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 carpedm9587 View Post
    No - it's not unsound - but thanks for the compliment of "uncharacteristically."

    Well, I tried.
    The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
      Well, I tried.
      Not very successfully CP. Your arguments have all been responded to in the past, and they all basically fail, for the reasons I have cited. I'm reasonably sure you disagree, but I don't see that you have a basis for disagreeing. Ultimately, you have to fall back on "the bible says so," which is not a position I'm going to accept as a justification for a bigoted stance.
      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
        Disagreeing on a moral issue is not an act of bigotry, Jim.
        Except when a business owner disagrees and refuses to provide a service in a way that would contradict his core values, and then the intolerant bigot should be run out of town, am I right?

        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
          Except when a business owner disagrees and refuses to provide a service in a way that would contradict his core values, and then the intolerant bigot should be run out of town, am I right?

          I would consider using morality as an excuse for bigotry to be self-refuting.
          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
            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.
            A refusal to bat for the other team does not usually come under the heading of bigotry. The demand that the person bat for the other team is unreasonable. And as has been shown - freedom of speech includes the right to not endorse things that a person doesn't agree with. Freedom of association includes the right to choose whom a person will associate with.

            perhaps even

            Bigotry isn't what you claim it is.
            1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
            .
            ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
            Scripture before Tradition:
            but that won't prevent others from
            taking it upon themselves to deprive you
            of the right to call yourself Christian.

            ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

            Comment


            • Originally posted by tabibito View Post
              A refusal to bat for the other team does not usually come under the heading of bigotry.
              A refusal to provide a service to X that you are willing to provide for Y that is rooted in a difference in genetics is the quintessential example of bigotry, Tab, as it was for the "white only" diners.

              Originally posted by tabibito View Post
              The demand that the person bat for the other team is unreasonable. And as has been shown - freedom of speech includes the right to not endorse things that a person doesn't agree with. Freedom of association includes the right to choose whom a person will associate with.

              perhaps even

              Bigotry isn't what you claim it is.
              Again - no one is demanding that anyone DO anything. The demand is that a service that is provided in the public marketplace be provided without undue bigotry. If you offer a service to X, you cannot refuse to offer it to Y for reasons that reduce to genetics (unless the service itself is somehow linked to those genetics - like gynecological services, mammograms, erectile dysfunction treatments, or even specializing in cutting African American hair).

              A wedding is a wedding - period. It is two people marrying. Denying service to one couple but not another on the basis of their relative genetic membership is an example of bigotry. I don't see how you can make a rational argument otherwise. Some Christians justify it on the basis of their bible. I do not accept that as a valid justification any more than I am going to accept the argument from a radical Islamic terrorist that they are required to bomb the marketplace by their Quran.

              ETA: Genetics is not the basis for morality. Morality is determined by a moral framework applied in a given context with intent factored in. It's complex - it's messy - but I know of no widely agreed upon act that is moral for one person but immoral for another for no other reason than their genetic makeup. Theft is theft - regardless of your genetic makeup. Murder is murder - regardless of your genetic makeup. Pedophilia is pedophilia, regardless your genetic makeup. But the prohibition against homosexual acts is ENTIRELY rooted in the genetics of the people involved. Here we have an act that is moral for X and Y, but immoral for A and B for no other reason than their membership in a genetic group. This is my objection to anti-gay laws, positions, and actions. It is why I see them as bigoted. I don't see how you can logically refute that position.
              Last edited by carpedm9587; 06-09-2019, 11:38 AM.
              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
                Disagreeing on a moral issue is not an act of bigotry...
                Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                I would consider using morality as an excuse for bigotry to be self-refuting.
                Pick one.
                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


                • According to carp's reasoning, churches must refuse to perform all wedding ceremonies if they choose to refuse the same-gender ceremony.

                  This, in spite of his statement that it is the church's right to do so.

                  Make up your mind, carp.


                  Securely anchored to the Rock amid every storm of trial, testing or tribulation.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                    A refusal to provide a service to X that you are willing to provide for Y that is rooted in a difference in genetics is the quintessential example of bigotry, Tab, as it was for the "white only" diners.
                    You seem to think that race and lifestyle are ontologically similar.



                    Again - no one is demanding that anyone DO anything. The demand is that a service that is provided in the public marketplace be provided without undue bigotry. If you offer a service to X, you cannot refuse to offer it to Y for reasons that reduce to genetics (unless the service itself is somehow linked to those genetics - like gynecological services, mammograms, erectile dysfunction treatments, or even specializing in cutting African American hair).
                    Lifestyle choices are not genetic - and the science of genetics does not support the concept that Homosexuality (nor Heterosexuality come to that) is genetically determined. Calling something bigotry does not mean that you have correctly defined it.

                    A wedding is a wedding - period. It is two people marrying. Denying service to one couple but not another on the basis of their relative genetic membership is an example of bigotry. I don't see how you can make a rational argument otherwise. Some Christians justify it on the basis of their bible. I do not accept that as a valid justification any more than I am going to accept the argument from a radical Islamic terrorist that they are required to bomb the marketplace by their Quran.
                    True - refusing to sell wedding cakes over the counter would constitute a violation of rights. Refusing a contract to produce a wedding cake comes under the heading of freedom to choose for one-self who a person will work for. The right to say "I am not available to you for hire" should not be abrogated.

