What's new
US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

CDZ Christian wedding photographer sues-NY over nondiscrimination law

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
67,006
Reaction score
3,667
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.

Thomas Jefferson

Again, a non-argument.
You are simply ignorant of the argument but still want to be taken as seriously as the "gospel Truth" simply because you are on the right wing.
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
67,006
Reaction score
3,667
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
Everyone has social views. It just you have to be civil about it in public because rights do not exist solely for one person in a public venue.

What rights are being violated if a business owner refuses service to someone?
The consumer's First Amendment rights in public not private accommodation.
 

dblack

Platinum Member
Joined
May 21, 2011
Messages
39,107
Reaction score
5,981
Points
1,130

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
67,006
Reaction score
3,667
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
Everyone has social views. It just you have to be civil about it in public because rights do not exist solely for one person in a public venue.

What rights are being violated if a business owner refuses service to someone?
The consumer's First Amendment rights in public not private accommodation.

Can you formulate that into an intelligible sentence?
Can you stop resorting to ad hominems?
 

dblack

Platinum Member
Joined
May 21, 2011
Messages
39,107
Reaction score
5,981
Points
1,130
Everyone has social views. It just you have to be civil about it in public because rights do not exist solely for one person in a public venue.

What rights are being violated if a business owner refuses service to someone?
The consumer's First Amendment rights in public not private accommodation.

Can you formulate that into an intelligible sentence?
Can you stop resorting to ad hominems?
I'll take that as a "No, I'm far too stoned to think or express myself in a coherent fashion."
 

Kilroy2

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2018
Messages
3,270
Reaction score
775
Points
140
" Dictators Wanting It Both Ways "

* Valid Standards Have Definite Rules *

Discrimination can be proven if you post or say that certain races, sex, religion, etc are not welcomed and will not be provided any service.
Prove where discrimination violates non violence principles .

* Contract Work Versus Enslavement *
Because someone disagree with same sex lifestyle is not a valid reason to not provide service if your a business open to the general public.
What is the left wing position where the wedding party has decided to deck themselves out in nazi memorabilia ?

Prove where discrimination violates non violence principles

what is your point? discrimination is not always about violence.

What is the left wing position where the wedding party has decided to deck themselves out in nazi memorabilia ?

what is the right wing position on nazi memorabilia?
 

Kilroy2

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2018
Messages
3,270
Reaction score
775
Points
140
Well the issues is she wants to post "no same sex wedding policy" on her website. So the issue appears what she wants to post and not they are wanting her to post same sex wedding pictures.

I would say that there is no need for her to post such a policy. It is discrimination. Does she have the right to refuse to accept a job from a same sex couple. In my opinion yes. She could overcharge them or just tell them that it is a problem for her because of her beliefs. I cannot believe anyone who is planning a wedding would not just walk away from her business. They are not going to try and maker her do it.

It seems they are trying to frame the argument in such a way that it sounds really bad

They have made others do it "or else" in other cases.

NY's law is more than likely far more restrictive because NY is currently 100% controlled by progressives.

from the lawsuit that was filed

Specifically, New York laws require Emilee to create photographs and blogs celebrating same-sex marriage because she creates photographs and blogs celebrating opposite-sex marriage. The laws also prohibit Emilee from adopting an editorial policy consistent with her beliefs about marriage. And the laws even make it illegal for Emilee to post statements on her business’s own website explaining her religious views on marriage or her reasons for only creating this wedding content. N.Y. Exec. Law § 296.2(a) (forbidding statements that someone’s “patronage” is “unwelcome, objectionable or not accepted, desired, or solicited”).

The key is her editorial policy vs the law which forbids statements that discriminate

now I do not believe that the law requires her to place on her website pictures celebrating same sex marriage

yes it does forbid statements placed on her website that ays she will not create her art based on discrimination.

The lawsuit continues to say that

Emilee faces these risks each day she runs her company. She has already declined to respond to several requests to photograph same-sex weddings.

