|
On July 27 2012 02:35 Felnarion wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 02:25 Fyrewolf wrote:On July 27 2012 02:16 Ryalnos wrote:
There seems to be this assumption that opposition to gay marriage is necessarily homophobic, etc.
Some among those opposed to gay marriage take a 'separate but equal' approach to the 'government-codified coupling of sexual partners' issue.
Here are, roughly, two ways this concept of 'separate but equal' could be understood:
A) "Separate but equal" segregation of black Americans in the early half of last century - real baaad and false in practice.
B) The "separate but equal" male & female restrooms in many businesses and establishments throughout this country - different physical makeups require different facilities, + privacy - deemed acceptable.
If marriage is understood to be legally protected for a purpose related protecting the stability/protection of children (the next generation of citizens) produced by sexual coupling, then it is not extremely difficult how an argument could be made for B) as homosexual coupling cannot physically produce children (adoption complicates this of course etc.). It could be argued that it is wasteful to apply monetary government benefits (which cost taxpayers somewhere down the line) to support these relationships.
Now an easy common sense argument is that the small cost to taxpayers would be meaningless compared to the impact of unequivocating, "identically equal" treatment of homosexual couples by the government. So the other position may seem heartless (or truly motivated by other reasons that the 'philosophical ones presented') but need not necessarily come from a homophobic/gay-hating position.
This may well be philosophical minutiae but, whatever. Marriage isn't understood that way by the government though. Even Heterosexual couples could be incapable of producing children because they are infertile, yet they can adopt children and they get the benefits government provides for having children via taxes and the like. People join themselves together in life and the government is trying to facilitate and accomodate for the natural grouping that people do, rather than government protecting marriage for a purpose. The effects of the grouping that are beneficial to society the government helps facilitate like education, but it starts with the people joining their lives together, the people are the ones who define their joining, and not the governments or religions job to define what that joining is and isn't but to accomodate for it in society. Personally, I don't understand the problem with Marriage vs Civil Union. As long as one contains all the rights of the other, who cares what we call it. It should be the rights that are the contentious point here? I wish we could just settle and say "Man and woman: Marriage. Gay or Lesbain: Union" And give each the same rights as the other. Seems like the best outcome for everyone. But some ultra religious say that it's a slippery slope, and some gay/lesbian say it isn't good enough.
Just changing the word may sound like it's just semantics, but the connotation is far more disturbing. By saying that gays can't get married but can have civil unions, even if they are de facto exactly the same thing, by calling it something else you are telling them that they can never have what other heterosexual couples have, which is quite insulting to their humanity and their basic rights.
Besides, Christianity does NOT have a monopoly on the word "marriage".
|
On July 27 2012 07:16 GwSC wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 06:36 Lumi wrote: I'm against intolerance, but I will not silence it. What the hell does that even mean? How does it even count to be "against" something if you accept it? It's like when people say they care, but in no way actually s how it or act on it. They may as well not care. You're performing some mental gymnastics here. This really isn't that complicated. You can be tolerant, while accepting that some people are intolerant. You can work in favor of a society and policies that are more tolerant, which in turn works against the intolerant. You can be accepting people's right to voice their intolerant opinions, and at the same time work against them in favor of whatever ideal you happen to be in favor of.
Check my post above this one and see if you have something adjusted to say? I feel that I've already responded to this - just a matter of forums not being real-time conversation :p
|
there are also many religious people that don't act like the Westboro Baptist Church.
Sure, but if for example you vote anti abortion (a less extreme and more common example) then you're shitting on pro choice peoples rights or beliefs. Can't you see how the whole 'everyone respect everything' notion is fundamentally flawed now? The example I mentioned of imparting your beliefs onto your child is a very common and less 'extreme' one as well. It's preference vs preference in the end, and only the foolish would claim to practice, let alone actually practice a complete passivity where they let others shape the world for them absolutely.
|
United States5162 Posts
On July 27 2012 07:25 Lumi wrote:Show nested quote + there are also many religious people that don't act like the Westboro Baptist Church. Sure, but if for example you vote anti abortion (a less extreme and more common example) then you're shitting on pro choice peoples rights or beliefs. Can't you see how the whole everyone respect everyone notion is fundamentally flawed now? It's preference vs preference in the end, and only the foolish would claim to practice, let alone actually practice a complete passivity where they let others shape the world for them absolutely.
