OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    In response to Sobchack's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to pcmIV's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

     

    Previously divorced couples are not necessarily a wrong thing according to Christian Scripture.

     



    1st Corinthians, Chapter 7, Verses 10-11

     

    To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife.




    Matt 19:9 And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.”

    The direct words from Christ Himself. Game. Set. Match.

    "I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent." (1 Timothy 2:12)

    You'll never win this one.  Ever.  

     




    I've won it 1000 times. Your childish understanding of Scripture will never prevail.

     

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

    The question is whether business owners should be allowed to turn people away (as customers or employees) simply because they disapprove of the person's sexual orientation, gender, race, etc. 



    Wrong. The question is whether a person should be forced to participate in an event they find to be an affront to their religious beliefs when plenty of alternative choices are available to the seeker of the service.

    If a photography business had several photographers and at least one was not affected by religious views that would exclude them from any concern about participating in such an event, then that business should be compelled to provide the service.

    Your biggest problem in being able to objectively see what rights are viable here is your view that being gay is better than being religious.

     

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    LMAO @ prolate having a meltdown.



    Hah . . . just pointing out some of the other wingnut policies your friends at the Center for Arizona Policy support . . .

    Outlawing no-fault divorce?  Yeah, that's a popular one . . .  




    Meltdown.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from pcmIV. Show pcmIV's posts

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    There is no proof sexuality is not a choice. You lose.



    So the fact that it occurs in pretty much every animal species on the planet sort of puts that idea out the window unless you think other animals have the cognitive capacity to "choose" as humans do.  You think kids with homophobic parents choose to be gay?  Get real.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from seawolfxs. Show seawolfxs's posts

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    In response to JimfromFlorida's comment:

     


    Simple and SPOT ON



    But both are religous rights one being upheld and the other is not???



    Little complex for you?  

    It's pretty simple.  The kosher baker sells kosher cakes.  He can't and shouldn't be required to sell non-kosher cakes, hamburgers, dog food, or 14 inch pipe wrenches, for that matter.  But if someone walks into his bakery and wants to buy one of his kosher cakes, he shouldn't be able to say "no, I won't sell you one because you're gay."



    Pro

    so who is saying that?
    And why do i have to know someone is gay? I dont ask

    And to particpate in a wedding ceremony - and the photographer is- why does he have to do it?

    My point is that this is a slippery slope of government involvement. If this were a case of a monoplistic or common carrier transaction I would agree with you. When it gets to a "contract' let the market handle it. Again, this was an instant of a gay couple wanting to inflict themselves on a business when they could easily go some place else that would be happy to do it, And i dont mean just other gay photographers

     

     

     

 
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    In response to pcmIV's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

     

    There is no proof sexuality is not a choice. You lose.

     



    So the fact that it occurs in pretty much every animal species on the planet sort of puts that idea out the window unless you think other animals have the cognitive capacity to "choose" as humans do.  You think kids with homophobic parents choose to be gay?  Get real.

     




    Homosexuality in the animal world does occur, yet a specific animal having a long-lasting predisposition to engage in such behavior to the exclusion of heterosexual activities is rare.

    The list of things kids do in spite of the beliefs of their parents is very very long.

     

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to Sobchack's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    I think some here erroneously think gay marriage is universally accepted and the US is dragging their feet. It isn't.

    Yeah, Canada is the world's leading gay marriage haven. (All 33 million of them [the city of Tokyo has a larger population than Canada.]).

    Let's all follow their brilliant way. Because they matter so much.

    (Gay marriage allowed in dark blue areas.)

     

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/44/World_marriage-equality_laws.svg/800px-World_marriage-equality_laws.svg.png

     



    What's interesting is what's completely grey in that chart: 3rd world nations;  Islamic republics and countries governed by Islamic law, totalitarian nations like China, Russia, and N. Korea; and for some odd reason, Japan.  

    I bet you dollars to donuts, Japan will start turning a shade of blue sooner than later.  

    Hurry up and get you rear end over to Uganda.  All is good there.  Gays are executed as capital criminals.  You can even start your own photography biz and never have to worry about same-sex couples as customers; they'll either be killed, in jail, or in hiding.




    Hate to break it to you, but only the dark blue allow gay marriage. It is a small minority.

