Pope Francis backs same-sex civil unions
- Thread starter Frankl
- Start date
- Status
stevevw
inquisitive
First once again I clarified that it may not be happening in churches at this stage so you are asking me to support something I have already said may not be happening. In post #794 I replied to your post
Kylie said:
I'm not aware of any church in Australia that has been forced to perform a same sex marriage ceremony if they didn't want to.
Stevevw said:
It may not be the church itself at the moment but we are seeing the priests themselves and any associated entity of the church like Church owned buildings, schools, and reception venues being forced to hold same sex marriages, ceremonies, and receptions. I cannot see the difference as they all belong to the church and are extensions of the church and therefore the same religious rights should apply. It seems only a matter of time that the same logic be applied to the church itself.
Second forcing someone to go along or perform with SSM doesnt mean they have to actually perform or go along with the actual ceremony. It also means being put in a situation where they have no choice but to perform SSM otherwise if they dont they suffer consequences. IE go along with SSM or else. So if they choose to not go along and are then fined, disciplined, sacked, resign, suffer damages or close their service down as a result then they have been forced to go along with SSM. Even the articles agree with this interpretation.IE
Ohio minister says county law forces her to perform same-sex weddings
I’m simply asking that my county also respect me, my business, and my freedoms as an American citizen instead of forcing me to write or speak messages that contradict my beliefs.”
Ohio minister says county law forces her to perform same-sex weddings
Idaho Ministers Forced to Officiate Gay Weddings
“Many have denied that pastors would ever be forced to perform ceremonies that are completely at odds with their faith, but that’s what is happening here
Idaho Ministers Forced to Officiate Gay Weddings | Snopes.com
Third I have provided examples of religious entities already as shown above and in other posts being forced to conform to SSM. All your trying to do is deny this by claiming the evdience doesnt fit what you say it should fit. But the fact is its happening.
But despite saying it may not be happening in the church at this stage I still provided evidence that in some cases it is happening in the Church. In fact in one of my examples you even agreed that it was close to supporting my claim IE Kylie said in post #814
This is the only example where you have anything close to a legitimate argument, and the person you are criticising is not the government, nor atheists, but the Presiding Bishop who runs the church in question.
What is your complaint that its its not a 100% support for my claim. You say the government or atheists are not forcing Bishop Love but the Church boss is and that somehow means Bishop Love has no rights. But this is irrelevant because it doesnt matter if the source comes from inside or outside the church. The fact is the Bishop is being forced into performing SSM against his conscience. That is the real issue.
The fact he resigned to avoid having to go along doesnt deminish the fact he was being forced to go along. Its about a denial of being able to follow ones conscience which is a human right. The fact the church is doing it is makes it even worse.
So either way your claim I havent provided one example is false.
The facts are I have provided evidence. But lets look at the bigger picture because that is the real issue. Do you honestly believe that no one is being denied their religious rights to freely express their beliefs and follow their conscience.
My complaint is that when the marriage equality Bill came out many religious entities expressed their concern about there being inadequate measures to protect religious freedom and that people were using scare tactics by even bring this up just as you are doing. Now that the law has been changed we are seeing many examples of people’s religious rights being denied. So the concern about religious freedoms being denied was justified.
It seems now that I am giving examples and making an issue of this you want to do exactly what people did when the laws were being changed which is to pretend it isn’t happening. So if anyone is creating a false scenario and reality it is you and people like you who deny religious entities are being denied their rights. If we look at all the stories and examples I have linked it is definitly happening and will only continue to happen. Trying to restrict the evdience it is happening down to some strict criteria you want to hold it too doesnt change that.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Speedwell
Well-Known Member
- May 11, 2016
- 23,928
- 17,625
- 81
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Other Religion
- Marital Status
- Married
You need to vet your sources a little better. This old chestnut completely misrepresents what actually happened--basically it's a lie created to whip up anti-gay hysteria. The Hitching Post was a private wedding chapel run by a mail-order minister as a commercial business. When he refused to marry gay couples, noise started to be made about it. The Coeur d'Alene city attorney told the minister that as a commercial operation he was bound by public accommodation laws and could be subject to legal action if he refused to marry gays but that if he reorganized his business as a church the problem would go away--and that's what happened; the problem went away.