And by being pro-choice you're shitting on pro-life beliefs. It's a two way street. And it's not a right go through life not being offended.
|
On July 27 2012 07:28 Myles wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 07:25 Lumi wrote: there are also many religious people that don't act like the Westboro Baptist Church. Sure, but if for example you vote anti abortion (a less extreme and more common example) then you're shitting on pro choice peoples rights or beliefs. Can't you see how the whole everyone respect everyone notion is fundamentally flawed now? It's preference vs preference in the end, and only the foolish would claim to practice, let alone actually practice a complete passivity where they let others shape the world for them absolutely. And by being pro-choice you're shitting on pro-life beliefs. It's a two way street. And it's not a right go through life not being offended.
Pro choice means freedom to do what you think you should. Anti-choice means you can only do what I think you should. It's stunning that you can continue to view these specific contexts as being the same, when they really aren't.
|
On July 27 2012 07:20 Lumi wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 07:16 GwSC wrote:On July 27 2012 06:36 Lumi wrote: I'm against intolerance, but I will not silence it. What the hell does that even mean? How does it even count to be "against" something if you accept it? It's like when people say they care, but in no way actually s how it or act on it. They may as well not care. You're performing some mental gymnastics here. This really isn't that complicated. You can be tolerant, while accepting that some people are intolerant. You can work in favor of a society and policies that are more tolerant, which in turn works against the intolerant. You can be accepting people's right to voice their intolerant opinions, and at the same time work against them in favor of whatever ideal you happen to be in favor of. Check my post above this one and see if you have something adjusted to say? I feel that I've already responded to this - just a matter of forums not being real-time conversation :p
There doesn't seem to be much to discuss there. Granted I haven't followed this thread for the last several pages so I'm not really sure what the disagreement on the last page is really about. I think your point is that simply tolerating chick-fil-a's right to express their stance against gay marriage while also being pro gay marriage is not compatible? If that is the case then I would definitely have to disagree, for the reasons I mentioned in my last post.
If your point is that tolerating anti gay marriage stances while also being pro gay marriage, and not doing anything yourself to encourage pro gay marriage policies (IE, simply saying live and let live) is wrong, then I would agree. That still definitely does not mean that you can not tolerate the right intolerant people have to voice their own opinions and work towards policies favorable to their own beliefs.
Edit: apologize for the late edit, hopefully you don't respond before seeing >_>
|
Boston just lost my patronage. We're a nation of free speech, and it's a restaurant. Judge that person privately, but it's a commercial business that should be judged on it's product, food.
Fuck off boston. I'll continue to support Chik Fil A in my area like I always have.
edit; for anyone that's gonna flame the shit out of me, i'm not anti-gay, I just can seperate bias from the various sides of my life.
|
United States5162 Posts
On July 27 2012 07:31 Lumi wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 07:28 Myles wrote:On July 27 2012 07:25 Lumi wrote: there are also many religious people that don't act like the Westboro Baptist Church. Sure, but if for example you vote anti abortion (a less extreme and more common example) then you're shitting on pro choice peoples rights or beliefs. Can't you see how the whole everyone respect everyone notion is fundamentally flawed now? It's preference vs preference in the end, and only the foolish would claim to practice, let alone actually practice a complete passivity where they let others shape the world for them absolutely. And by being pro-choice you're shitting on pro-life beliefs. It's a two way street. And it's not a right go through life not being offended. Pro choice means freedom to do what you want. Anti-choice means do what I think you should. It's stunning that you can continue to view these specific contexts as being the same, when they really aren't.
I don't think they're the same, as I'm pro-choice, but you can't say one side has the right to feel offended by the other side disagreeing them while the other side doesn't have that same right.
|
On July 27 2012 07:33 Myles wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 07:31 Lumi wrote:On July 27 2012 07:28 Myles wrote:On July 27 2012 07:25 Lumi wrote: there are also many religious people that don't act like the Westboro Baptist Church. Sure, but if for example you vote anti abortion (a less extreme and more common example) then you're shitting on pro choice peoples rights or beliefs. Can't you see how the whole everyone respect everyone notion is fundamentally flawed now? It's preference vs preference in the end, and only the foolish would claim to practice, let alone actually practice a complete passivity where they let others shape the world for them absolutely. And by being pro-choice you're shitting on pro-life beliefs. It's a two way street. And it's not a right go through life not being offended. Pro choice means freedom to do what you want. Anti-choice means do what I think you should. It's stunning that you can continue to view these specific contexts as being the same, when they really aren't. I don't think they're the same, as I'm pro-choice, but you can't say one side has the right to feel offended by the other side disagreeing them while the other side doesn't have that same right.
