your perception - and you're wrong.

      However, you are right that I am intolerant of bigotry. I won't permit it in my home. I won't let it occur uncontested in front of me. I will always speak out against it. The argument "you're bigoted if you take a stance against bigotry" is a little ridiculous on its face - but if that's what you want to argue...knock yourself out. As for my position on Christianity, it is pretty well documented on this site. I think Christian beliefs about god are wrong (obviously). I think Christians have done a great deal of good throughout history - and still do. I think Christians have also done some amount of harm throughout history - and still do. But the same is true of Muslims, atheists, black people, short people, and French people. Basically - people do good and do ill. The good I applaud. The ill I will always challenge.
      The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

      I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

      Comment


      • Originally posted by mossrose View Post
        Michel said:

        Then, in the same post, Michel said:

        It is basically what Michel said, Michel. A church, the merchant of wedding ceremonies, can refuse to serve a same-gender couple, but a florist or baker cannot.
        A "church" is not a "merchant." It is a collection of people with a common set of religious beliefs gathering to share/express their beliefs. As such, it is protected by the First Amendment. Indeed, the individual members of that church can express their beliefs anywhere they wish. That is also protected by the First Amendment. Even if I find such statements and positions bigoted and immoral - I would defend the right of such groups or individuals to express them.

        When you turn to the commercial sector, and businesses offering services in the public marketplace, we already have a long history of not permitting discrimination in hiring, compensation, and offering services. As best I can tell, your argument is that religion always trumps bigotry, even in the public marketplace. I disagree. I believe society has a right to say, "bigotry will not be tolerated in our public marketplace." And since there is an avenue open to the individual in which they can honor their religious beliefs AND not discriminate in the public marketplace, then society is under no obligation to "give them a pass" on the basis of religion - just because it would be hard or inconvenient.

        Originally posted by mossrose View Post
        And you are wrong to say there is no legal problem with a church refusing, because churches in Canada and the US are being sued for that refusal. So there IS a legal problem in the minds of those refused in spite of your declaration.
        You are correct - I spoke carelessly. My comment was not meant to imply that no one has ever taken legal action against a church. It was meant to say that I do not believe there is a legal issue with a church taking a bigoted stand internally - which I believe I have no said multiple times. Or put another way - if someone DID sue a church for such a thing, I would take the side of the church.

        Originally posted by mossrose View Post
        What is the difference between a church and a florist?
        A religion protected by the first amendment versus a place of business in the public market.

        Originally posted by mossrose View Post
        I am sure Michel will claim Michel has already answered and that I am just misunderstanding Michel and that it's not really what Michel said or meant.
        And you would be wrong about that too.
        The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

        I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

        Comment


        • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
          Not very successfully CP. Your arguments have all been responded to in the past, and they all basically fail...
          Only because you are super hyper-focused on the rights of one group over all others. Your mind is slammed shut, and it's a complete waste of time trying to reason with you and your string of bad analogies.

          Feel free to have the last word.
          "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

          Comment


          • It is all too easy to call people bigots (and other names) when they disagree with a viewpoint. The failure here has been in trying to show the allegations of bigotry have any foundation in fact.

            So I taking this to mean that you support same-sex marriages as a civil institution. Let me know if that is not correct.
            If there is no distinction legally and socially between a marriage and a civil union, you would be correct. I'm not in the business of trying to legislate people into Christianity. And as I have mentioned before, I would be quite happy if it could be demonstrated that homosexual unions were compatible with Christianity. Nothing I have tried will force the scriptural record into an endorsement of homosexual relationships. Ergo: lacking a prophet with the requisite bonafides declaring that homosexual relationships are compatible with Christianity - they aren't.
            sigpic1 Cor 15:34 εκνηψατε δικαιως και μη αμαρτανετε αγνωσιαν γαρ θεου τινες εχουσιν προς εντροπην υμιν λεγω

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
              Only because you are super hyper-focused on the rights of one group over all others.
              I am focused, in this discussion, on one disenfranchised group. No one has demonstrated a right for any other group that is compromised inappropriately by these arguments, except to object that "it would be too hard" and "it's never been that way" and other such pointless arguments. The core arguments I have made have essentially been swept aside in favor of "you're an anti-Christian bigot," and other such irrelevant (and untrue) nonsense.

              Respond to the arguments as made, and I will look at the responses and tell you what I think. Turn them into something I didn't say - then there's not much for me to respond to.

              Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
              Your mind is slammed shut, and it's a complete waste of time trying to reason with you and your string of bad analogies.

              Feel free to have the last word.
              No - it's not "slammed shut." I can be persuaded by a good argument - and have been before. Throwing up your hands and claiming I am "close minded" when you simply have failed to make a solid argument against the position isn't very useful, and doesn't really do anything to make your case.

