RE: Religious Rights Not "Good Enough" to Refuse Service

RE: Religious Rights Not "Good Enough" to Refuse Service (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

BamaD -> RE: Religious Rights Not "Good Enough" to Refuse Service (7/29/2015 6:09:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD And nowhere in the bakery did they have a two bride topper but we were told in that thread that they HAD TO GO GET ONE or they were bigots. As I recall, the issue of the topper was relatively minor. If they don't have it, they don't have it. But the lawsuit was about a total refusal of service, cake and all. If they made the cake and just didn't have a topper, I don't see how they could be sued over just that. If it was so minor why did not having it make them bigots? They were called bigots for not having a topper? Yes someone, I think it was got steel, said if they weren't bigots they could have gotten it.

GotSteel -> RE: Religious Rights Not "Good Enough" to Refuse Service (7/29/2015 7:56:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub He would be a busy God trying to destroy gayness since it has always been a part of mankind... Hmmm again... if God made man in his image then he is 1/5 gay as well. Where'd you get that number? Because I think it might be a little high: quote: ORIGINAL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_demographics_of_the_United_States The demographics of sexual orientation and gender identity in the United States have come to light in the social sciences in recent decades. In the first large-scale government survey measuring Americans’ sexual orientation, the NHIS reported in July 2014 that 1.6 percent of Americans identify as gay or lesbian, and 0.7 percent considered themselves bisexual.[1] In a Williams Institute review based on an June-September 2012 Gallup poll, approximately 3.4 percent of American adults identify themselves as being LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender).[2] An earlier report published in April 2011 by the Williams Institute estimated that 3.8 percent of Americans identified as gay/lesbian, bisexual, or transgender: 1.7 percent as lesbian or gay, 1.8 percent as bisexual, and 0.3 percent as transgender.[3] The 2011 Williams Institute report also states that 8.2 percent of Americans reported that they had engaged in same-sex sexual behavior, and 11 percent reported some same-sex attraction. Studies from several nations, including the U.S., conducted at varying time periods, have produced a statistical range of 1.2[3] to 6.8[4] percent of the adult population identifying as LGBT.

GotSteel -> RE: Religious Rights Not "Good Enough" to Refuse Service (7/29/2015 8:05:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD Yes someone, I think it was got steel, said if they weren't bigots they could have gotten it. I never said that, my participation in that thread was largely about how the ruling was on account of the bakery owners harmful hate group activities: quote: ORIGINAL: http://www.rawstory.com/2015/07/oregon-bakers-werent-fined-over-cake-they-were-punished-for-sharing-lesbian-couples-home-address/ The blog explains that the bakery owners shared the couple’s personal contact information – which led to death threats that nearly caused them to lose custody of their foster children....She filed her complaint by smartphone, which prevented her from seeing a disclaimer notifying her that her full name and address would be sent to the bakery owners – and Aaron Klein shared that information, along with the complaint, on his personal Facebook page. Conservative media and anti-LGBT organizations such as the Family Research Council promoted the Kleins as victims of religious discrimination.