Upvote
0
Kylie
Defeater of Illogic
And I asked you to provide an example of any such case and you couldn't.
(Also, I don't get your logic here. You say you never claimed that it may not be happening right now, yet you clearly did claim that churches were being forced to have the priests and/or church-owned buildings, schools, reception venues, etc being used. And don't tell me that's different, because you said, and I quote, "I cannot see the difference..."
And you couldn't give an example of that either, because the cases you mentioned all found in favour of the church, didn't they?
She isn't being forced to do anything. Facing lawsuit, Ohio county agrees not to force minister to officiate, write for same-sex weddings
Did you even read your own source?
The law they claim would force them to perform SSM doesn't even apply to them! The article also makes it very clear that they have not faced the threat of any legal action due to their refusal to perform SSM at all.
No. I said that churches are not being forced to hold SSM against their will. If the church in question decides that they will, then they are not being forced to against their will.
No one is being forced to change their views on SSM.
We have not seen any cases of peoples' religious freedoms being denied.
Your examples don't show what you claim they show.
I'm waiting for you to show a single case where the government has said that a church has to perform a same sex marriage, the church says, "no we don't want to," and the government says, "too bad, you have to do it anyway."
Upvote
0
stevevw
inquisitive
According to the latest update on the case the City ended up paying the owners of the Hitching Post compensation for the time they had been closed. So it looks like there is conflicting information being passed on. At the end of the day as far as I understand it from lawyers that even if they were a for profit privately owned business they should still have the right to refuse to perform SSM under the constitution and Human rights. This has been the case with other businesses who have won their case such as Phillips with the Wedding Cake case.
Coeur d'Alene settles Hitching Post Chapel lawsuit
Coeur d'Alene settles Hitching Post Chapel lawsuit | krem.com
Upvote
0
stevevw
inquisitive
That depends what you mean by won. The real question should be why are Christians being attacked and taken to court or threatened to be taken to court and persecuted causing suffering whether they lose or win. If they have a right to religious freedom and to follow their conscience then why cause all this suffering in the first place. The fact that you ask the question as to why should I or anyone else complain is the problem. You can't even see that there is a problem.
Upvote
0
Speedwell
Well-Known Member
- May 11, 2016
- 23,928
- 17,625
- 81
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Other Religion
- Marital Status
- Married
Why should Christians be exempt from the consequences of their public acts? When a person believes he has been harmed in some way by the behavior of another, it is often appropriate to seek relief in the courts. Should a Christian be out of his reach? Should Christians be exempt from criticism or social pressure that everyone else must face? How should a Christian resolve the conflict between his values and those of the larger society?
Upvote
0
stevevw
inquisitive
They are not all public acts. What a private school or business does is their business. They descriminate all the time regarding what sort of b usiness or organisation they want to carry out. The question should be according to the right to follow your conscience why should someone be made to follow or express something that their conscience is against. Why make someone write celebratory vows or create a Tshirt celebrating SSM when they fundelmentally oppose it. If someone asked a gay business person to create a cake promoting traditional marriage would they be forced to do it. Would they have the right to say no.
Well yes a Christian should not be attacked and taken to court if they have a constitutional and human right to express their belief and follow their conscience. Just as some of the courts have found in favour of those being accused that the reason they chose not to accommodate the request from gay couples was not about hatred of them but that the request would require them to partipate, create and celebrate something that fundelmentally went against their conscience. The courts agrred and to force a person to go against their conscience like that is nothing short of a totalititarianism. Something we see regimes like North Korea do in forcing people up before the camera to read out something that the person does not believe.
The problem is the way the Marriage laws have been changed was done wrong. SSM could have been accommodated in other ways where the traditional meaning of marriage was upheld. Both forms of mariage could have been supported and then there would not have been this problem of a continual confliect between the two positions.
But as a result people are being attacked simply for holding the belief and view of traditional marriage between a man and a women. Now a doctor, minister, priest or citizen only has to mention they believe traditional marriage which is an idea that has been supported by believers and non-believers for 100s of years up until 5 years ago across a whole variety of cultures and times, is increasingly becoming a truth which cannot be spoken.