                    ETA: Genetics is not the basis for morality. Morality is determined by a moral framework applied in a given context with intent factored in. It's complex - it's messy - but I know of no widely agreed upon act that is moral for one person but immoral for another for no other reason than their genetic makeup. Theft is theft - regardless of your genetic makeup. Murder is murder - regardless of your genetic makeup. Pedophilia is pedophilia, regardless your genetic makeup.
                    But the prohibition against homosexual acts is ENTIRELY rooted in the genetics of the people involved.
                    Nope - there is no "homosexual gene" or combination of genes. The choice of a partner's gender is not biologically determined.

                    Here we have an act that is moral for X and Y, but immoral for A and B for no other reason than their membership in a genetic group. This is my objection to anti-gay laws, positions, and actions. It is why I see them as bigoted. I don't see how you can logically refute that position.
                    I don't see a reason to act against a person because of their choice of partner - where both are consenting adults, that is, even if there is a forty year age difference. Nor do I - and here is the critical difference - see any reason to act against a person simply because he doesn't do what I want. Or maybe not so critical - there are plenty of people who would attack a couple that doesn't meet their idea of moral.

                    You deny the right of a person to withdraw from associations that they want no part of. You consider that it is appropriate to punish people who don't want to be associated with actions that make them uncomfortable (if they act on that preference). Most likely you would applaud action to put a niche market magazine out of business because it doesn't cater to the tastes of a different niche market. I find that kind of action deplorable.
                    1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                    .
                    ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
                    Scripture before Tradition:
                    but that won't prevent others from
                    taking it upon themselves to deprive you
                    of the right to call yourself Christian.

                    ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                      Pick one.
                      I don't need to. They are not in opposition. If you think they are, I'll leave you to show it.
                      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
                        According to carp's reasoning, churches must refuse to perform all wedding ceremonies if they choose to refuse the same-gender ceremony.

                        This, in spite of his statement that it is the church's right to do so.

                        Make up your mind, carp.
                        No - that is not what Michel said - it is the opposite of what I have said. Putting arguments in my mouth and then objecting to them doesn't make for a strong position.

                        I have made it clear that what a church does within its own community is entirely the right of the church to choose (unless the church begins to advocate for something like murder, pedophilia, etc.). There is no legal problem with a church restricting marriages to opposite sex couples. I still consider it an act of bigotry - but I defend their right to do this within the confines of their religion.
                        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
                          You seem to think that race and lifestyle are ontologically similar.

                          Lifestyle choices are not genetic - and the science of genetics does not support the concept that Homosexuality (nor Heterosexuality come to that) is genetically determined. Calling something bigotry does not mean that you have correctly defined it.
                          I have never made the bolded claim, nor do I hold that position, so I have no further response. I try to limit my responses to defending positions I actually hold.

                          Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                          True - refusing to sell wedding cakes over the counter would constitute a violation of rights. Refusing a contract to produce a wedding cake comes under the heading of freedom to choose for one-self who a person will work for. The right to say "I am not available to you for hire" should not be abrogated.
                          No. I disagree. Both are forms of refusing a service. If the service is offered, then there are many justifiable reasons for denying it to another applicant (inadequate time, inadequate resources, too great a distance to travel, etc.). So long as those are uniformly applied, no problem. When they are applied in a bigoted fashion (e.g., you have genetic characteristic X, so I won't give you the service), that is a problem and I believe it should not be permitted in a just society.

                          Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                          Nope - there is no "homosexual gene" or combination of genes. The choice of a partner's gender is not biologically determined.
                          At no point did I make this claim - so I have no further response.

                          Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                          I don't see a reason to act against a person because of their choice of partner - where both are consenting adults, that is, even if there is a forty year age difference. Nor do I - and here is the critical difference - see any reason to act against a person simply because he doesn't do what I want. Or maybe not so critical - there are plenty of people who would attack a couple that doesn't meet their idea of moral.
                          The emphasized statement is not true, unless I have badly misunderstood you. You DO see a reason to act against a person because of their choice of partner, if their genitals match. You would defend the right to deny them service on that basis. I presume you would defend the state's right to deny them marriage. Correct?

                          Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                          You deny the right of a person to withdraw from associations that they want no part of.
                          I do not. I deny the right of a person to withdraw from commercial associations they do not want to be part of on the basis of genetic membership. I would not defend the right of a person to run a white's only diner. I will not defend the right of a florist to run a "no flowers for gay weddings" flower shop. If a church, however, is a "white's only" church because they believe "only white people will be saved," I would deplore that community and that position, while simultaneously defending their right to have it and to enforce it.

