Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 LastLast
Results 91 to 120 of 152

Thread: Gay Wedding Cakes

  1. #91

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mpfunk View Post
    You are right it isn't about the cake. I think you are wrong about what it is about though. It is about finally establishing the level of protection that sexual orientation is going to get as a class. It isn't about religion. Although many religious people want to make this about religious freedom being under attack.

    It isn't under attack. This has nothing to do with religion, it has to do with whether or not a business owner can discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. No one is going to challenge this guys right to believe that homosexual marriage is morally wrong.

    Why I liked the result of Obergefell, I really hate that decision. It was such a punt on actually establishing the level of scrutiny for sexual orientation. Hopefully, it will finally get addressed this time.
    People are born with a race or gender and they need housing, food, etc and the Court has already held that the government can pass laws outlawing such discrimination. But baking a wedding cake is not essential and it runs up against someone's religious freedom. When you balance it out, the religious freedom outweighs the governement's interest in forcing the baker to provide the cake.
    Part of it is based on academic grounds. Among major conferences, the Pac-10 is the best academically, largely because of Stanford, Cal and UCLA. “Colorado is on a par with Oregon,” he said. “Utah isn’t even in the picture.”

  2. #92
    Anti-Mormon Gadfly
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    12,397

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Color Me Badd Fan View Post
    People are born with a race or gender and they need housing, food, etc and the Court has already held that the government can pass laws outlawing such discrimination. But baking a wedding cake is not essential and it runs up against someone's religious freedom. When you balance it out, the religious freedom outweighs the governement's interest in forcing the baker to provide the cake.
    it isn't a religious freedom issue. No one is stopping him from believing what he believes about gay marriage. Even if he is limited in his career choice by being forced to bake the cake, he isn't being restricted from holding his religious beliefs.
    The crux of what has traumatized us about CUF/CG is that we thought they were our friends. And their identity as BYU fans turned out to be the most important thing to them. What empty lives! What a damning indictment of the LDS Church!
    --SeattleUte

  3. #93
    Trump-hating snowflake Jeff Lebowski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    The heart of the UC
    Posts
    44,398

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mpfunk View Post
    I agree it wouldn't hold up in court. This is a personal belief, not a legal argument.

    Your belief in God wouldn't hold up in court either. It is a personal belief, not a legal argument.
    "Socialism is not bad IMHO" - byu71
    "There is no creature more arrogant than a self-righteous libertarian on the web, am I right? Those folks are just intolerable."
    "It's no secret that the great American pastime is no longer baseball. Now it's sanctimony." -- Guy Periwinkle, The Nix.

  4. #94

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by smokymountainrain View Post
    in short, a business should be allowed to discriminate, even racially, as long as said business isn't providing a basic or necessary service?
    From the WSJ this morning:


    The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decided both the Hobby Lobby and Little Sisters of the Poor cases before the justices took them up. The 10th Circuit decided more than 10,000 cases in the past five years. Aside from those regarding the contraception-mandate, there were only four victorious claims of religious freedom.

    None of them involved Christian issues. The four victories were for Muslims challenging an anti-Shariah law, Native Americans challenging a ban on killing eagles, reality TV stars challenging a ban on polygamy and atheists challenging a Ten Commandments monument.

    Most strikingly, a disproportionate share of religious freedom cases are brought by non-Christian minorities. The proportion of religious-freedom cases brought by Hindus was five times their share of the population in the six states under 10th Circuit jurisdiction. The factor was 10 for Native Americans and 17 for Muslims. The most underrepresented group? Christians, who were involved in only one-fourth as many cases as their share of the population.

    That means that religious freedom protections remain especially important for non-Christian minorities. But it also raises a question: Why is there so much hand-wringing about a handful of religious-liberty cases brought by Christians?