And New York has already punished other business owners for holding Emilee’s beliefs about marriage

It does seem that they did nothing to her based on that statement.

this is an effort to remove the gender identification issues from the law and they are using her as the poster girl for this effort. I really like to see what did they do that caused her to file this lawsuit other than limit overt statements of discrimination. This law provides discrimination on race. Does that mean she has to have pictures of Asians, Hispanics, Blacks, Indians, etc, etc

So if a couple does ask her to take photos and she says no and says that because they are same sex she will not do it. yeah there might be a problem if they push it.

To me she is being bankrolled by others who want to challenge the same sex issue

Emilee Carpenter Photography v. James - Complaint.pdf (adflegal.org)

To me this is an issues of can you be overt about it and deny someone based on discrimination of sex, race, religion. etc. Making this an issues because of beliefs of a wedding photographer is a publicity stunt

There would be no need for this "publicity stunt" if people weren't pushed to do things they don't want to do.

The second the activists find out someone has a religious objection to SSM, they get flooded with requests for such services to create complaints.


Maybe but is there a easier way to handle it.

other than to state the obvious reason for not handling it. She operates a business. There are other less obvious ways to turn down a request other than just says it against my religion. IF they flood the business then it is up to the flooder to prove discrimination.

ultimately she filed the lawsuit claiming religious beliefs as the basis. The first part of the lawsuit goes into her artistic feelings about her art.

Why should a person have to lie in a free society?

Well free society does sound nice but in reality a society is never totally free. When people have different opinions then you should be able to express them. In order to keep it civil any society has laws which has to limit that freedom.

When two freedom clash which one is the incorrect one or are they both the right ones?

Free for who, that is the question? Does a free society go both ways? I can accept her desire to not want to do it but she should do it in a non confrontational manner. So, yeah in a free society is is sometimes easier just to lie if it is for a good reason and avoiding hurting the other person or to avoid confrontation.

Still to lie in order to spare someone feeling is not that bad.

What is more burdensome, a Same sex couple having to find another baker or photographer, or a baker or photographer having to go against their moral code or face either tens or hundreds of thousands in fines or damages, or leaving the trade/profession they desire?

The PA laws put into place to fight racial discrimination weren't about hurt feelings, they were about removing systemic economic discrimination, of which things like lunch counters and water fountains were symptoms of the greater issue, not the greater issue themselves.

The problem we have is one side doesn't accept anything but total capitulation.

How about just saying "I am busy" instead of posting on your website that you do not take photos of same sex marriages. Then recommending another baker or photographer. Instead of bringing a lawsuit for the clear purpose of overturning a law that has been in the books since the 50's. Granted the law was amended to include same sex couple a couple of years ago.

There is no winner in this game. The desired outcome should be understatement on both sides. How about being civil about it and agree to disagree. Allow both sides to go about their business without discrimination. Can people agree that other people also have rights.

Overt discrimination between people should be dealt with. IF the baker or photographer refuses to sell there product based on sex, race, religion or political preference, then that is wrong. Seems to me it would be negative publicity. Granted it could also get them business from like minded people.

She shouldn't have to. Why is there such a need with progressives for 100% compliance OR ELSE with their social views?

Ask the baker in Colorado how far being civil gets you.

Not all states have the same laws.

Colorado has some anti discrimination gender laws but a baker can probably get away with it on the state level.

you ask why should she have to. I can only assume that it is the law in that state. If she doesn't like it then move to another state that does not have that law. There are a few.

The question should be why do people have to be subjected to discrimination?

Everyone has social views. It just you have to be civil about it in public because rights do not exist solely for one person in a public venue.

The Colorado case in question.

Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission - Wikipedia

My question is why should government get involved if the discrimination isn't systemic or government mandated?

And to me the people suing over this should also be trying to get the courts to specifically define a public accommodation.


well interesting case

The opinion also noted differences in handling previous exemptions as indicative of Commission hostility towards religious belief, rather than maintaining neutrality.[29] Kennedy's opinion noted that he may have been inclined to rule in favor of the Commission if they had remained religiously neutral in their evaluation.[30]

Their opinion is limited and just says that they didn't remain neutral. Saying that the commission was to hostile. So the law itself did not deemed the law wrong but the way this particular case was handled.