              Engage with the argument - and not the person. If you have a good case to be made, it will become evident. If you don't... perhaps it is not I who have the closed mind...?
              Last edited by carpedm9587; 06-09-2019, 07:42 PM.
              The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

              I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

              Comment


              • Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                It is all too easy to call people bigots (and other names) when they disagree with a viewpoint. The failure here has been in trying to show the allegations of bigotry have any foundation in fact.
                I have made the case, Tab. I know it is objected to, but the case is a simple one: if someone is treated differently on the basis of their genetic membership in a group and that change of treatment is not directly related to that membership (e.g., black hair, female physiology, etc.), then that is an act of bigotry/prejudice/discrimination. It's not a complex concept, and it is fairly widely applied. That is the case for the LGBTQ community, and specifically same-sex weddings. So it is bigotry. No one has yet made a case for how it is NOT bigotry.

                No one likes to have their behavior held up to scrutiny and found wanting. That doesn't make the behavior OK.

                Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                If there is no distinction legally and socially between a marriage and a civil union, you would be correct. I'm not in the business of trying to legislate people into Christianity. And as I have mentioned before, I would be quite happy if it could be demonstrated that homosexual unions were compatible with Christianity. Nothing I have tried will force the scriptural record into an endorsement of homosexual relationships. Ergo: lacking a prophet with the requisite bonafides declaring that homosexual relationships are compatible with Christianity - they aren't.
                I have not challenged your right to hold your religious position. I understand the position - and I understand the justification by turning to the Christian bible. Unfortunately, your bible and/or your interpretation thereof is requiring you to adopt a bigoted position. There is simply no escaping this. I don't think you do this in bad faith or in a desire to do harm. I absolutely believe you would take a different position if your bible said otherwise. That does not reduce the bigoted nature of the position, and our society is justified in taking steps to prevent these views from impacting the general population. We did so (and continue to do so) for women. We did so (and continue to do so) for minorities. Now we are finally doing so for the LGBTQ community.

                Likewise, the Muslim who tells me that their Quran requires them to stone a woman who has been adulterous, or a young woman who has had sex outside of marriage, or the radical Islamist who insists they are required to take up arms against infidels is making a faith-based decision. I do not argue with them as to whether or not their holy book actually says that, or intends that. Maybe it does. Maybe it doesn't. Either way, that doesn't change the fact that they are committing acts of murder, and our society is justified in taking steps to prevent it.

                Every religious POV has a boundary. Religious freedom is not an absolute. Neither is freedom of speech, or any other right enshrined in the Constitution. There is always the need to balance rights in a society. That is the very nature of a society.
                The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                Comment


                • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                  Moss, I understand the basis of your position. Understanding does not mean I agree - nor does it mean I consider it justification. If a Muslim man comes to me and points to his Quran as his justification, I will reject his argument. If a Russian citizen comes to me and points to his country's legal code, I will reject his justification. I am not anti-Muslim, nor am I anti-Russian. I am anti-bigotry of any form based on any justification.
                  This is not about arguing against gay marriage and the florist or the baker stopping the homosexual couples from getting married and having their wedding ceremony. this is about about the state making a law that is prohibiting Christians who take their religion seriously from freely exercising said religious beliefs. You are not rejecting that Muslim's argument You are rejecting the right of of that Muslim and Christians as well to hold to and follow their moral code i.e exercise their religion. thereby going against the first amendment.
                  Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by RumTumTugger View Post
                    This is not about arguing against gay marriage and the florist or the baker stopping the homosexual couples from getting married and having their wedding ceremony. this is about about the state making a law that is prohibiting Christians who take their religion seriously from freely exercising said religious beliefs. You are not rejecting that Muslim's argument You are rejecting the right of of that Muslim and Christians as well to hold to and follow their moral code i.e exercise their religion. thereby going against the first amendment.

                    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
                    No - I'm not, and that's not what "the state" would be doing either. I understand that is how you and many here want to paint it - but it's not. The state would not be saying "you must participate in gay weddings." The state would be saying, "if you offer a service, it must be offered without discrimination." The "if" is important. The Christian is always free to NOT offer the service and avoid the problem altogether. The primary argument made against this observation is basically "that would be hard" or "that would be a serious burden" or something along those lines. I have little sympathy. Following our conscience often places us in hard positions where we have to make hard choices. Saying "we should be allowed to discriminate because it would be too hard not to" is not an argument that was acceptable for the civil rights or suffragette era, and it is not acceptable now, IMO.

                    So I repeat - no one is saying "you must participate." No one is saying, "you must change your beliefs." No one is saying "you must act against your beliefs." If anyone made that argument, I would stand with you against them. What is being said is "you may not discriminate in the public marketplace." Those statements are not equivalent. It is possible to hold to one's religious views AND not discriminate in the public marketplace. Simply do not offer the problematic service.
                    The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                    I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                      I don't need to. They are not in opposition. If you think they are, I'll leave you to show it.
                      "Disagreeing on a moral issue is not an act of bigotry."

                      That is to say, a Christian business owner can take a moral stand against providing their services for a homosexual wedding without it being bigotry.

                      "I would consider using morality as an excuse for bigotry to be self-refuting."

                      That is to say, a Christian business owner can not take a moral stand against providing their services for a homosexual wedding without it being bigotry.

                      Sorry, but you can't have it both ways.
                      Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                      But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                      Than a fool in the eyes of God


                      From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                        "Disagreeing on a moral issue is not an act of bigotry."

                        That is to say, a Christian business owner can take a moral stand against providing their services for a homosexual wedding without it being bigotry.
                        A business owner can absolutely take a stand against same-sex weddings. It remains a bigoted opinion for the reasons I have cited, which have not yet been refuted. This is not an example of "disagreeing on moral issues."

                        Here is an example of disagreeing on moral issues:

                        Person 1: I believe it is immoral to do X
                        Person 2: I believe it is moral to do X
                        Person 1: I believe you are a bigot because your moral position does not align with mine.

                        Sorry - but disagreeing on a moral position is not the basis for an accusation of "bigotry." Now let's take a real world case:

                        Person 1: I believe it is moral for two people with the same genitals to have sex in any circumstance
                        Person 2: I believe it is immoral for two people with the same genitals to have sex in any circumstance
                        Person 1: I believe you are a bigot because your moral position does not align with mine.

                        If I were saying the last part, then I would be adopting an untenable position, as you suggest. I am not saying that. The specific moral position taken by Person 2 and it's consequences is the basis for the accusation of bigotry - not the fact that it disagrees with the moral position of Person 1.

                        Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                        "I would consider using morality as an excuse for bigotry to be self-refuting."

                        That is to say, a Christian business owner can not take a moral stand against providing their services for a homosexual wedding without it being bigotry.

                        Sorry, but you can't have it both ways.
                        Bigotry is pretty widely accepted as "immoral." If you accept that "bigotry is immoral," then using morality as an excuse for bigotry is a self-refuting position. If you don't agree - then I have to assume you believe bigotry is moral? I find that hard to believe. Or maybe you think I do? You would be wrong if you did.

                        You still have not shown that the two positions are in opposition. It simply appears that you are misapplying the first position, creating an illusion of incompatibility.
                        Last edited by carpedm9587; 06-09-2019, 09:11 PM.
                        The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                        I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                        Comment


                        • I have a question of those who are debating this issue with me. It's a bit of a thought experiment.

                          1) Would you defend the right the members of a religion to randomly abduct and kill a person each weekend as a "human sacrifice to god" if their honestly-held beliefs required them to do so?
                          2) Would you defend their right to draw names by lottery and kill one of their own members as a "human sacrifice to god" if their honestly-held beliefs required them to do so?

                          What say ye? You don't have to explain your position - you can simply say "yes" or "no."
                          The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                          I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                            A business owner can absolutely take a stand against same-sex weddings. It remains a bigoted opinion for the reasons I have cited...
                            But you said it wasn't bigotry to take a moral stand. Will you make up your mind?
                            Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                            But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                            Than a fool in the eyes of God


                            From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                              I have a question of those who are debating this issue with me. It's a bit of a thought experiment.

                              1) Would you defend the right the members of a religion to randomly abduct and kill a person each weekend as a "human sacrifice to god" if their honestly-held beliefs required them to do so?
                              2) Would you defend their right to draw names by lottery and kill one of their own members as a "human sacrifice to god" if their honestly-held beliefs required them to do so?

                              What say ye? You don't have to explain your position - you can simply say "yes" or "no."
                              no

                              no

                              jim
                              He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me."

                              "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets"

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                                I am focused, in this discussion, on one disenfranchised group...
                                ...above all others, with absolutely no attempt to consider any kind of compromise whatsoever. Mind slammed shut.
                                "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Ronson, Today, 10:00 AM
                                1 response
                                6 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Whateverman  
                                Started by seanD, 10-18-2020, 05:25 PM
                                2 responses
                                63 views
                                3 likes
                                Last Post seanD
                                by seanD
                                 
                                Started by Whateverman, 10-18-2020, 01:23 PM
                                6 responses
                                76 views
                                2 likes
                                Last Post Whateverman  
                                Started by CivilDiscourse, 10-18-2020, 10:30 AM
                                67 responses
                                423 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Whateverman  
                                Started by Starlight, 10-16-2020, 06:20 PM
                                23 responses
                                256 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Maranatha  
                                Working...
                                X