    This is because the political left applies a double standard. If religious liberty is invoked by a favored minority, it is legitimate. But if it is invoked by a Christian with traditional moral views, it is seen as an excuse for hate. Progressives engage in culture-war bullying when religious liberty would stand in the way of their social views. One of the Colorado state commissioners in Masterpiece Cakeshop called the Christian baker’s religious-freedom claim “one of the most despicable pieces of rhetoric that people can use—to use their religion to hurt others.”

    But if religious liberty means anything, it means the right to live according to your beliefs when most people think you are wrong.

    "Outlined against a blue, gray
    October sky the Four Horsemen rode again"
    Grantland Rice, 1924

  5. #95

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mpfunk View Post
    it isn't a religious freedom issue.
    I actually agree with you. It's just a freedom issue. We should be free to work for whomever we choose, and it doesn't really matter why we ultimately decide we don't want to do the work.

    Also, for someone so critical of people who judge others for their actions, you seem to have no problem judging this baker and his thoughts/intent without knowing him at all.

    "Outlined against a blue, gray
    October sky the Four Horsemen rode again"
    Grantland Rice, 1924

  6. #96

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mpfunk View Post
    it isn't a religious freedom issue. No one is stopping him from believing what he believes about gay marriage. Even if he is limited in his career choice by being forced to bake the cake, he isn't being restricted from holding his religious beliefs.
    What compelling societal interest is served by forcing this baker to make that cake? You seem to have a limitless view of reasons that the government can find to compell someone to do something or prohibit them from something.

    Just remember, the Obergefell decision was held partly on the basis that the government didn't have a compelling interest in prohibiting gay marriage.
    Part of it is based on academic grounds. Among major conferences, the Pac-10 is the best academically, largely because of Stanford, Cal and UCLA. “Colorado is on a par with Oregon,” he said. “Utah isn’t even in the picture.”

  7. #97
    My Mic Sounds Nice falafel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Las Wegas!
    Posts
    26,372

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Color Me Badd Fan View Post
    What compelling societal interest is served by forcing this baker to make that cake? You seem to have a limitless view of reasons that the government can find to compell someone to do something or prohibit them from something.

    Just remember, the Obergefell decision was based partly on the basis that the government didn't have a compelling interest in prohibiting gay marriage.
    Don't forget, funk isn't making legal arguments. That frees him up to argue anything he wants without justification.
    Ain't it like most people, I'm no different. We love to talk on things we don't know about.

    "The only one of us who is so significant that Jeff owes us something simply because he decided to grace us with his presence is falafel." -- All-American

    GIVE 'EM HELL, BRIGHAM!

  8. #98

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cowboy View Post
    I actually agree with you. It's just a freedom issue. We should be free to work for whomever we choose, and it doesn't really matter why we ultimately decide we don't want to do the work.

    Also, for someone so critical of people who judge others for their actions, you seem to have no problem judging this baker and his thoughts/intent without knowing him at all.
    The current issue of The Atlantic has an interesting piece about how liberals need to stop just resorting to the word "bigot" every time they encounter a conservative position they disagree with.
    Not only is it lazy, but research suggests that this causes those people with actual bigoted beliefs and behavior to intensify, not diminish those ideas.

    Similarly, conservatives need to become "less willfully naive" about actual cases of bigoted behavior.

    https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine...igotry/544128/
    "More crazy people to Provo go than to any other town in the state."
    -- Iron County Record. 23 August, 1912. (http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lc...23/ed-1/seq-4/)

  9. #99

    Default


  10. #100
    Anti-Mormon Gadfly
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    12,397

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Color Me Badd Fan View Post
    What compelling societal interest is served by forcing this baker to make that cake? You seem to have a limitless view of reasons that the government can find to compell someone to do something or prohibit them from something.

    Just remember, the Obergefell decision was held partly on the basis that the government didn't have a compelling interest in prohibiting gay marriage.
    I haven't really even commented on this case much. I have mostly been engaging in the discussion of whether or not the baker is engaging in discriminatory behavior, which he absolutely is discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation. If he was refusing to bake a cake for an interracial marriage, I am certain we would not be having this discussion.