     



    Hate to break it to you, but the places that are in blue are most of the world's free and prosperous nations.  The other places are, to a large degree, third world nations, many led by repressive regimes.  Maybe that's a hint about what real, meaningful freedom is about. 

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    In response to PatsLifer's comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

        NFL, Cardinals, Super Bowl committee sound off on SB 1062 Posted: Feb 25, 2014 7:18 AM EST Updated: Feb 25, 2014 7:21 AM EST Posted by Steve Stout - email  

    Arizona is scheduled to host the 2015 Super Bowl at University of Phoenix Stadium in Glendale. (Source: CBS 5 News)

    Arizona is scheduled to host the 2015 Super Bowl at University of Phoenix Stadium in Glendale. (Source: CBS 5 News) PHOENIX (CBS5) -

    As the anticipation grows over what Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer will do with Senate Bill 1062, the so-called Religious Freedom Bill, the National Football League, the Arizona Cardinals and Arizona's Super Bowl committee are chiming in.

    The 2015 Super Bowl is scheduled to be played at University of Phoenix Stadium in Glendale.

    MORE 

     

    The NFL said it was monitoring the progress of the bill, the Cardinals said they are concerned about the negative image the bill could bring the state, and the Arizona Super Bowl Host Committee said it flatly opposes the legislation.

    All three released their statements Monday.

    The bill would allow Arizona businesses the right to refuse service to anyone based on the business owner's religious beliefs without fear of lawsuits.

    Brewer has until Saturday to sign the bill into law, veto the bill or do nothing and allow it to become law.

    The NFL's Greg Aiello issued the following statement Monday afternoon:

    "Our policies emphasize tolerance and inclusiveness, and prohibit discrimination based on age, gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, or any other improper standard. We are following the issue in Arizona and will continue to do so should the bill be signed into law, but will decline further comment at this time."

    The Arizona Cardinals statement issued Monday:

    "What so many love about football is its ability to bring people together. We do not support anything that has the potential to divide, exclude and discriminate. As a prominent and highly-visible member of this community, we strive to bring positive attention to the state. We are concerned with anything that creates a negative perception of Arizona and those of us who are fortunate to call it home."

    The Arizona Super Bowl Host Committee's statement reads:

    "We share the NFL's core values which embrace tolerance, diversity, inclusiveness and prohibit discrimination. In addition, a key part of the mission for the Arizona Super Bowl Host Committee is to promote the economic vitality of Arizona. On that matter we have heard loud and clear from our various stakeholders that adoption of this legislation would not only run contrary to that goal but deal a significant blow to the state's economic growth potential. We do not support this legislation. Instead, we look forward to continuing to promote the NFL's values while focusing on the economic momentum apparent in Arizona and capturing the positive worldwide attention associated with hosting Super Bowl XLIX."

    It's not the first time and Arizona issue and the NFL have collided.

    In 1993, Arizona was in line to host the Super Bowl in Tempe, but Arizona voters in November 1992 voted against a referendum recognizing Martin Luther King Jr. Day as a state holiday, prompting the NFL to give the Super Bowl to Pasadena, CA.



    The nfls policy is hogwash First off. They openly discriminate based on a host of reasons. 

    Let me draw an nfl parallel to the issue at hand and you decide what is right.

    this past SB, the nfl denied Daniel firearms to run a SB commercial. In that commercial was no mention nor showing of ant firearm. It was simply about a man wanting to protect his family. You can see it on youtube and decide for yourself. Given this, the nfl chose not to run it because it conflicted with their values. They would rather endorse grown men beating the crap out of each other rather than a man protecting his family protected by the 2nd amendment in a commercial that was not at all offensive. 

    Should the nfl be forced to air this commercial? They are discriminating based on their values. It doesn't matter if those values are based in religion or economics. The nfl has their set of values, and made a decision to not run this ad. The ad didn't conflict with any nfl policy other than it didn't support nfl values. A subjective decision. What's the difference? 

    Should those promoting family and self protection be discriminated against? I can't think of one reason why. The commercial as a whole was probably the most wholesome of American values to ever have a chance to run during the SB. Yet, the nfl chose not to run it and instead would rather promote values that are anything but wholesome. Hippocrites they are. Goodell the biggest one. 

    Another example is that piece of sxxx  governor cuomo of NY. Saying that gun owners and people who believe are against abortion have no place in NY. Yet, those values are protected by the 1st and 2nd amendments. he is openly discriminating. Yet, how is this tolerated?

    you see, discrimination only works one way. It's ok to apply personal values to discriminate as long as it supports the political agenda. 

     

    Refusing to air an ad isn't the same thing as discriminating against individuals based on race, gender, ethnicity, religion, or sexual orientation. 

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    In response to seawolfxs' comment:

    In response to pcmIV's comment:

     



    I don't equate gun ownership with protecting your family.  I think more family members have died from guns than been protected by them, but to each his own.

    I have never seen a study that has said that and if there were we would hav heard it

     

     



    Try this; I can't vouch for the accuracy of their figures, but it accords pretty well with other things I've read about accidental gun deaths.  

    http://nyagv.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Accidental-Shootings-NYAGV.pdf

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to pcmIV's comment:

    In response to PatsLifer's comment:

     

     

    this past SB, the nfl denied Daniel firearms to run a SB commercial. In that commercial was no mention nor showing of ant firearm. It was simply about a man wanting to protect his family. You can see it on youtube and decide for yourself. Given this, the nfl chose not to run it because it conflicted with their values. They would rather endorse grown men beating the crap out of each other rather than a man protecting his family protected by the 2nd amendment in a commercial that was not at all offensive. 

    Should the nfl be forced to air this commercial? They are discriminating based on their values. It doesn't matter if those values are based in religion or economics. The nfl has their set of values, and made a decision to not run this ad. The ad didn't conflict with any nfl policy other than it didn't support nfl values. A subjective decision. What's the difference? 

     

     


    I see this type of argument a lot.  It is silly.  Gun ownership is a choice.  Race, gender, sexuality, age etc. are not.  You lose.

     




    There is no proof sexuality is not a choice. You lose.

     



    Religion's a choice too, but you can't discriminate against people based on their religion either. In other words, if I'm a baker, I can't refuse to sell you a cake because my religion doesn't approve of yours. 

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from expertmike. Show expertmike's posts

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    So I asked two questions and neither have been answered by anyone except to rant about discrimination. Also about being able to discriminate against blacks or other crazy discrimating thoughts.

    the law is about one not trampling on the religious rights of another.

    just like Obamacare is making religious orders carry birth control for their workers. The gov't is trampling upon the religous rights of some groups and that is wrong.

    So two questions both yes or no

    does a baker who is Christian and believes that gay marriage is wrong be made to bake a cake for a gay couple?

    does a Jewish kosher baker have to bake a cake for anyone if the cake required needs un kosher ingredients? 

    [/QUOTE]

    does a baker who is Christian and believes that gay marriage is wrong be made to bake a cake for a gay couple?

    yes.

    does a Jewish kosher baker have to bake a cake for anyone if the cake required needs un kosher ingredients?

    no.

    [/QUOTE]

    Why different answers they are both based upon religious beliefs. So one religion's beliefs iare more important than another.?.??

    [/QUOTE]

    Ha. Why different answers?  Because a Jewish Kosher baker is a member of one of the special groups the courts favor to remedy past discrimination.

    For some real fun, would a Jewish kosher baker be forced to bake a non-kosher cake for a lesbian wedding!   Answer: depends on whether the judge is a Jew or gay.  What is s/he is both!

      

     

     

     

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from expertmike. Show expertmike's posts

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    Actually, the State of Arizona doesn't have a snowballs chance.  Pretty clear violation of existing Federal Law.....

     

            U.S. Code›  Title 42 ›  Chapter 21 ›  Subchapter I › § 1981 42 U.S. Code § 1981 - Equal rights under the law

    Current through Pub. L. 113-65. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)

     

    prev |  NEXT (a)  Statement of equal rights All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions of every kind, and to no other. (b)  “Make and enforce contracts” defined For purposes of this section, the term “make and enforce contracts” includes the making, performance, modification, and termination of contracts, and the enjoyment of all benefits, privileges, terms, and conditions of the contractual relationship. (c)  Protection against impairment The rights protected by this section are protected against impairment by nongovernmental discrimination and impairment under color of State law.  
     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from dreighver. Show dreighver's posts

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    Hey Babe, out of curiosity, when did you come to the decision to be straight? Did you sit down and ponder the various options, and decide that a heterosexual lifestyle was your preference? 

    I think we know what the answer is here, but I fully expect you to avoid the question as it puts your asinine theory (that homosexuals have a choice over their sexuality) to rest. 

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from KyleCleric1. Show KyleCleric1's posts

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    In response to expertmike's comment:

    So I asked two questions and neither have been answered by anyone except to rant about discrimination. Also about being able to discriminate against blacks or other crazy discrimating thoughts.

    the law is about one not trampling on the religious rights of another.

    just like Obamacare is making religious orders carry birth control for their workers. The gov't is trampling upon the religous rights of some groups and that is wrong.

    So two questions both yes or no

    does a baker who is Christian and believes that gay marriage is wrong be made to bake a cake for a gay couple?

    does a Jewish kosher baker have to bake a cake for anyone if the cake required needs un kosher ingredients? 



    does a baker who is Christian and believes that gay marriage is wrong be made to bake a cake for a gay couple?

    yes.

    does a Jewish kosher baker have to bake a cake for anyone if the cake required needs un kosher ingredients?

    no.



    Why different answers they are both based upon religious beliefs. So one religion's beliefs iare more important than another.?.??



  • Ha. Why different answers?  Because a Jewish Kosher baker is a member of one of the special groups the courts favor to remedy past discrimination.

    For some real fun, would a Jewish kosher baker be forced to bake a non-kosher cake for a lesbian wedding!   Answer: depends on whether the judge is a Jew or gay.  What is s/he is both!

      

     

     

     




    The service that a kosher baker provides is a kosher cake not cake in general.

    But as an aside, you can't bake an unkosher cake in a kosher kitchen without making the kitchen unkosher. Also you can't bake a kosher cake in an unkosher kitchen.

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from KyleCleric1. Show KyleCleric1's posts

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    It's not an impingement on ones religious beliefs to provide services to others who do things that aren't in line with the original persons religious beliefs. It is an impingement of ones market/economic rights to be refused services in the marketplace because of religious beliefs of vendors.

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from dreighver. Show dreighver's posts

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    In response to KyleCleric1's comment:

    It's not an impingement on ones religious beliefs to provide services to others who do things that aren't in line with the original persons religious beliefs. It is an impingement of ones market/economic rights to be refused services in the marketplace because of religious beliefs of vendors.



    THIS ^ +1

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    In response to KyleCleric1's comment:

    It's not an impingement on ones religious beliefs to provide services to others who do things that aren't in line with the original persons religious beliefs. It is an impingement of ones market/economic rights to be refused services in the marketplace because of religious beliefs of vendors.




    If the service was fixing a gay person's furnace for instance, that would be true. But a service directly involved with an act which goes against a person's religious beliefs is an infringement on their right to practice their religion.

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from BostonSportsFan111. Show BostonSportsFan111's posts

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    What if the vendor has a steady stream of repeat customers who all belong to the same church and who all hold the same beliefs? Is it OK that their reputation could be (rightly or wrongly) damaged to their steady customers by being forced to vend to a customer who does not live by the same beliefs? What if their business suffered considerably due to this? 

    Another hypothetical. A number of years ago a (straight) woman I worked with was getting married. She brought in the pictures of her bachellorette party, which included a cake in the shape of a large African American phallis. Should a baker (either kosher or not) be forced to bake a cake in this manner if it goes against their moral beliefs just because someone requests it?

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from dreighver. Show dreighver's posts

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    In response to BostonSportsFan111's comment:

    Another hypothetical. A number of years ago a (straight) woman I worked with was getting married. She brought in the pictures of her bachellorette party, which included a cake in the shape of a large African American phallis. Should a baker (either kosher or not) be forced to bake a cake in this manner if it goes against their moral beliefs just because someone requests it?

    Apples to oranges... Really no comparison to be drawn... At all.

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from KyleCleric1. Show KyleCleric1's posts

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to KyleCleric1's comment:

    It's not an impingement on ones religious beliefs to provide services to others who do things that aren't in line with the original persons religious beliefs. It is an impingement of ones market/economic rights to be refused services in the marketplace because of religious beliefs of vendors.



    If the service was fixing a gay person's furnace for instance, that would be true. But a service directly involved with an act which goes against a person's religious beliefs is an infringement on their right to practice their religion.



    Like what?

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from KyleCleric1. Show KyleCleric1's posts

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    In response to BostonSportsFan111's comment:

    What if the vendor has a steady stream of repeat customers who all belong to the same church and who all hold the same beliefs? Is it OK that their reputation could be (rightly or wrongly) damaged to their steady customers by being forced to vend to a customer who does not live by the same beliefs? What if their business suffered considerably due to this? 

    Another hypothetical. A number of years ago a (straight) woman I worked with was getting married. She brought in the pictures of her bachellorette party, which included a cake in the shape of a large African American phallis. Should a baker (either kosher or not) be forced to bake a cake in this manner if it goes against their moral beliefs just because someone requests it?




    As to the first paragraph, you can't refuse service because of who that person is. I don't see how that serving someone who you should serve will hurt your business.

    As for the second paragraph, it's a question of taste, not a question of religion. I'm pretty sure that you don't need to bake **** cakes if you don't bake **** cakes.

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from TFB12. Show TFB12's posts

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    In response to DeadAhead2's comment:

    In response to NEGAME2's comment:

    In response to NOISE's comment:

    SB is in Glendale next year, this would be only reason for me to go!  Lol




    omg didn't realize that--bet Goodall is on the phone right now threatening to have location moved unless the governor veto's.



    Are you serious?




    LMAO!!!

    LOOKS LIKE NEGAME WAS CORRECT!

    That's the way you own Rusty, folks! Another forum member taking him to the woodshed! LOL!!

    http://www.sportingnews.com/nfl/story/2014-02-25/super-bowl-arizona-anti-gay-law-discrimination-deny-service-nfl-change-site-game-location

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    In response to BostonSportsFan111's comment:

     

    Another hypothetical. A number of years ago a (straight) woman I worked with was getting married. She brought in the pictures of her bachellorette party, which included a cake in the shape of a large African American phallis. Should a baker (either kosher or not) be forced to bake a cake in this manner if it goes against their moral beliefs just because someone requests it?



    Hmmm . . . as long as the phallus was circumcised, I think it's kosher . . .  Wink

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from KyleCleric1. Show KyleCleric1's posts

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    In response to BostonSportsFan111's comment:

     

    Another hypothetical. A number of years ago a (straight) woman I worked with was getting married. She brought in the pictures of her bachellorette party, which included a cake in the shape of a large African American phallis. Should a baker (either kosher or not) be forced to bake a cake in this manner if it goes against their moral beliefs just because someone requests it?



    Hmmm . . . as long as the phallus was circumcised, I think it's kosher . . .  Wink



    Well, it would also need to be blessed.

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to Sobchack's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    I think some here erroneously think gay marriage is universally accepted and the US is dragging their feet. It isn't.

    Yeah, Canada is the world's leading gay marriage haven. (All 33 million of them [the city of Tokyo has a larger population than Canada.]).

    Let's all follow their brilliant way. Because they matter so much.

    (Gay marriage allowed in dark blue areas.)

     

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/44/World_marriage-equality_laws.svg/800px-World_marriage-equality_laws.svg.png

     



    What's interesting is what's completely grey in that chart: 3rd world nations;  Islamic republics and countries governed by Islamic law, totalitarian nations like China, Russia, and N. Korea; and for some odd reason, Japan.  

    I bet you dollars to donuts, Japan will start turning a shade of blue sooner than later.  

    Hurry up and get you rear end over to Uganda.  All is good there.  Gays are executed as capital criminals.  You can even start your own photography biz and never have to worry about same-sex couples as customers; they'll either be killed, in jail, or in hiding.




    Hate to break it to you, but only the dark blue allow gay marriage. It is a small minority.

     



    Hate to break it to you, but the places that are in blue are most of the world's free and prosperous nations.  The other places are, to a large degree, third world nations, many led by repressive regimes.  Maybe that's a hint about what real, meaningful freedom is about. 




    Really? Canada has a paltry 33 million persons, and they are by far the true champions of gay marriage. Only parts of the US allow gay marriage. A few European countries allow it. A few SA countries allow it.

    BY FAR, most of the world's population doesn't allow it. India and China alone dwarf the number of persons in countries that allow gay marriage.

    It's hilarious that a few clowns cannot even accept a simple map and admit the truth of it, because you are such hos to your agenda.

     
  • Sections
    Shortcuts

    Share