State actors like the Colorado Civil Rights Commission on the one hand must ensure neutral and respectful consideration of claims for religious exemptions from anti-discrimination laws which are made by people who exercise their First Amendment right to free exercise of religion.[38][34] However, this exemption won't apply broadly in the future because future disputes like the one in Masterpiece "must be resolved with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs, and without subjecting gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open market."[39] The Supreme Court also specifically made it clear, on the other hand, that gay Americans are also entitled to strong defense rights

My question is why should government get involved if the discrimination isn't systemic or government mandated?

They got involved because a complaint was made. The court definitely side step the issue with saying that the commission must ensure neutral and respectful consideration of claims? So if the commission remain neutral in their decision then the results may have been different.

So is it just an issues of how it handled. The court also suggest tolerance on both sides.

Still the court comment about undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs is vague.

Still the bible does teach tolerance and to respect everyone.
 
OP
martybegan

martybegan

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2010
Messages
57,517
Reaction score
13,898
Points
2,190
Well the issues is she wants to post "no same sex wedding policy" on her website. So the issue appears what she wants to post and not they are wanting her to post same sex wedding pictures.

I would say that there is no need for her to post such a policy. It is discrimination. Does she have the right to refuse to accept a job from a same sex couple. In my opinion yes. She could overcharge them or just tell them that it is a problem for her because of her beliefs. I cannot believe anyone who is planning a wedding would not just walk away from her business. They are not going to try and maker her do it.

It seems they are trying to frame the argument in such a way that it sounds really bad

They have made others do it "or else" in other cases.

NY's law is more than likely far more restrictive because NY is currently 100% controlled by progressives.

from the lawsuit that was filed

Specifically, New York laws require Emilee to create photographs and blogs celebrating same-sex marriage because she creates photographs and blogs celebrating opposite-sex marriage. The laws also prohibit Emilee from adopting an editorial policy consistent with her beliefs about marriage. And the laws even make it illegal for Emilee to post statements on her business’s own website explaining her religious views on marriage or her reasons for only creating this wedding content. N.Y. Exec. Law § 296.2(a) (forbidding statements that someone’s “patronage” is “unwelcome, objectionable or not accepted, desired, or solicited”).

The key is her editorial policy vs the law which forbids statements that discriminate

now I do not believe that the law requires her to place on her website pictures celebrating same sex marriage

yes it does forbid statements placed on her website that ays she will not create her art based on discrimination.

The lawsuit continues to say that

Emilee faces these risks each day she runs her company. She has already declined to respond to several requests to photograph same-sex weddings.

And New York has already punished other business owners for holding Emilee’s beliefs about marriage

It does seem that they did nothing to her based on that statement.

this is an effort to remove the gender identification issues from the law and they are using her as the poster girl for this effort. I really like to see what did they do that caused her to file this lawsuit other than limit overt statements of discrimination. This law provides discrimination on race. Does that mean she has to have pictures of Asians, Hispanics, Blacks, Indians, etc, etc

So if a couple does ask her to take photos and she says no and says that because they are same sex she will not do it. yeah there might be a problem if they push it.

To me she is being bankrolled by others who want to challenge the same sex issue

Emilee Carpenter Photography v. James - Complaint.pdf (adflegal.org)

To me this is an issues of can you be overt about it and deny someone based on discrimination of sex, race, religion. etc. Making this an issues because of beliefs of a wedding photographer is a publicity stunt

There would be no need for this "publicity stunt" if people weren't pushed to do things they don't want to do.

The second the activists find out someone has a religious objection to SSM, they get flooded with requests for such services to create complaints.


Maybe but is there a easier way to handle it.

other than to state the obvious reason for not handling it. She operates a business. There are other less obvious ways to turn down a request other than just says it against my religion. IF they flood the business then it is up to the flooder to prove discrimination.

ultimately she filed the lawsuit claiming religious beliefs as the basis. The first part of the lawsuit goes into her artistic feelings about her art.

Why should a person have to lie in a free society?