    As for the government interest, Colorado has decided that it has an interest in prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. The guy is operating a business with a business license from Colorado and they have made a policy decision that if they are giving that license that the baker shouldn't discriminate.

    We are actually looking at a Colorado anti-discrimination statute, not federal law. The reason we are getting intersection with federal law and why this is at the supreme court is only because of the free speech/freedom of religion issues it brings up. This isn't about what the federal government defines as discrimination or what the federal government defines as a public accommodation, it is about what Colorado defines it as.

    Colorado has a more broad definition of public accommodation than under federal law.

    As used in this part 6, "place of public accommodation" means any place of business engaged in any sales to the public and any place offering services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations to the public, including but not limited to any business offering wholesale or retail sales to the public; any place to eat, drink, sleep, or rest, or any combination thereof; any sporting or recreational area and facility; any public transportation facility; a barber shop, bathhouse, swimming pool, bath, steam or massage parlor, gymnasium, or other establishment conducted to serve the health, appearance, or physical condition of a person; a campsite or trailer camp; a dispensary, clinic, hospital, convalescent home, or other institution for the sick, ailing, aged, or infirm; a mortuary, undertaking parlor, or cemetery; an educational institution; or any public building, park, arena, theater, hall, auditorium, museum, library, exhibit, or public facility of any kind whether indoor or outdoor. "Place of public accommodation" shall not include a church, synagogue, mosque, or other place that is principally used for religious purposes.
    You don't find such broad language into the federal definition of public accommodation. The Colorado statute specifically excludes discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, which is broader than the federal statutes as well.

    So this really is a free speech/freedom of religion issue. I don't see how this is a speech or religion issue. The law should stand as written and if the guy wants to sell cakes in Colorado, he is going to have to sell them for gay marriages.
    Last edited by mpfunk; 12-05-2017 at 01:13 PM.
    The crux of what has traumatized us about CUF/CG is that we thought they were our friends. And their identity as BYU fans turned out to be the most important thing to them. What empty lives! What a damning indictment of the LDS Church!
    --SeattleUte

  11. #101
    Senior Member myboynoah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    The Holy Land
    Posts
    13,997

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Northwestcoug View Post
    That's funny.
    Give 'em Hell, Cougars!!!

    For all this His anger is not turned away, but His hand is stretched out still.

    Not long ago an obituary appeared in the Salt Lake Tribune that said the recently departed had "died doing what he enjoyed most—watching BYU lose."

  12. #102

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by smokymountainrain View Post
    in short, a business should be allowed to discriminate, even racially, as long as said business isn't providing a basic or necessary service?
    yes
    Te Occidere Possunt Sed Te Edere Non Possunt Nefas Est.

  13. #103

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by old_gregg View Post
    yes
    That is most definitely a kooky libertarian take.

  14. #104

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mpfunk View Post
    I haven't really even commented on this case much. I have mostly been engaging in the discussion of whether or not the baker is engaging in discriminatory behavior, which he absolutely is discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation. If he was refusing to bake a cake for an interracial marriage, I am certain we would not be having this discussion.

    As for the government interest, Colorado has decided that it has an interest in prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. The guy is operating a business with a business license from Colorado and they have made a policy decision that if they are giving that license that the baker shouldn't discriminate.

    We are actually looking at a Colorado anti-discrimination statute, not federal law. The reason we are getting intersection with federal law and why this is at the supreme court is only because of the free speech/freedom of religion issues it brings up. This isn't about what the federal government defines as discrimination or what the federal government defines as a public accommodation, it is about what Colorado defines it as.

    Colorado has a more broad definition of public accommodation than under federal law.



    You don't find such broad language into the federal definition of public accommodation. The Colorado statute specifically excludes discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, which is broader than the federal statutes as well.

    So this really is a free speech/freedom of religion issue. I don't see how this is a speech or religion issue. The law should stand as written and if the guy wants to sell cakes in Colorado, he is going to have to sell them for gay marriages.
    not sure if it’s another part of the statute you’re not quoting, but i believe bakeries are specifically included too
    Te Occidere Possunt Sed Te Edere Non Possunt Nefas Est.