Oh anyone is welcome to get as offended as they like, I'm okay with that haha.
|
On July 27 2012 07:33 LiamTheZerg wrote:
Boston just lost my patronage. We're a nation of free speech, and it's a restaurant. Judge that person privately, but it's a commercial business that should be judged on it's product, food.
Fuck off boston. I'll continue to support Chik Fil A in my area like I always have.
edit; for anyone that's gonna flame the shit out of me, i'm not anti-gay, I just can seperate bias from the various sides of my life.
Chill out. It's a clear cut free speech case. There would no way it would actually get banned or anything. He even took the statement back.
http://bostonherald.com/business/general/view/20220726menino_says_he_cant_actively_block_chick-fil-a/srvc=home&position=0
But you can judge a commercial business on whatever criteria you feel like. Especially if the funds are directed towards anti-gay advocacy organizations. That's the free market.
|
United States5162 Posts
On July 27 2012 07:37 Lumi wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 07:33 Myles wrote:On July 27 2012 07:31 Lumi wrote:On July 27 2012 07:28 Myles wrote:On July 27 2012 07:25 Lumi wrote: there are also many religious people that don't act like the Westboro Baptist Church. Sure, but if for example you vote anti abortion (a less extreme and more common example) then you're shitting on pro choice peoples rights or beliefs. Can't you see how the whole everyone respect everyone notion is fundamentally flawed now? It's preference vs preference in the end, and only the foolish would claim to practice, let alone actually practice a complete passivity where they let others shape the world for them absolutely. And by being pro-choice you're shitting on pro-life beliefs. It's a two way street. And it's not a right go through life not being offended. Pro choice means freedom to do what you want. Anti-choice means do what I think you should. It's stunning that you can continue to view these specific contexts as being the same, when they really aren't. I don't think they're the same, as I'm pro-choice, but you can't say one side has the right to feel offended by the other side disagreeing them while the other side doesn't have that same right. Oh anyone is welcome to get as offended as they like, I'm okay with that haha.
Then what are you saying? It sure seems like your saying one side is right so you can shit on the other side all you want and it doesn't matter because you're right and they're wrong.
|
On July 26 2012 08:04 KwarK wrote:
I can't believe I have to go to this extent to explain this really basic point but okay. Example time. Two men go for to interview for a job. The first man is asked if he's a Christian, he says he is and is promptly informed that because of the companies strong anti-Christian stance he will not get the job. The second man comes in to interview but takes a piss all over the manager's chair and is informed that because of the companies strong "don't take a piss on my chair" stance he won't be getting the job. Both have been discriminated against but only one has a legal case because as a society we have decided that some grounds for discrimination are acceptable and some are not. This is basic, basic stuff. Discrimination is a word for selection. We judge discrimination on some grounds to be unethical and have made it unlawful. This does not however mean that all discrimination in which you select against something on some grounds is always unethical.
Kwark, this argument has merit, its true that we have settled some ways of showing prejudice that are considered norms and some that aren't however, Chik-fil-a has never said they won't hire a gay man, they said that they don't believe in gay marriage, so chik-fil-a would fall into the second part of your analogy. Also banning a company for what a family says, the owners, is illegal, according to my first comment which had the wikipedia link to one of many first ammendment supreme court decisions, and since the supreme court has judiciary oversight of the entire country, all arguments about this are pretty much null and void. The fact is that CFA will just sue to be re-instated and people, like me, who do not think that political people expunging their opinions that I personally disagree with changes the flavor of my chicken or the amount of money given to kids who need the CFA scholarship.