Well free society does sound nice but in reality a society is never totally free. When people have different opinions then you should be able to express them. In order to keep it civil any society has laws which has to limit that freedom.

When two freedom clash which one is the incorrect one or are they both the right ones?

Free for who, that is the question? Does a free society go both ways? I can accept her desire to not want to do it but she should do it in a non confrontational manner. So, yeah in a free society is is sometimes easier just to lie if it is for a good reason and avoiding hurting the other person or to avoid confrontation.

Still to lie in order to spare someone feeling is not that bad.

What is more burdensome, a Same sex couple having to find another baker or photographer, or a baker or photographer having to go against their moral code or face either tens or hundreds of thousands in fines or damages, or leaving the trade/profession they desire?

The PA laws put into place to fight racial discrimination weren't about hurt feelings, they were about removing systemic economic discrimination, of which things like lunch counters and water fountains were symptoms of the greater issue, not the greater issue themselves.

The problem we have is one side doesn't accept anything but total capitulation.

How about just saying "I am busy" instead of posting on your website that you do not take photos of same sex marriages. Then recommending another baker or photographer. Instead of bringing a lawsuit for the clear purpose of overturning a law that has been in the books since the 50's. Granted the law was amended to include same sex couple a couple of years ago.

There is no winner in this game. The desired outcome should be understatement on both sides. How about being civil about it and agree to disagree. Allow both sides to go about their business without discrimination. Can people agree that other people also have rights.

Overt discrimination between people should be dealt with. IF the baker or photographer refuses to sell there product based on sex, race, religion or political preference, then that is wrong. Seems to me it would be negative publicity. Granted it could also get them business from like minded people.

She shouldn't have to. Why is there such a need with progressives for 100% compliance OR ELSE with their social views?

Ask the baker in Colorado how far being civil gets you.

Not all states have the same laws.

Colorado has some anti discrimination gender laws but a baker can probably get away with it on the state level.

you ask why should she have to. I can only assume that it is the law in that state. If she doesn't like it then move to another state that does not have that law. There are a few.

The question should be why do people have to be subjected to discrimination?

Everyone has social views. It just you have to be civil about it in public because rights do not exist solely for one person in a public venue.

The Colorado case in question.

Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission - Wikipedia

My question is why should government get involved if the discrimination isn't systemic or government mandated?

And to me the people suing over this should also be trying to get the courts to specifically define a public accommodation.


well interesting case

The opinion also noted differences in handling previous exemptions as indicative of Commission hostility towards religious belief, rather than maintaining neutrality.[29] Kennedy's opinion noted that he may have been inclined to rule in favor of the Commission if they had remained religiously neutral in their evaluation.[30]

Their opinion is limited and just says that they didn't remain neutral. Saying that the commission was to hostile. So the law itself did not deemed the law wrong but the way this particular case was handled.

State actors like the Colorado Civil Rights Commission on the one hand must ensure neutral and respectful consideration of claims for religious exemptions from anti-discrimination laws which are made by people who exercise their First Amendment right to free exercise of religion.[38][34] However, this exemption won't apply broadly in the future because future disputes like the one in Masterpiece "must be resolved with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs, and without subjecting gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open market."[39] The Supreme Court also specifically made it clear, on the other hand, that gay Americans are also entitled to strong defense rights

My question is why should government get involved if the discrimination isn't systemic or government mandated?

They got involved because a complaint was made. The court definitely side step the issue with saying that the commission must ensure neutral and respectful consideration of claims? So if the commission remain neutral in their decision then the results may have been different.

So is it just an issues of how it handled. The court also suggest tolerance on both sides.

Still the court comment about undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs is vague.

Still the bible does teach tolerance and to respect everyone.

The simple fact is the type of people on such commissions are usually SJW types who are hostile to religious people and favor the highest person(s) on the pity totem pole.

The complaints were basically made once the bakers position was known purely to either get him to bend the knee or go out of business.
 

Kilroy2

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2018
Messages
3,270
Reaction score
775
Points
140
Everyone has social views. It just you have to be civil about it in public because rights do not exist solely for one person in a public venue.

What rights are being violated if a business owner refuses service to someone?

If you refuse service because of a dress code, or obnoxious behavior then it is legit for a business owner as long as it applied consistently to all patrons. So business owners can control some aspects with a company policy.
 

RoshawnMarkwees

Assimilationist
Joined
Dec 23, 2009
Messages
26,241
Reaction score
7,405
Points
280
Location
Middle class, suburban ghetto.
This case is a bit different than the others, because NY's law is far more invasive than the others being enforced in other States.

Christian wedding photographer sues NY over nondiscrimination law

Emilee Carpenter filed a lawsuit against New York attorney general Letitia James (D.) over state nondiscrimination statutes that Carpenter said compel her to violate her religious beliefs about traditional marriage by making her publicize photos of same-sex weddings on her website. The laws require her to create photograph collections on her website celebrating same-sex weddings because she celebrates opposite-sex weddings. Violating the laws could result in tens of thousands of dollars in fines, the state taking away her business license, or even jail time.

The statutes also forbid Carpenter from publishing any sort of editorial stance explaining her religious beliefs about marriage on her website. Carpenter said in an interview that her beliefs are inseparable from her work as a wedding photographer and that the laws are violating her First Amendment rights.

“My faith has been really integral to me as a person but also to my business and the way I operate it and the artwork I create,” Carpenter said. “My faith is really the lens through which I view my art.”

So not only does she have to photograph the weddings OR ELSE, she has to post pictures from said SSM ceremonies on her website OR ELSE, and cannot post anything about her religious beliefs on the matter OR ELSE.
NY will lose this one. The morons don't have any sense.
They’ll just make sure any judges are homosexuals.
 

dblack

Platinum Member
Joined
May 21, 2011
Messages
39,107
Reaction score
5,981
Points
1,130
Everyone has social views. It just you have to be civil about it in public because rights do not exist solely for one person in a public venue.

What rights are being violated if a business owner refuses service to someone?

If you refuse service because of a dress code, or obnoxious behavior then it is legit for a business owner as long as it applied consistently to all patrons. So business owners can control some aspects with a company policy.

Ok. But what rights are being violated if a business owner refuses service to someone?
 

Kilroy2

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2018
Messages
3,270
Reaction score
775
Points
140
Everyone has social views. It just you have to be civil about it in public because rights do not exist solely for one person in a public venue.

What rights are being violated if a business owner refuses service to someone?

If you refuse service because of a dress code, or obnoxious behavior then it is legit for a business owner as long as it applied consistently to all patrons. So business owners can control some aspects with a company policy.

Ok. But what rights are being violated if a business owner refuses service to someone?

The right of a patron to receive goods and service on an equal basis that is similar with others who have received their goods and service.
 

dblack

Platinum Member
Joined
May 21, 2011
Messages
39,107
Reaction score
5,981
Points
1,130
Everyone has social views. It just you have to be civil about it in public because rights do not exist solely for one person in a public venue.

What rights are being violated if a business owner refuses service to someone?

If you refuse service because of a dress code, or obnoxious behavior then it is legit for a business owner as long as it applied consistently to all patrons. So business owners can control some aspects with a company policy.

Ok. But what rights are being violated if a business owner refuses service to someone?

The right of a patron to receive goods and service on an equal basis that is similar with others who have received their goods and service.

Never heard of that right. So if someone else gets something for a lower price than I did, my rights have been violated?
 
Last edited:

emilynghiem

Constitutionalist / Universalist
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jan 21, 2010
Messages
22,643
Reaction score
3,521
Points
290
Location
National Freedmen's Town District
Because someone disagree with same sex lifestyle is not a valid reason to not provide service if your a business open to the general public.
It's great that that you and I agree on most things Kilroy2
The only part of your reply that I would
have more cautiously clarified:

When you said disagreeing with same sex lifestyle is not a valid reason to not provide service:
1. Agreed that denying ALL or ANY Service to the CUSTOMER is targeting that Customer and treating them with Discrimination
2. However, not providing a certain service to ANY Customer is different.

Again, if someone specializes in cultural decor and cuisine for Hindu wedding ceremonies, they may deny requests for Buddhist or Muslim services or catering which is not what they do.

It is the TYPE of Service they are not providing.

If heterosexual customers hired them to provide services for a "same sex wedding" they would still decline the work.

It isn't the customer being refused, it is the content of their request that is being refused because that business doesn't provide that type of service. Or doesn't believe in it.

Kilroy2
To you it may seem like the same service.
But to people of different spiritual or religious beliefs, this is very different.

It is as against their beliefs as, say, a brother and sister wanting to marry.

If that idea feels unnatural or wrong to you,
that is how some people view same sex relations.

I guess if you just do not see it that way, you cannot understand how other people can have such beliefs.

All you see is throwing these levels all together as "discrimination" where you judge some people for their beliefs as "invalid" "immoral or unjust" "inferior" and "bigoted bases on negative malice, prejudice or judgment of others."

Again, I agree it is wrong to judge and mistreat a PERSON based on beliefs.
But nothing wrong with choosing WHAT TYPES of services or ceremonies to offer.

I am guessing you and otto105
just don't see any difference here.
Like being color blind or tone deaf.

Since you cannot distinguish the SERVICE from the CUSTOMER, no wonder it just looks mean and bigoted against that Customer.
 

emilynghiem

Constitutionalist / Universalist
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jan 21, 2010
Messages
22,643
Reaction score
3,521
Points
290
Location
National Freedmen's Town District
Everyone has social views. It just you have to be civil about it in public because rights do not exist solely for one person in a public venue.

What rights are being violated if a business owner refuses service to someone?

If you refuse service because of a dress code, or obnoxious behavior then it is legit for a business owner as long as it applied consistently to all patrons. So business owners can control some aspects with a company policy.

Ok. But what rights are being violated if a business owner refuses service to someone?

The right of a patron to receive goods and service on an equal basis that is similar with others who have received their goods and service.
Again you don't see the difference between a spiritual marriage between male/female partners as opposed to a same sex couple getting married. But many people do, and have spiritual beliefs they cannot be forced to change or violate.

Just like Muslims cannot be forced to tolerate pork products. That is against their nature and beliefs.

The people who just do not believe that same sex relations or transgender identity are natural or healthy cannot be forced to believe otherwise, since both sides are faithbased.

If it makes no difference to you, that's your belief, which you have a right to enforce for yourself. You cannot be forced to believe or see it another way

Likewise so do other people have rights to their beliefs they enforce for themselves. Neither can they be forced against their beliefs.

By respecting both sides' beliefs, that is treating all people equally by their own faith. Not forcing their faith on others.
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
67,006
Reaction score
3,667
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
Job 34:30 That the hypocrite reign not, lest the people be ensnared.

Should practitioners of the abomination of hypocrisy get any business from the faithful?
 

Kilroy2

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2018
Messages
3,270
Reaction score
775
Points
140
Everyone has social views. It just you have to be civil about it in public because rights do not exist solely for one person in a public venue.

What rights are being violated if a business owner refuses service to someone?

If you refuse service because of a dress code, or obnoxious behavior then it is legit for a business owner as long as it applied consistently to all patrons. So business owners can control some aspects with a company policy.

Ok. But what rights are being violated if a business owner refuses service to someone?

Never heard of that right. So if someone else gets something for a lower price than I did, my rights have been violated?


you misunderstand the statement. The right is that if person A received a service then person B should get the same service in a public business. Obviously price place a factor as person A may want the cheap stuff and the person B may want to spend more money. Generally referred to as public accommodations. Generally you cannot refuse service base on a persons race, sex, etc, etc.

Establishments do have the right to refuse service but there are exceptions to that rule and they are mostly discrimination rules.
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
67,006
Reaction score
3,667
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
The customer also has First Amendment protection in public not private accommodation. And, the seller proclaimed with the full faith and credit of public acts, that she was in business for the sake of the profit of Lucre not morals.

From one perspective, the seller should stop being a hypocrite and do their paid Job.
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$350.00
Goal
$350.00

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top