  15. #105

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mpfunk View Post
    I haven't really even commented on this case much. I have mostly been engaging in the discussion of whether or not the baker is engaging in discriminatory behavior, which he absolutely is discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation. If he was refusing to bake a cake for an interracial marriage, I am certain we would not be having this discussion.

    As for the government interest, Colorado has decided that it has an interest in prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. The guy is operating a business with a business license from Colorado and they have made a policy decision that if they are giving that license that the baker shouldn't discriminate.

    We are actually looking at a Colorado anti-discrimination statute, not federal law. The reason we are getting intersection with federal law and why this is at the supreme court is only because of the free speech/freedom of religion issues it brings up. This isn't about what the federal government defines as discrimination or what the federal government defines as a public accommodation, it is about what Colorado defines it as.

    Colorado has a more broad definition of public accommodation than under federal law.



    You don't find such broad language into the federal definition of public accommodation. The Colorado statute specifically excludes discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, which is broader than the federal statutes as well.

    So this really is a free speech/freedom of religion issue. I don't see how this is a speech or religion issue. The law should stand as written and if the guy wants to sell cakes in Colorado, he is going to have to sell them for gay marriages.
    So the compelling interest is "prohibiting discrimination" which in turn means governing people's personal feelings about gay marriage? And Colorado is using the power to grant business licenses as a way to enforce this?

    "Prohibiting discrimination" is a pretty wide-encompassing thing that could be used to proscribe all kinds of behavior based on personal beliefs. And that runs up against First Amendment Rights, hence it better be both a very compelling interest and narrowly tailored to meet that interest. That's where we get the public accommodation cases. Prohibiting discrimination is compelling as to public accomodations. Telling a baker that he must create an artistic work for a gay wedding that also happens to go against his religious beliefs isn't exactly desegregating the University of Alabama. People should be allowed to maintain those beliefs as long as it doesn't infringe on some essential or even important accomodation.
    Part of it is based on academic grounds. Among major conferences, the Pac-10 is the best academically, largely because of Stanford, Cal and UCLA. “Colorado is on a par with Oregon,” he said. “Utah isn’t even in the picture.”

  16. #106
    Princeps Inter Pares
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    10,799

    Default

    For those so inclined, here's the transcript of the argument.

    https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_ar...6-111_f314.pdf
    τὸν ἥλιον ἀνατέλλοντα πλείονες ἢ δυόμενον προσκυνοῦσιν

  17. #107
    𐐐𐐄𐐢𐐆𐐤𐐝 𐐓𐐅 𐐜 𐐢𐐃𐐡𐐔 Uncle Ted's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Where ∑ ★'s = 1
    Posts
    17,575

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by All-American View Post
    For those so inclined, here's the transcript of the argument.

    https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_ar...6-111_f314.pdf

    TL; DR. One of you lawyers needs to give us the legal summary along with some select highlight quotes.
    "If there is one thing I am, it's always right." -Ted Nugent.
    "I honestly believe saying someone is a smart lawyer is damning with faint praise. The smartest people become engineers and scientists." -SU.
    "I never preached in Texas, but I have preached in places as wicked..." -Brigham Young.
    "If we do nothing we'll be substantially behind (other Power leagues) a decade from now." -Bob Bowlsby on Big 12 expansion.
    GIVE 'EM HELL, BRIGHAM!

  18. #108

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by old_gregg View Post
    yes
    Okay. Thanks for the answer. Sorry gays- can't argue with that one. If we can discriminate against whites and blacks and all skin colors in between, i can't do anything for y'all.
    I'm like LeBron James.
    -mpfunk

  19. #109
    My Mic Sounds Nice falafel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Las Wegas!
    Posts
    26,372

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by smokymountainrain View Post
    Okay. Thanks for the answer. Sorry gays- can't argue with that one. If we can discriminate against whites and blacks and all skin colors in between, i can't do anything for y'all.
    You discriminate too. All the time. You just accept the discrimination as justified. Ever lock your doors when you see a sketchy person panhandling outside the parking lot of the IMC? Ever see a dude with long hair and 50 tatts and think "no way a dude like that ever gets close to my daughter"? (in fact - didn't you once post about an issue you had with your daughter's choice in young men?)
    Ain't it like most people, I'm no different. We love to talk on things we don't know about.