EDIT: fucked up the quote bbcode, so I fixed it so my post didn't look derpy as hell.
|
On July 27 2012 07:16 GwSC wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 06:36 Lumi wrote: I'm against intolerance, but I will not silence it. What the hell does that even mean? How does it even count to be "against" something if you accept it? It's like when people say they care, but in no way actually s how it or act on it. They may as well not care. You're performing some mental gymnastics here. This really isn't that complicated. You can be tolerant, while accepting that some people are intolerant. You can work in favor of a society and policies that are more tolerant. You can be accepting of people's right to voice their intolerant opinions, and at the same time work against them in favor of whatever ideal you happen to be in favor of.
Yeah really. I hate how some people are pretending to be too dumb to understand this. Just because we don't tear down someone's business for being intolerant in his OPINION, does not mean we suddenly start letting everyone beat up gays. You can have universal rights, even for the intolerant, and still be pro tolerance.
The one conservative dude who keeps going "you liberals disgust me" is funny. I'm pretty liberal. Guess not everyone is part of some homogenous group that spontaneously causes everyone in it to have the exact same opinions on even complex political issues.
|
On July 27 2012 07:19 Fyrewolf wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 02:35 Felnarion wrote:On July 27 2012 02:25 Fyrewolf wrote:On July 27 2012 02:16 Ryalnos wrote:
There seems to be this assumption that opposition to gay marriage is necessarily homophobic, etc.
Some among those opposed to gay marriage take a 'separate but equal' approach to the 'government-codified coupling of sexual partners' issue.
Here are, roughly, two ways this concept of 'separate but equal' could be understood:
A) "Separate but equal" segregation of black Americans in the early half of last century - real baaad and false in practice.
B) The "separate but equal" male & female restrooms in many businesses and establishments throughout this country - different physical makeups require different facilities, + privacy - deemed acceptable.
If marriage is understood to be legally protected for a purpose related protecting the stability/protection of children (the next generation of citizens) produced by sexual coupling, then it is not extremely difficult how an argument could be made for B) as homosexual coupling cannot physically produce children (adoption complicates this of course etc.). It could be argued that it is wasteful to apply monetary government benefits (which cost taxpayers somewhere down the line) to support these relationships.
Now an easy common sense argument is that the small cost to taxpayers would be meaningless compared to the impact of unequivocating, "identically equal" treatment of homosexual couples by the government. So the other position may seem heartless (or truly motivated by other reasons that the 'philosophical ones presented') but need not necessarily come from a homophobic/gay-hating position.
This may well be philosophical minutiae but, whatever. Marriage isn't understood that way by the government though. Even Heterosexual couples could be incapable of producing children because they are infertile, yet they can adopt children and they get the benefits government provides for having children via taxes and the like. People join themselves together in life and the government is trying to facilitate and accomodate for the natural grouping that people do, rather than government protecting marriage for a purpose. The effects of the grouping that are beneficial to society the government helps facilitate like education, but it starts with the people joining their lives together, the people are the ones who define their joining, and not the governments or religions job to define what that joining is and isn't but to accomodate for it in society. Personally, I don't understand the problem with Marriage vs Civil Union. As long as one contains all the rights of the other, who cares what we call it. It should be the rights that are the contentious point here? I wish we could just settle and say "Man and woman: Marriage. Gay or Lesbain: Union" And give each the same rights as the other. Seems like the best outcome for everyone. But some ultra religious say that it's a slippery slope, and some gay/lesbian say it isn't good enough. Just changing the word may sound like it's just semantics, but the connotation is far more disturbing. By saying that gays can't get married but can have civil unions, even if they are de facto exactly the same thing, by calling it something else you are telling them that they can never have what other heterosexual couples have, which is quite insulting to their humanity and their basic rights. Besides, Christianity does NOT have a monopoly on the word "marriage".
And? I guess I'm missing out here, is there a problem with telling them they can never have what other heterosexual couples have in this instance? A word? They can never be described as heterosexual, so what? They're not missing out on anything by not being called heterosexuals, but having all the same privledges as heterosexuals.
So why does it matter that they would be called a "union" instead of a "marriage" while retaining all the same rights? It's just a classification, what's it matter. The religious people aren't going to stop being anti-gay marriage. So why not just let them have their fun with the word marriage, and let the gay and lesbian community have fun with their unions and give everyone a measure of happiness.
|
Might wanna update the OP with this: looks like it's happening in Chicago,too. And a follow-up.