                          Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                          You consider that it is appropriate to punish people who don't want to be associated with actions that make them uncomfortable (if they act on that preference).
                          I do not. I consider it appropriate to make people responsible for the consequences of their choices. If you do not wish to provide flowers for gay weddings, then stop providing flowers for weddings. The person can continue to hold their bigoted position all day long. But rather than make it the responsibility of the gay person to find a florist that will not turn them away because of their relative genetics, I require the business to take responsibility for its stance. Likewise, rather than make the black man responsible for finding a restaurant that will serve him, I require restaurants to not discriminate on the basis of the genetic identities of its patrons.

                          ETA: My position here is entirely about what happens in the public marketplace. It has nothing to do with what a person does personally. If anyone does not want to associate with homosexuals because of their actions, I will (again) deplore that choice while defending the right of the person to make it.

                          Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                          Most likely you would applaud action to put a niche market magazine out of business because it doesn't cater to the tastes of a different niche market. I find that kind of action deplorable.
                          I have not made this argument, nor do I hold this view, so I have no further response.
                          Last edited by carpedm9587; 06-09-2019, 12:51 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 carpedm9587 View Post
                            I have never made the bolded claim, nor do I hold that position, so I have no further response. I try to limit my responses to defending positions I actually hold.
                            Fair enough.

                            No. I disagree. Both are forms of refusing a service. If the service is offered, then there are many justifiable reasons for denying it to another applicant (inadequate time, inadequate resources, too great a distance to travel, etc.). So long as those are uniformly applied, no problem. When they are applied in a bigoted fashion (e.g., you have genetic characteristic X, so I won't give you the service), that is a problem and I believe it should not be permitted in a just society.
                            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.



                            At no point did I make this claim - so I have no further response.
                            accepted.



                            The emphasized statement is not true, unless I have badly misunderstood you. You DO see a reason to act against a person because of their choice of partner, if their genitals match. You would defend the right to deny them service on that basis. I presume you would defend the state's right to deny them marriage. Correct?
                            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.

                            I do not. I deny the right of a person to withdraw from commercial associations they do not want to be part of on the basis of genetic membership.
                            On what grounds? You have already stated that offering women's financial services is acceptable, if I remember rightly.

                            I would not defend the right of a person to run a white's only diner.
                            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.

                            I will not defend the right of a florist to run a "no flowers for gay weddings" flower shop. If a church, however, is a "white's only" church because they believe "only white people will be saved," I would deplore that community and that position, while simultaneously defending their right to have it and to enforce it.
                            Simple enough to rework it - "Flowers only for Biblical Marriage Ceremonies" would solve the problem for the florist.

                            I do not. I consider it appropriate to make people responsible for the consequences of their choices. If you do not wish to provide flowers for gay weddings, then stop providing flowers for weddings.
                            done - flowers are provided for Biblical Marriage Celebrations.

                            The person can continue to hold their bigoted position all day long. But rather than make it the responsibility of the gay person to find a florist that will not turn them away because of their relative genetics, I require the business to take responsibility for its stance. Likewise, rather than make the black man responsible for finding a restaurant that will serve him, I require restaurants to not discriminate on the basis of the genetic identities of its patrons.
                            Dehumanising people who hold views that you don't like. 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.

                            ETA: My position here is entirely about what happens in the public marketplace. It has nothing to do with what a person does personally. If anyone does not want to associate with homosexuals because of their actions, I will (again) deplore that choice while defending the right of the person to make it.
                            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.



                            I have not made this argument, nor do I hold this view, so I have no further response.
                            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.

                            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.
                            Last edited by tabibito; 06-09-2019, 02:11 PM.
                            1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                            .
                            ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
                            Scripture before Tradition:
                            but that won't prevent others from
                            taking it upon themselves to deprive you
                            of the right to call yourself Christian.

                            ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                              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.
                              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.



                              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.
                              Good thing the florist wasn't "treating one group differently from another based on their membership in that group", then. 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.

                              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.
                              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.
                              Last edited by myth; 06-09-2019, 02:33 PM.
                              "If you believe, take the first step, it leads to Jesus Christ. If you don't believe, take the first step all the same, for you are bidden to take it. No one wants to know about your faith or unbelief, your orders are to perform the act of obedience on the spot. Then you will find yourself in the situation where faith becomes possible and where faith exists in the true sense of the word." - Dietrich Bonhoeffer, The Cost of Discipleship

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                                No - that is not what Michel said - it is the opposite of what I have said. Putting arguments in my mouth and then objecting to them doesn't make for a strong position.

                                I have made it clear that what a church does within its own community is entirely the right of the church to choose (unless the church begins to advocate for something like murder, pedophilia, etc.). There is no legal problem with a church restricting marriages to opposite sex couples. I still consider it an act of bigotry - but I defend their right to do this within the confines of their religion.
                                Michel said:

                                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.
                                Then, in the same post, Michel said:

                                if a merchant is offering a service, it must be offered equitably to all. Otherwise, they should not offer the service.
                                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. 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.

                                What is the difference between a church and a florist?

                                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.


                                Securely anchored to the Rock amid every storm of trial, testing or tribulation.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
                                16 responses
                                152 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post One Bad Pig  
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                53 responses
                                399 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
                                373 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Working...
                                X