    "The only one of us who is so significant that Jeff owes us something simply because he decided to grace us with his presence is falafel." -- All-American

    GIVE 'EM HELL, BRIGHAM!

  20. #110
    Trump-hating snowflake Jeff Lebowski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    The heart of the UC
    Posts
    44,398

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by smokymountainrain View Post
    at one point in time the LDS church was against interracial marriages - if I'm an LDS cake baker in that era, asked to bake a cake for an interracial couple, you think religious sensibilities should be considered?
    Here is another hypothetical for you: Suppose you have a black baker, and a member of the KKK comes in and ask the baker to make a wedding cake featuring burning crosses, "white power", and other KKK symbols. Should the baker be required to bake the cake? Otherwise it is discrimination, right?

    (a similar analogy was used in the SCOTUS arguments today, btw)
    "Socialism is not bad IMHO" - byu71
    "There is no creature more arrogant than a self-righteous libertarian on the web, am I right? Those folks are just intolerable."
    "It's no secret that the great American pastime is no longer baseball. Now it's sanctimony." -- Guy Periwinkle, The Nix.

  21. #111

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Northwestcoug View Post
    That is most definitely a kooky libertarian take.
    no it’s not
    Te Occidere Possunt Sed Te Edere Non Possunt Nefas Est.

  22. #112
    Anti-Mormon Gadfly
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    12,397

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski View Post
    Here is another hypothetical for you: Suppose you have a black baker, and a member of the KKK comes in and ask the baker to make a wedding cake featuring burning crosses, "white power", and other KKK symbols. Should the baker be required to bake the cake? Otherwise it is discrimination, right?

    (a similar analogy was used in the SCOTUS arguments today, btw)
    No. It is not a protected class and shouldn't be a protected class. You aren't born a racist piece of shit that is definitely a decision.
    The crux of what has traumatized us about CUF/CG is that we thought they were our friends. And their identity as BYU fans turned out to be the most important thing to them. What empty lives! What a damning indictment of the LDS Church!
    --SeattleUte

  23. #113

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by falafel View Post
    You discriminate too. All the time. You just accept the discrimination as justified. Ever lock your doors when you see a sketchy person panhandling outside the parking lot of the IMC? Ever see a dude with long hair and 50 tatts and think "no way a dude like that ever gets close to my daughter"? (in fact - didn't you once post about an issue you had with your daughter's choice in young men?)
    Yeah, just always saw owning a business, providing a service for the general public differently. Obviously I'm not alone in that thought.
    I'm like LeBron James.
    -mpfunk

  24. #114
    Anti-Mormon Gadfly
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    12,397

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Color Me Badd Fan View Post
    So the compelling interest is "prohibiting discrimination" which in turn means governing people's personal feelings about gay marriage? And Colorado is using the power to grant business licenses as a way to enforce this?

    "Prohibiting discrimination" is a pretty wide-encompassing thing that could be used to proscribe all kinds of behavior based on personal beliefs. And that runs up against First Amendment Rights, hence it better be both a very compelling interest and narrowly tailored to meet that interest. That's where we get the public accommodation cases. Prohibiting discrimination is compelling as to public accomodations. Telling a baker that he must create an artistic work for a gay wedding that also happens to go against his religious beliefs isn't exactly desegregating the University of Alabama. People should be allowed to maintain those beliefs as long as it doesn't infringe on some essential or even important accomodation.
    Let's be more precise, the compelling interest in avoiding giving business licenses to individuals that are going to use that government benefit to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.