I read this article that was posted many pages earlier, and I was perusing the comments. If the commenters are largely Bostonians, then perhaps the city isn't quite as empathetic towards Mayor Menino as those such as Praetorial assume. The highest rated comments seem to blast Menino and even support Chic-Fil-A in building a restaurant in the city.
Of course, you can go many different ways to respond to why this is: the liberals haven't spotted or commented on the article yet, Chic-Fil-A is artificially skewing the comments (the more conspiratorial supposition...), or simply that the large majority of commenters are not actually Bostonian and thus not representative of the city.
But in any case, I thought that observation was intriguing.... Surprised me good, to be honest. X-D
|
I go to boston once a week for work ... never seen a this resturant.
|
On July 27 2012 08:10 jax1492 wrote:
I go to boston once a week for work ... never seen a this resturant.
Because it's not there? As of now? O_o
|
On July 27 2012 08:02 Felnarion wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 07:19 Fyrewolf wrote:On July 27 2012 02:35 Felnarion wrote:On July 27 2012 02:25 Fyrewolf wrote:On July 27 2012 02:16 Ryalnos wrote:
There seems to be this assumption that opposition to gay marriage is necessarily homophobic, etc.
Some among those opposed to gay marriage take a 'separate but equal' approach to the 'government-codified coupling of sexual partners' issue.
Here are, roughly, two ways this concept of 'separate but equal' could be understood:
A) "Separate but equal" segregation of black Americans in the early half of last century - real baaad and false in practice.
B) The "separate but equal" male & female restrooms in many businesses and establishments throughout this country - different physical makeups require different facilities, + privacy - deemed acceptable.
If marriage is understood to be legally protected for a purpose related protecting the stability/protection of children (the next generation of citizens) produced by sexual coupling, then it is not extremely difficult how an argument could be made for B) as homosexual coupling cannot physically produce children (adoption complicates this of course etc.). It could be argued that it is wasteful to apply monetary government benefits (which cost taxpayers somewhere down the line) to support these relationships.
Now an easy common sense argument is that the small cost to taxpayers would be meaningless compared to the impact of unequivocating, "identically equal" treatment of homosexual couples by the government. So the other position may seem heartless (or truly motivated by other reasons that the 'philosophical ones presented') but need not necessarily come from a homophobic/gay-hating position.
This may well be philosophical minutiae but, whatever. Marriage isn't understood that way by the government though. Even Heterosexual couples could be incapable of producing children because they are infertile, yet they can adopt children and they get the benefits government provides for having children via taxes and the like. People join themselves together in life and the government is trying to facilitate and accomodate for the natural grouping that people do, rather than government protecting marriage for a purpose. The effects of the grouping that are beneficial to society the government helps facilitate like education, but it starts with the people joining their lives together, the people are the ones who define their joining, and not the governments or religions job to define what that joining is and isn't but to accomodate for it in society. Personally, I don't understand the problem with Marriage vs Civil Union. As long as one contains all the rights of the other, who cares what we call it. It should be the rights that are the contentious point here? I wish we could just settle and say "Man and woman: Marriage. Gay or Lesbain: Union" And give each the same rights as the other. Seems like the best outcome for everyone. But some ultra religious say that it's a slippery slope, and some gay/lesbian say it isn't good enough. Just changing the word may sound like it's just semantics, but the connotation is far more disturbing. By saying that gays can't get married but can have civil unions, even if they are de facto exactly the same thing, by calling it something else you are telling them that they can never have what other heterosexual couples have, which is quite insulting to their humanity and their basic rights. Besides, Christianity does NOT have a monopoly on the word "marriage". And? I guess I'm missing out here, is there a problem with telling them they can never have what other heterosexual couples have in this instance? A word? They can never be described as heterosexual, so what? They're not missing out on anything by not being called heterosexuals, but having all the same privledges as heterosexuals. So why does it matter that they would be called a "union" instead of a "marriage" while retaining all the same rights? It's just a classification, what's it matter. The religious people aren't going to stop being anti-gay marriage. So why not just let them have their fun with the word marriage, and let the gay and lesbian community have fun with their unions and give everyone a measure of happiness.
The thing I was saying have for was a marriage. You can have a marriage. You can't "have" heterosexual. Of course there is a problem with telling them they can never have what other heterosexual couples have, how could there not be? I said it's the connotation that matters.
The religious people don't own the word marraige, so them telling people you can never have a marriage is insulting, even if you give them a "union" that means the same thing, because in reality it doesn't mean the same thing because of the connotation; that they can't have the same classification, only a similar one(and by calling it something different it makes it easy to discriminate against it too); that they are unworthy and don't deserve to have the classification of marriage, even though religions don't own that word. The connotation attached to telling someone that is very insulting.
|
On July 27 2012 08:02 Felnarion wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 07:19 Fyrewolf wrote:On July 27 2012 02:35 Felnarion wrote:On July 27 2012 02:25 Fyrewolf wrote:On July 27 2012 02:16 Ryalnos wrote:
There seems to be this assumption that opposition to gay marriage is necessarily homophobic, etc.
Some among those opposed to gay marriage take a 'separate but equal' approach to the 'government-codified coupling of sexual partners' issue.
Here are, roughly, two ways this concept of 'separate but equal' could be understood:
A) "Separate but equal" segregation of black Americans in the early half of last century - real baaad and false in practice.
B) The "separate but equal" male & female restrooms in many businesses and establishments throughout this country - different physical makeups require different facilities, + privacy - deemed acceptable.
If marriage is understood to be legally protected for a purpose related protecting the stability/protection of children (the next generation of citizens) produced by sexual coupling, then it is not extremely difficult how an argument could be made for B) as homosexual coupling cannot physically produce children (adoption complicates this of course etc.). It could be argued that it is wasteful to apply monetary government benefits (which cost taxpayers somewhere down the line) to support these relationships.
Now an easy common sense argument is that the small cost to taxpayers would be meaningless compared to the impact of unequivocating, "identically equal" treatment of homosexual couples by the government. So the other position may seem heartless (or truly motivated by other reasons that the 'philosophical ones presented') but need not necessarily come from a homophobic/gay-hating position.
This may well be philosophical minutiae but, whatever. Marriage isn't understood that way by the government though. Even Heterosexual couples could be incapable of producing children because they are infertile, yet they can adopt children and they get the benefits government provides for having children via taxes and the like. People join themselves together in life and the government is trying to facilitate and accomodate for the natural grouping that people do, rather than government protecting marriage for a purpose. The effects of the grouping that are beneficial to society the government helps facilitate like education, but it starts with the people joining their lives together, the people are the ones who define their joining, and not the governments or religions job to define what that joining is and isn't but to accomodate for it in society. Personally, I don't understand the problem with Marriage vs Civil Union. As long as one contains all the rights of the other, who cares what we call it. It should be the rights that are the contentious point here? I wish we could just settle and say "Man and woman: Marriage. Gay or Lesbain: Union" And give each the same rights as the other. Seems like the best outcome for everyone. But some ultra religious say that it's a slippery slope, and some gay/lesbian say it isn't good enough. Just changing the word may sound like it's just semantics, but the connotation is far more disturbing. By saying that gays can't get married but can have civil unions, even if they are de facto exactly the same thing, by calling it something else you are telling them that they can never have what other heterosexual couples have, which is quite insulting to their humanity and their basic rights. Besides, Christianity does NOT have a monopoly on the word "marriage". And? I guess I'm missing out here, is there a problem with telling them they can never have what other heterosexual couples have in this instance? A word? They can never be described as heterosexual, so what? They're not missing out on anything by not being called heterosexuals, but having all the same privledges as heterosexuals. So why does it matter that they would be called a "union" instead of a "marriage" while retaining all the same rights? It's just a classification, what's it matter. The religious people aren't going to stop being anti-gay marriage. So why not just let them have their fun with the word marriage, and let the gay and lesbian community have fun with their unions and give everyone a measure of happiness.
If anti gays are allowed to be stubborn over a word why not gays? And when you're telling someone you want to make a law against what they're doing (being gay and getting married) the burden should be on you to justify it.
|
If people dislike what the mayor is doing I feel there is a very simple solution. Vote him out. honestly I feel this issue should at least be a referendum, or up to the customers choice, but if this is what the legally elected mayor wishes to do, then its within his power to do so.
Note: Would not eat at Chic-Fil-A anyways over this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