I suspect it is still widely supported by many are afraid to acknowledge it. In fact it has many similarities to the gender/transgender ideology about claiming that there is only a man and women. Its part of the same ideology that wants to dismantle the traditional family, male and femals, mothers and fathers, boys and girls which is the foundation of any strong society.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Kylie
Defeater of Illogic
So I take it from the section that I have bolded that you are dropping your claim that churches are being forced to perform SSM against their wishes?
Of course, the trouble is that Christians do not have a monopoly on marriage. There are many kinds of non-Christian marriage out there, both secular and religious. It's a violation of separation of church and state to claim that marriage must mean the Christian definition.
They have freedom of speech, which means that if someone believes that marriage should only be between a man and a woman, they have the right to say so. But that same freedom of speech means that anyone else can listen to what they say and then call them out on it. People have freedom of speech. They do not have freedom from consequences of that speech.
Again with the fearmongering. No one is trying to dismantle the "traditional family" of a mother, father, and kids. People are just starting to understand that there are many different ways a family can be, and they are calling out the people who are saying, "No, it can only be this way!"
Remember, it can still be the way it has always been. It's just that now we are realising that the way it has always been isn't the only way it can be.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Speedwell
Well-Known Member
- May 11, 2016
- 23,928
- 17,625
- 81
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Other Religion
- Marital Status
- Married
Yes, they should be taken to court. Under the law, the exact boundaries of religious freedoms are determined in the courts. "following my conscience" is not a get out of it card. If a Christian discriminates, say, in violation of the law he will be brought to court just like a non-Christian and there is no reason why he shouldn't be. "You can't charge me with discrimination--I'm a Christian." So what?
So it looks like the boundaries are being determined.
The state authorizes only one kind of marriage--and have extended it to gays. It is a purely civil arrangement which does not change or interfere with any traditional practices within your faith group. Christians don't own the term "marriage" and cannot define for others what it means.
Upvote
0
stevevw
inquisitive
But the law also states
Human Rights Article 9: Freedom of thought, conscience and religion
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching practice and observance.
The First Amendment guarantees freedoms concerning religion, expression, assembly, and the right to petition. It forbids Congress from both promoting one religion over others and also restricting an individual's religious practices.
If thats the case why do they keep bringing people before the courts for the same issues that have already been determined. PLus the issue had been determined well before anyone was taken to court in the First Amendment and Human Rights.
Yet the redefining of marriage has now made it it line with gays and in doing so has discounted traditional marriage. Now traditional marriage is regarded as illegal to promote and to an increasing number is a form of bigotry.
Upvote
0
stevevw
inquisitive
That particular post you highlighted is about a specific example where the outcome supported the religion and believers to not have to go along with SSM. But there are many cases where the people have been forced to conform and have had to close down or stop that part of their service.
But what I am finding contradictory and a bit of a red herring is your insistence on continually making the church the only place where this is happening. In fact the above example is not even about a church which shows how little you are paying attention or perhaps your recognition that it is happening beyond the church.
Like I said it may not be happening in the church itself at the moment but is more likely happening to the fringe elements of religious services and the representatives of religions which I have provided ample example sof. It is through these areas is where religious freedoms will be denied which will eventually impact on the church.
No one is saying that Christian marriage should be the only marriage available. But what your failing to see is that with the current laws and definition changes has more or less made traditional marriage illegal. That is why many supporters of traditional marriage including non-religious ones were opposed to the way the changes happened. They predicted that these attacks on traditional marriage would happen and no one listened and now we are seeing it happening on a regular basis.
Yes I agree that people can expect disagreement and name calling under free speech but not actions that destroy lives and deny people to live with their beliefs. As I said in todays PC environment even expressing that you support traditional marriage is not being allowed by more and more people and outlets and this can lead to people losing privileges, being demoted, closed down, losing benefits, being attacked on social media , threatened and even getting sacked IE
A long serving Fire Chief was sacked for simply writing a book on his life as a fire fighter and happened to mention his beliefs on traditional marriage. Talk about denying free speech. He was awarded damages but the damage had already been done.
Atlanta to pay $1.2 million to former fire chief after firing him, violating his First Amendment freedoms
And you say that no one is denying free speech and its another scare tactic. These example sure tell a different story.
Family First stripped of charity status
Simply for their belief about traditional families. “It appears that certain views of marriage and family are now deemed out-of-bounds by the State.
Family First stripped of charity status | Family First NZ
Many adoption agencies in Britain and the US have been forced to close because of their traditional beliefs about the family and that a child should be placed with a mother and father.
https://www.ag.gov.au/sites/default/files/2020-05/equality-tasmania_0.pdf
Company that 'fired' woman for saying 'it's OK to vote no' may have broken law
So a women simply was expressing her views that traditional marriage is ok and her boss fired her because she says that anyone expressing support for traditional marriage is being descriminating and hateful. This is clear evidence that people cannot even express their beliefs without being penalized.
Company that 'fired' woman for saying 'it's OK to vote no' may have broken law
A church gets threats that it will be burnt down simply for expressing their belief on a billboard defending the definition of marriage as a union between one man and one woman.
Evangelical Church Threatened With Being Set on Fire Amid LGBT Outrage at Marriage Billboard
I mean even a Superman Comic writer has his editions edited out of history for merely expressing his views supporting traditional marriage. What next.
Superman Comic Writer Edited Out of Series for Support of Traditional Marriage
Move against Archbishop Porteous ‘astonishing’ and ‘alarming’: Archbishop Fisher
Archbishop Anthony Fisher OP has denounced as “astonishing” and “alarming” the prospect of a Catholic bishop being dragged before a tribunal simply for stating the Catholic view on marriage, suggesting that it would constitute a betrayal of freedoms long valued in Australian democracy.
Move against Archbishop Porteous 'astonishing' and 'alarming': Archbishop Fisher | The Catholic Weekly
Similarly, media outlets such as The Guardian Australia openly refused to publish opinions from traditional marriage proponents about the consequences of same-sex marriage. Hence, the outlet adopted the curious view that legislating for same-sex marriage carried no consequences except for those its editors gave their personal blessing. https://www.theguardian.com/austral...-spurious-arguments-against-marriage-equality
Universities with more traditional positions on marriage and sexuality have been denied accreditation
https://xtramagazine.com/power/trinity-western-to-sue-after-being-denied-accreditation-60463
Printers refuse to print book simply becuase it supports traditional marriage
“This is the first time that a publisher has refused a book on ideological grounds.
Log into Facebook
A doctor was forced out of his potion on the Victorian Equal Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission because he supports traditional families.
Why because of his support for traditional families in that a child with a mother an father does better
Doctor quits rights board after same-sex row
Subpoenas for Sermons in Houston Draw Outrage
The City of Houston even wanted to subpoena priests to check on their sermons to control their speech on what they can and cannot say regarding their marriage. Talk about a denial of free speech and Nazi like behaviour.
Subpoenas for Sermons in Houston Draw Outrage
People and businesses have also experienced intimidation, boycotts and even death threats for their traditional views. This has included university academics, corporate employees, businesses, concerned mothers, and lobby groups. Governments have also been willing to donate to proponents of same-sex marriage and provide other benefits (such as flying rainbow flags) while denying any such support for opponents of change.
Without proper protections, same-sex marriage will discriminate against conscientious objectors
In several European countries state and even church schools must now teach homosexuality amongst the range of options for children. Religious leaders, such as the Chief Rabbi of Amsterdam, have been sacked for daring to differ. In Spain same-sex lobby groups want to prosecute a bishop for hate speech after he preached in favour of Catholic teaching on marriage.
Truth, marriage and the threat to religious liberty
A society that holds the right of same-sex couples to “marry” on par with that of opposite-sex couples cannot tolerate the presence of those who defend the traditional definition of marriage exclusively. It simply isn’t possible. Whenever we deal with “rights” in this way, we imply that there’s something intrinsic to our humanity at stake. Our rights are, after all, “inalienable” and “endowed by our Creator”. If someone denies one of those “rights” – however trivial it may seem – it inevitably appears grossly offensive. It denies part of our humanity.
Sweden to Force Priests to Perform Same-sex Marriage
So it should be abundantly clear now that traditional views on marriage and the family are now becoming a taboo topic in a PC society. Not because many people have abandoned these long held ideas which most people have lived by since time began and still conform to them but because people are too scared to proclaim their support under threat from activists and radical leftist governments. This will continue and eat into the inner sanctions of religious space just like the Trans ideology is eating into the inner sanctions of women’s space.
Then you are very naive. The above examples are just a small portion of what is happening. Think about it. If its now law that the definition of marriage is between two people then promoting marriage as between a male and female is opposing that law.
It will therefore be seen as discriminatory because it doesn’t include same sex couples. That is why people (well activists and those on the radical left) are attacking the traditional position and why they were so opposed to these changes. As mentioned above by legal; experts both SSM and traditional marriage cannot co-exist under the present laws "it simply isn’t possible" so one has to go. At the moment it appears to be the traditional one.
I really don’t think you are thinking this through and are being realistic. It would be nice if it was that way but it hasn’t been that way for many and I can only see it getting worse. Many traditionalist will have their lives made hard, will be excluded, and their position becoming increasingly untenable.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Speedwell
Well-Known Member
- May 11, 2016
- 23,928
- 17,625
- 81
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Other Religion
- Marital Status
- Married
Correct. And that is exactly what is happening. Giving Christians a pass on complying with public accommodation and discrimination laws would violate the 1st Amendment.
Cases vary in details and the laws in question are often state and local and must be tried locally.
The issue is not determined until it is taken to court. The court is where it will be determined whether you have violated public accommodation or discrimination laws. You can't just declare yourself not guilty because you're a Christian.
That is so wrong and disconnected from reality that I can't even call it a fib.
Upvote
0
Bradskii
Can you tell a green field from a cold steel rail?
- Aug 19, 2018
- 15,989
- 10,864
- 71
- Country
- Australia
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Married
I think that you mean 'the current Christian view as to what is a traditional marriage'. Don't restrict the debate to definitions that only apply to you (and others that hold the same views). 'Traditional marriage' is a moveable feast. A term that changes with the ages, with geography and with personal interpretation. Always has been. I reject your claim to it.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
stevevw
inquisitive
There is a few problems with associating traditional marriage only with the Christian position. If you look up the definition of traditional marriage you will find it is between a man and women which is the same as the Christian definition. This definition has been well recognised in western cultures for 100's or years by both Christians and non-Christians. I think when you say traditional marriage you are not just talking about the Christian definition but also politically a conservative one. It more or less is a universal meaning.
An interesting point one of the Judges in the Supreme Court in the Obergfell v. Hodges Judge Kennedy said 'This definition (of traditional marriage) has been with us for millennia'.
The decenting Judges supporting traditional marriage in the DOMA hearing also said
marriage and family is an ancient universal human institution. Justice Roberts said that DOMA defends a definition of marriage which has been adopted by every state in our nation and every nation in the world for virtually all of human history. They added that we do not know the long term consequences of this radical new experiment in marriage and family."
So it is well recognised and been around for a long time.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
stevevw
inquisitive
Not allowing a person the freedom to follow their conscience is also a violation of the 1st Amendment and human rights. It’s funny how you only see one side of the rights issue. Seems there’s a bit of bias there.
The Constitution already states that people have religious freedom rights so we don't need to continually have some unelected Judge determining things. It’s a simple fact that a person has the right to freedom of conscience and religion regardless of discrimination laws. The courts already decided it. It’s also a violation of free speech when someone tries to force a person to write pro SSM ideas and message IE forced speech. That’s already been established.
Forcing Phillips to make custom wedding cakes for same-sex marriages requires him to, at the very least, acknowledge that same-sex weddings are “weddings” and suggest that they should be celebrated—the precise message he believes his faith forbids. The First Amendment prohibits Colorado from requiring Phillips to “bear witness to [these] fact,” Hurley, 515 U. S., at 574, or to “affir[m] . . . a belief with which [he] disagrees,” id., at 573 (ibid, at 8)
https://lawandreligionaustralia.blog/2018/06/05/colorado-wedding-cake-baker-wins-before-us-supreme-court/
It’s not about being a Christian. The people involved could be any religion. The point is they are protected under the 1st Amendment as stated above. It should not have to be continually rehashed with the same situations which have been happening.
The problem is unelected Judges personal opinions should not be determining these issues because it should be the people. That is what the Constitution was there for. There have been a number of cases where Judges have been biased and hostile towards religion. For example in the same case linked above Judge Kennedy pointed out
In Masterpiece, the court ruled 7-2 that Colorado had shown an unconstitutional anti-religious animus toward Jack Phillips of Masterpiece Cake shop when it punished him for refusing to make a cake for a gay wedding.
“To describe a man's faith as 'one of the most despicable pieces of rhetoric that people can use' is to disparage his religion in at least two distinct ways: by describing it as despicable, and also by characterizing it as merely rhetorical—something insubstantial and even insincere,” wrote Justice Anthony Kennedy for the majority in Masterpiece.
“This sentiment is inappropriate for a Commission charged with the solemn responsibility of fair and neutral enforcement of Colorado's anti-discrimination law—a law that protects discrimination on the basis of religion as well as sexual orientation.”
Colorado Wedding Cake Baker wins before US Supreme Court
So it’s hard for many to trust even the Courts. But this is a reflection of the overall sentiment against religion in society today. This will continue and even to the point where religious intuitions and people will be persecuted. It’s actually already happening.
Then you must be living on another planet to myself and many others and even legal experts and judges themselves. IE
I think this article explains the best about what’s really going on and why it means that traditional marriage is now a position that is untenable for their supporters.
The heart of the issue, I argued (as did many others), was about redefining marriage, creating an entirely new legal paradigm as a union between two adults, regardless of their gender. Therefore, any citizen, small business, or religious organization whose beliefs, traditions, morals or ethics were at odds with this new legal definition, would find themselves outside of the law. They would likely be subject to legal consequences unless they were willing to comply with the new legal orthodoxy on marriage. “The LGBT radicals are determined not merely to achieve ‘tolerance’ and ‘acceptance’ – they will brook no dissent whatsoever: anyone who believes in marriage as the union of one man and one woman must be silenced pushed from the public square.
Rabid leftists want to end tax-exempt status for churches
These are comments from the Judges holding the majority opinion and the dissenting Judges in the Marriage Law changes in the US Supreme Court about how they see what effects the change will have. The majority opinion claim that the change to the Marriage laws is a standalone ruling and it will have no effect on religious freedom and those who support traditional marriage.
But in reality as the dissenting Judges point out the change will be used to claim that anyone proclaiming traditional marriage would be harming the dignity of same sex marriage supporters. Therefore proclaiming traditional marriage is illegal as far as the rights of SSM supporters. .
"Finally, according to the majority opinion, this is a singular ruling that stands on its own. Whereas the dissent said that no one should be fooled. It is only a matter of time before the other shoe drops and this opinion becomes enshrined in constitutional law, and that anyone who opposes same sex marriage will be seen as an enemy of human decency," he said "This ruling, said the dissent, will be used to claim that the traditional definition of marriage has the purpose and effect to disparage and injure the person and dignity of same sex couples."
'Inevitability of Same-Sex Marriage' Is a Choice We Can Reject
And it is a logical conclusion when you think about it. Just look at all the examples where people, businesses and organisations that even have a religious basis are attacked, threatened by governments and other authorities and litigated. I mean just proclaiming you support traditional marriage now can lead to getting the sack and losing sponsors, tax exemptions, dangerous threats, reputations damaged.
Yet it’s funny how none of these acts amount to discrimination. I would have thought that if someone was denied a service just because they support traditional marriage then that would be similar to denying a service for someone who supports SSM. Yet the same doesn’t apply in many cases and people are happy to remain silent on this. It seems a little hypocritical to me.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Speedwell
Well-Known Member
- May 11, 2016
- 23,928
- 17,625
- 81
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Other Religion
- Marital Status
- Married
That's really over the top, but I have to admit if it was true it would be hard not to take some pleasure in seeing religious conservatives being handed back what they have been dishing out for so many years.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