    Colorado is not stopping people from believing homosexual marriage is wrong. Colorado has just decided that it is going to condition the privilege of operating a business on actually treating all protected classes equally.
    The crux of what has traumatized us about CUF/CG is that we thought they were our friends. And their identity as BYU fans turned out to be the most important thing to them. What empty lives! What a damning indictment of the LDS Church!
    --SeattleUte

  25. #115
    𐐐𐐄𐐢𐐆𐐤𐐝 𐐓𐐅 𐐜 𐐢𐐃𐐡𐐔 Uncle Ted's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Where ∑ ★'s = 1
    Posts
    17,575

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski View Post
    Here is another hypothetical for you: Suppose you have a black baker, and a member of the KKK comes in and ask the baker to make a wedding cake featuring burning crosses, "white power", and other KKK symbols. Should the baker be required to bake the cake? Otherwise it is discrimination, right?

    (a similar analogy was used in the SCOTUS arguments today, btw)
    Couldn't the baker just say cakes featuring burning crosses, etc. are $2,000 extra because of the emotional demands it puts on the staff of the cake shop to create such a work of art? Not to mention burning crosses present a significant fire hazard as well to the cake shop.
    "If there is one thing I am, it's always right." -Ted Nugent.
    "I honestly believe saying someone is a smart lawyer is damning with faint praise. The smartest people become engineers and scientists." -SU.
    "I never preached in Texas, but I have preached in places as wicked..." -Brigham Young.
    "If we do nothing we'll be substantially behind (other Power leagues) a decade from now." -Bob Bowlsby on Big 12 expansion.
    GIVE 'EM HELL, BRIGHAM!

  26. #116

    Default

    What a boring ass thread. Yawn.
    *Banned*

  27. #117

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mpfunk View Post
    Let's be more precise, the compelling interest in avoiding giving business licenses to individuals that are going to use that government benefit to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.

    Colorado is not stopping people from believing homosexual marriage is wrong. Colorado has just decided that it is going to condition the privilege of operating a business on actually treating all protected classes equally.
    infringement on free exercise is not itself a compelling interest
    Te Occidere Possunt Sed Te Edere Non Possunt Nefas Est.

  28. #118
    𐐐𐐄𐐢𐐆𐐤𐐝 𐐓𐐅 𐐜 𐐢𐐃𐐡𐐔 Uncle Ted's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Where ∑ ★'s = 1
    Posts
    17,575

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cougjunkie View Post
    What a boring ass thread. Yawn.
    Yeah, no kidding...

    "If there is one thing I am, it's always right." -Ted Nugent.
    "I honestly believe saying someone is a smart lawyer is damning with faint praise. The smartest people become engineers and scientists." -SU.
    "I never preached in Texas, but I have preached in places as wicked..." -Brigham Young.
    "If we do nothing we'll be substantially behind (other Power leagues) a decade from now." -Bob Bowlsby on Big 12 expansion.
    GIVE 'EM HELL, BRIGHAM!

  29. #119
    Anti-Mormon Gadfly
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    12,397

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by old_gregg View Post
    infringement on free exercise is not itself a compelling interest
    I absolutely disagree that the Colorado statute as interpreted and applied to this cake baker infringes on his free exercise.
    The crux of what has traumatized us about CUF/CG is that we thought they were our friends. And their identity as BYU fans turned out to be the most important thing to them. What empty lives! What a damning indictment of the LDS Church!
    --SeattleUte

  30. #120
    My Mic Sounds Nice falafel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Las Wegas!
    Posts
    26,372

    Default

    Can I, as a Christian baker, refuse to bake a cake for a Satanist that wants me to put a mangled Jesus on a cross on the cake for his anti-christ commitment ceremony?
    Ain't it like most people, I'm no different. We love to talk on things we don't know about.

    "The only one of us who is so significant that Jeff owes us something simply because he decided to grace us with his presence is falafel." -- All-American

    GIVE 'EM HELL, BRIGHAM!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •