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 oxmixmudd View Post
    But you do engage in bigotry - you refuse to treat with respect the morality of a Christian. ...
    That.

    There is no attempt whatsoever at "reasonable accommodation" -


    Christian bad! Must quit business!!!
    Same-sex couple GOOD - must get whatever they want, even if it means depriving another person of his means of income!
    The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
      That.

      There is no attempt whatsoever at "reasonable accommodation" -


      Christian bad! Must quit business!!!
      Same-sex couple GOOD - must get whatever they want, even if it means depriving another person of his means of income!
      Not only that but carpe thinks it's somehow more reasonable to drive the owner out of business than to expect homosexuals to simply go to another flower shop.
      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
        Not only that but carpe thinks it's somehow more reasonable to drive the owner out of business than to expect homosexuals to simply go to another flower shop.
        I'm mildly surprised how extremely one-sided Carpe is being on this. It's like "if it's something LGBTQXIA wants - then the hell with the rest of civilized society - they win!".

        I think this is a classic case of "I'm morally superior to you because I'm 100% pro-gay!"
        The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by tabibito View Post
          Freedom of expression, as guaranteed by article 10 of the European convention on human rights, includes the right “not to express an opinion which one does not hold”, Hale added. “This court has held that nobody should be forced to have or express a political opinion in which he does not believe,” she said.

          “The bakers could not refuse to supply their goods to Mr Lee because he was a gay man or supported gay marriage, but that is quite different from obliging them to supply a cake iced with a message with which they profoundly disagreed.”


          So - it is possible for a baker to refuse to make a cake when doing so endorses things he disagrees with - in Europe, anyway. Perhaps in America - given that people are extended the right to freedom of speech - if refusal was based not on the orientation of the would-be customer, but on the message that baking the cake would endorse, a baker who disagrees with given sentiments might be able to live in peace. The same would apply for florists and photographers, among others. And it is within the parameters that you yourself set with regard to refusing a KKK supportive message.
          The florist has the right to refuse a message they do not agree with - so long as they do so without discrimination. They can refuse to make a KKK cake for anyone. They can refuse to make a holocaust denial cake for anyone. And they can refuse to make a wedding cake - for anyone. If they refuse to make a wedding cake only for one set of people (i.e., same sex couples), then they are engaging in an act of discrimination. The first amendment does not protect them when they are offering a public 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
            The florist has the right to refuse a message they do not agree with - so long as they do so without discrimination. They can refuse to make a KKK cake for anyone. They can refuse to make a holocaust denial cake for anyone. And they can refuse to make a wedding cake - for anyone. If they refuse to make a wedding cake only for one set of people (i.e., same sex couples), then they are engaging in an act of discrimination. The first amendment does not protect them when they are offering a public service.
            Your rationale is uncharacteristically unsound. If a cake baker refuses to make a KKK cake, who would they be refusing? The Methodist Sunday School fellowship? No - they're refusing 'one set of people'. If they refuse to make a "holocaust denial" cake - they are refusing 'one set of people'. You don't appear to realize it, but you're making the case for the baker or florist to deny the message with which they do not agree... by discriminating against 'one set of people'! You, however, assign special rights to the gay/lesbian 'one set of people'.
            The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by myth View Post
              I imagine you make some exceptions for her, since you're married and all. No, seriously though, your love for a woman who happens to be Christian isn't a license to treat Christians however you want. Given your marriage to a Christian, that makes the bigotry you've displayed here all the worse. I submit a few points for your consideration:
              Since I am not "treating Christians however I want," I have no problem. I would be saying the same things to Muslims who take an anti-gay stance, or to neo-nazis who take an anti-gay stance, to citizens of some African nations who take an anti-gay stance, etc. My objection is to the stance - not to Christians, Muslims, or members of African nations. I do object to neo-nazis, but that is because the entire core of the movement is about bigotry. That is not true of Christianity. Declaring that someone who stance against anti-gay bigotry is "anti-Christian" is simply not a supportable position. "Anti-gay" and bigotry are not the core of Christianity.

              Originally posted by myth View Post
              1) You assume that people who refuse to support gay marriage are bigots using Bible passages to justify their bigotry. While I'm sure there are people who do this, I don't know any of them. You need to seriously consider the opposite: that there are Christians who honestly believe homosexual acts are a sin against God, but have no personal bias against homosexuals. Personally, I'm on the fence regarding the Biblical basis for homosexuality as a sin. I have nothing personal against homosexuals, and I think it doesn't make any logical sense that God would be so against homosexuals, but the Biblical passages are pretty clear. If I were to do anything to take a stand against homosexual marriage, it would be out of a sincere belief behind the Biblical support for it because I personally find those passages in the Bible to be rather inconvenient.

              If you aren't bigoted against Christians, then stop assuming the worst possible motive for their actions and/or statements. Just because your wife doesn't feel the same doesn't make other Christians any less sincere in their beliefs.
              I think anyone who treats one group differently from another based on their membership in that group in a way that is not justified is taking a bigoted stand on that topic. It does not matter to me why they take that stand. So if you say to me, "men should not be going to gynocologists - I'm going to agree with you. If you say to me "black people don't need to go to tanning salons," I'm probably going to agree with you (or at least agree they don't need to go). If you tell me gay people should not be having sex or getting married, then you are taking a position against a group that is unjustified. If you agree that people should be denying services to gay people because they are doing something you are permitting others to do in the same circumstances, for no reason other than they have matching genitals and others do not, then you are engaging in an act of bigotry. I will stand against it.

              Originally posted by myth View Post
              2) If you weren't so intolerant of Christians, you'd perhaps be more wiling to discuss or explore options that would allow Christians to function in our current business society without being forced to take actions which are at odds with their religious beliefs. Your blithe suggestion that the florist could just stop serving weddings at all is both ignorant and useless.

              I think it's worth mentioning that, unlike the during the civil rights movement over racism, Christians refusing to serve homosexuals are in the minority here. This isn't a climate in which homosexual couples are unable to find businesses to provide them with goods or services. You continually state that there are limits to people's rights. A homosexual insisting on compelling a Christian florist to service their wedding is also intruding on the Christian florists' rights. And what's more, it's completely unnecessary. It has the appearance of targeting Christian businesses just because the homosexuals disagree with their beliefs.
              At this point, I'm going to let you continue on your "intolerant of Christians" rant. It does not appear anything I say will convince you otherwise, so I will leave you to your misperception. I have no problems with Christians per se. I have a problem with anyone who takes a bigoted stance on a topic - whatever their justification for doing so. The rest of this is a repetition of arguments I have already responded to, so I will let my previous responses stand.
              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
                And yet, in your own words, you don't give a fig what the bible says, but scripture is the final authority of the believer, hence, you are absolutely anti-Christian, regardless of your wife's beliefs.
                I have responded to this already, so I will leave you to your misperception.

                Originally posted by mossrose View Post
                We are bound to take God's word as our authority. As Peter said, "we have to obey God rather than men". What you say, what the government says, what any person says is right and hood and lawful is not unless it lines up with what God says.
                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.
                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 Cow Poke View Post
                  That's not really a fitting argument - we don't know your wife, or what she believes, and it's entirely likely that you can overlook her Christianity, whatever that may be, because you love her.

                  That's kinda like "I have a friend who's black" as proof you're not racist.
                  My wife shares my beliefs about homosexuality and same-sex marriage. Anyway - I'm going to let folks have their "Michel's anti-Christian" perspective if that's what you want to believe. It's not true, and the multiple assertions that it is are not going to change that. My position is about same sex relationships and the LGBTQ community - not "Christianity." Anti-LGBTQ is not the heart of Christianity - it is one position some Christians continue to espouse. My objection is to the position.
                  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 Mountain Man View Post
                    I find it interesting that you think a Christian bookstore wouldn't sell books about "the black experience".
                    Go back and read it again, MM. At no point did I say that, so I have no further response.
                    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 Cow Poke View Post
                      Your rationale is uncharacteristically unsound.
                      Don't you mean "characteristically"? This looks to me like carpe's usual flip-flop argument style, where he appears to argue in favor of multiple mutually exclusive positions so as not to be nailed down on any one point.
                      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 Cow Poke View Post
                        That's just dumb, and you're avoiding the question. The question was - would you decline to make a cake with the F-Bomb and N-word on it.
                        Yes, I would. For everyone.

                        Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                        I can understand why you're avoiding the issue, because you'd have to admit, "yes, I'd decline that" because you would refuse to be forced to do something you felt was unconscionable. I believe you WOULD decline that request, but just can't bring yourself to admit it, because of the implications.
                        I have no problem admitting it, CP. I believe I have actually said this in several posts, both in this thread and previous threads.

                        Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                        That has not been in dispute - that somebody can come in and purchase the wedding cakes the baker offers.
                        Actually - it is in dispute. Both with the florist and the cake maker - a service available to one group of people is not available to another for no defensible reason. Hence my objection. If your business is "making custom wedding cakes" and you refuse to make a custom wedding cake for X but not Y, for no other reason than "they have matching genitals," then you are engaging in an act of unwarranted discrimination or bigotry. I will stand opposed to it.

                        Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                        Also, not in dispute -- anybody coming into the shop can buy anything that is offered for sale.

                        If the KKK hired you to come to and decorate their venue for their annual meeting, would you accept?
                        No - I would not accept because the KKK ceremonies are to celebrate ideologies that I am standing against: bigotry.

                        The florist/baker are not standing against an ideology. Their objection to same-sex unions is itself a result of bigotry. So refusing service is likewise an act of bigotry. This is what folks here do not seem to grasp. X and Y can be married because they have differing genitals. X and X cannot marry because their genitals match. The position is based on the genetic identity of the participants. It is no different than saying X and X can marry because they are both white, but X and Y cannot marry because one is black and one is white. In both case, the position is based on genetic identity, and in both cases the position is a bigoted one.

                        TO then refuse service on the basis of that distinction simply takes the bigotry into the public marketplace, which is not protected here any more than it was protected for the "whites only" diners.
                        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 Mountain Man View Post
                          Don't you mean "characteristically"? This looks to me like carpe's usual flip-flop argument style, where he appears to argue in favor of multiple mutually exclusive positions so as not to be nailed down on any one point.
                          Sadly, I may have to correct my assessment.
                          The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                            That may be how YOU view it, but that is NOT how the major monotheistic religions define it. And we are allowed to live according to and in free expression of our RELIGIOUS beliefs by the constitution. And that is where the conflict arises, but it is a conflict where the two guaranteed rights of the constitution come into direct, and perhaps irresolvable conflict.
                            I am aware that people who hold this belief justify it in moral terms and root their morality in the bible Jim. How you derive your moral framework does not apply to me and does not actually concern me. If someone says, "I hold this moral position because this old letter from my grandfather says 'this is moral,' " would you then nod and say, "I understand - so no problem then?" I suspect you would point to your moral basis and claim that yours trump's theirs. That is what all of us do - we guide our lives by the moral framework we have derived over the course of our lives. My moral framework tells me that anti-gay positions are immoral. I'm not going to stop seeing it as immoral because you appeal to a book I do not accept as a moral authority. I will continue to see it as immoral, continue to advocate for its elimination from our culture, and continue to work to raise awareness in the next generation that this is not a good path.

                            Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                            It doesn't matter that you have a personal morality that doesn't have the conflict I describe. The constitution guarantees the right to religious freedom, and all three of the major monotheistic religions who's teachings drive over 95% of the actions and beliefs of those practicing religion in the US do not. And those people are GUARANTEED by the US constitution to be able to live according to those same religious dictates.
                            As I have noted, every liberty has limits. Yes, you have the right to religious freedom. Do you have the right to deny religious ceremonies to gay couples in your church? Absolutely. Do you have the right to prohibit members of the LGBTQ community to even enter your church? Absolutely. Do you have the right to require everyone in your church to practice mortification in order to be a member? Absolutely. Do you have the right to punish any member of your church with financial or physical penalties if they transgress? If they willingly submit, absolutely. Do you have the right to insist that all property held by your members is communal property? If they willingly agree, absolutely. If they don't, you can eject them from membership in your church - no problem.

                            Do you have the right to insist that ALL property is communal because your faith says "no one can own something?" No. There your "religious freedom" stops cold. Likewise, you do not have the "religious freedom" to physically harm anyone if they act in a way that transgresses your faith. That is the basis for denying radical Islamists the "religious freedom" to blow up people in the marketplace. There, "religious liberty" stops cold. Likewise, when anyone of any faith enters the public marketplace, their religious liberties will run up against social liberties. No one can force someone do act against their faith - but we CAN say "we do not permit services offered in the public marketplace to be offered in a discriminatory fashion. That is where your religious liberty stops. If you offer a public service - it must be offered equally for all who qualify.

                            Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                            Technically, these are not 'anti-gay' agendas. They are 'anti-same-sex-act'. No-one is forced to engage in any sexual practice unless they are raped. These protests are against customs and actions they believe are immoral. They are not against any person or type of person. And the fact is, the only way to resolve the dual conflicts between the guarantee to freedom to exercise one's religion, and the freedom not to be discriminated against is to recognize the difference between how one chooses to act and who one is. A gay person can, if they want to, never participate in any same sex act. And there are people who because they have same-sex attraction but religious beliefs that such acts are wrong that do in fact chose not to act them out. And, in fact, straight people can chose to participate in same-sex acts (and some do).

                            So a gay wedding is a ceremony that explicitly sanctions a same sex act. As such, religious people that believe such acts are wrong have every right not to be part of such a ceremony as to participate in such a ceremony is to violate their religion.
                            As I have noted multiple times, this fails on two fronts: "providing a service" is not equivalent to "participating in an event." Second, the objection to the act is itself a bigoted position. It is an objection rooted in the genitalia of the two participants: differing=OK, matching=bad. This is not different than the once held position concerning race and marriage: differing=bad, matching=OK. It is intrinsically a bigoted position.

                            Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                            And the constitution guarantees that a religious person has the right not to participate in any custom or act that violates the dictates of their religion. So the constitution effectively guarantees that person the right not to participate, even at their place of work. So, if a business has no employees that are willing to participate in the ceremony, that business simply can't provide that service.
                            No one is "requiring" participation. NO was anyone saying to the owner of the "whites only" dinner, "you must service food to black people." What they were being told was, "if you serve food, you must serve it to everyone who can pay and who is adhering to the rules of the property." If you don't want to do that, get into another line of work. Likewise, the baker and florist are being told, "if you offer this service, you must provide it to everyone that can pay and is adhering to the rules of the house." If they don't want to do that, they should get into another line of work - or simply cut that particular line out of their services offered.

                            Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                            So as I said in previous threads. A gay person should be able to buy any good provided by any merchant. But they can't require that merchant to produce that which violates that merchant's religious teaching. In the florist's case, they should be able to buy any flower arrangement they want to use however they see fit. But they can't force that florist to create a display for the purpose of decorating their gay wedding. She has to sell them the flowers, but they have to figure out how to set them up (or hire someone sympathetic to their position - which honestly in this day and age should be a piece of cake - pun intended )

                            Jim
                            And as I have said in previous posts, if a merchant is offering a service, it must be offered equitably to all. Otherwise, they should not offer the service. Freedom of religion is not absolute - and I am not asking anyone to violate their religious beliefs. Indeed, I encourage people to follow their religious beliefs. But no one guarantees that doing so is going to be easy.
                            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 oxmixmudd View Post
                              But you do engage in bigotry - you refuse to treat with respect the morality of a Christian. You refuse to acknowledge that a Christian person can believe that certain sexual actions are wrong without being hateful of a person that commits those acts. It's exactly the stereotyping and bigotry you claim to be against.
                              Disagreeing on a moral issue is not an act of bigotry, Jim.

                              Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                              In an ideal world, if I think its ok to have a beer, and another religious person does not, then when we sit down to have a drink, he has a coke, and I have a beer, and neither of us think evil about the other.
                              In an ideal world, if I think it is immoral to drink beer and you order beer when we eat together, then I will assess that act as immoral by definition. If I don't, what's the point of having the moral position?

                              Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                              There is little difference here. If a person is gay and thinks it is ok to engage in same-sex acts, and another person is not gay and thinks it is wrong to engage in same sex acts, then neither one will try to forcefully impose their belief on the other and will respect the other person's position.
                              I am not imposing a belief on anyone. At no point have I said, "you are not free to believe a same-sex act is immoral." Of course you are free to believe it. Anyone is free to believe anything.

                              Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                              Demanding that a Christian participate in a ceremony sanctioning same-sex acts by making a specialized, personalized cake, or setting up a floral display to decorate that ceremony, the person demanding that is forcing their morality onto the Christian, and not only that, is disrespecting the Christian in no less the same way than they have been disrespected over the years for being gay.
                              This has been responded to numerous times - I'll let those responses stand.

                              Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                              Ideally, we respect one another's morality and moral differences as long as what we do does not hurt others. That is what being tolerant means. It does not mean forcing everyone to adopt the same views at the same time. Not providing a floral arrangement or cake for your wedding doesn't hurt anyone, as long as both parties have it in them to respect the other's moral position.

                              Jim
                              If someone believes it is immoral to feed a black person in their whites only restaurant - they are free to believe that. I am not going to extend that freedom to being free to act on it. I'm going to insist, if they offer a service in the public market - they do so without unwarranted bigotry/discrimination. The same is true for this issue.

                              The service provider can either align with that requirement, face the legal consequences if they do not, or get into another line of work. Right now the legal consequences are in doubt because we have just begun to see our legal system begin to align to the new social norm. Hopefully, eventually, this will be thought of in much the same way we think of "whites only" diners. But it will take time to get there. And like the "whites only" diners, those who support such "freedoms" are going to resist it the whole way - claiming they are the ones whose rights are being violated. That's pretty much a familiar cycle.
                              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 Cow Poke View Post
                                Your rationale is uncharacteristically unsound.
                                No - it's not unsound - but thanks for the compliment of "uncharacteristically."

                                Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                                If a cake baker refuses to make a KKK cake, who would they be refusing? The Methodist Sunday School fellowship? No - they're refusing 'one set of people'. If they refuse to make a "holocaust denial" cake - they are refusing 'one set of people'.
                                They would be refusing someone asking them to make a product that supports an organization that promotes bigotry. Presumably, the requesters would be members of the KKK - an organization whose public stance is equated with bigotry. You are making an argument here that essentially begs the question. The requesters of a "KKK cake" would likely be members of the KKK. The requesters of a "holocaust deniers" cake would be holocaust deniers.

                                The requesters of a wedding cake are people getting married. There is no problem saying, "I don't make wedding cakes." You folks want to limit this to "gay wedding wakes" so you can try to avoid the "I'm taking a bigoted stance" and claim it is no different than the previous two cakes. But it is. Needing to distinguish "gay wedding cakes" from "heterosexual wedding cakes" IS the act of bigotry. It's not a "gay wedding cake." It's not a "heterosexual wedding cake." It's not a "gay wedding" and it's not a "heterosexual wedding." It's a wedding cake - and it's a wedding. You absolutely can refuse the wedding cake on the basis that you don't make wedding cakes. You cannot make wedding cakes for A and refuse to make them for B on nothing more than the fact that their genitals match without slipping into bigotry.

                                Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                                You don't appear to realize it, but you're making the case for the baker or florist to deny the message with which they do not agree... by discriminating against 'one set of people'! You, however, assign special rights to the gay/lesbian 'one set of people'.
                                No - I'm not. See above.
                                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

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, 03-27-2024, 04:19 PM
                                16 responses
                                162 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post One Bad Pig  
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                53 responses
                                400 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                25 responses
                                114 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                198 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                84 responses
                                379 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Working...
                                X