Lucylastic -> RE: Religious Rights Not "Good Enough" to Refuse Service (7/30/2015 4:56:43 AM)
THis is an update to the prescription n religious bigotry kerfuffle Court Smacks Down Pharmacy That Refused To Fill Prescriptions On Religious Grounds http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2015/07/25/3684270/court-pharmacy-religious-grounds/ Pharmacy owners do not have a constitutional right to refuse to dispense medicines that they object to on religious grounds, according to a decision handed down Thursday by a federal appeals court. Had the plaintiffs in this case prevailed, it would have not only permitted them to refuse to fill many birth control prescriptions (which is what these particular plaintiffs hoped to achieve), but it could have also potentially enabled pharmacists to refuse to fill a long list of prescriptions, including “diabetic syringes, insulin, HIV-related medications, and Valium.” Stormans v. Wiesman concerned a Washington state rule that permits individual pharmacists to refuse to fill a particular prescription “so long as another pharmacist working for the pharmacy provides timely delivery,” but does not generally allow the pharmacy itself to refuse to deliver a prescription “even if the owner of the pharmacy has a religious objection.” Intervenors in the case, who joined on the side of the state officials defending the rule, include an HIV-positive man and a woman with AIDS who feared that they would be denied “timely access to their prescription medications” if the court sided with these plaintiffs. As a legal matter, this is an extraordinarily easy case. Although a federal law known as the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) expands religious liberty beyond the minimum requirements of the Constitution — this law formed the basis of the Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby decision — RFRA only applies to challenges to federal law. State law challenges, such as Stormans, are governed by a much less stringent constitutional standard, at least when those challenges are brought in federal court. Under this less stringent standard, the Supreme Court held in 1990, the Constitution “does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a valid and neutral law of general applicability on the ground that the law proscribes (or prescribes) conduct that his religion prescribes (or proscribes).” As a unanimous panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit explains, the Washington state rules are just such a neutral law of general applicability. Among other things, the court explains, “the rules’ delivery requirement applies to all objections to delivery that do not fall within an exemption, regardless” of whether that objection is rooted in religious faith or some other reason. A person who refuses to fill an anti-HIV prescription due to a religious objection to sexual activity that may cause someone to become infected with HIV is treated identically to someone with a purely secular objection to filling the same prescription. Indeed, it is unlikely that this case would have gained much steam at all except for the fact that the plaintiffs drew a particularly sympathetic trial judge. Among other things, the trial judge implied that these plaintiffs had the right to refuse to fill certain prescriptions for contraception “premised on the right ‘to refrain from taking human life.’” Link to download the courts descision http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2015/07/23/12-35221.pdf

Real0ne -> RE: Religious Rights Not "Good Enough" to Refuse Service (7/30/2015 2:56:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic A person who refuses to fill an anti-HIV prescription due to a religious objection to sexual activity that may cause someone to become infected with HIV is treated identically to someone with a purely secular [moral] objection to filling the same prescription. http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2015/07/23/12-35221.pdf but but but your dicktator, um I mean yer unner, it is fully understandable in the case of exigency the pharmacist would be obligated under other laws that already exist and do in fact extend to the matter, and all moral decisions are a matter of 'religion' be it state sanctioned secular humanism or some udder non-god-based-religion. Therefore yer unner he had the right to exercise his religion since it did not present a health or safety hazzard which is the extent of yer jurisdiction yer unner, unless of course the court is persuaded that the authority to govern commerce extends also to regulation of 'the right to exercise religion' as well. yer unner.[sm=bowdown.gif] This is a direct assault on religions et al in lieu of the gubmint promoted religion. BTW the courts violates procedural due process anytime it brings matters into the case which are not the facts of the case. In other words this case was not about refusing to sell an aids person hiv medications. The judges involved should be sanctioned.

Arturas -> RE: Religious Rights Not "Good Enough" to Refuse Service (7/30/2015 6:28:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail What city was that? There is no such account in the bible. And before you say stupid shit, not Sodom, not Gomorrah, read the thing, you will see that you are projecting something into the facts of the case. denial is not a river in Egypt.

Arturas -> RE: Religious Rights Not "Good Enough" to Refuse Service (7/30/2015 6:41:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 quote: ORIGINAL: Arturas quote: There are NO RULES in the Christian religion about baking a cake for a gay wedding Actually there is. God destroyed an entire city of homosexuals. Given that example not baking them a cake should be interpreted as a kindness. Are there are any scriptures which state "Thou shalt not bake a cake for a gay wedding"? Perhaps I read too much into the account of how if God tells Abraham to flee the city of Sodom because He is about to destroy it. In spite of that lesson I guess anyone who believes in the Bible should accept that while it is okay for God to destroy a city of homosexuals it is still alright for Gods people, I guess that is everyone else from what the lesson seems to imply, it is alright to bake them a cake sell it to them as long as you don't let God know. Wow, that is some pressure on a poor baker just trying to make a business go and be loyal to his God. But maybe that is just me. I guess one can answer God by saying Obama says it is okay.

Arturas -> RE: Religious Rights Not "Good Enough" to Refuse Service (7/30/2015 6:46:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub quote: ORIGINAL: Arturas quote: There are NO RULES in the Christian religion about baking a cake for a gay wedding Actually there is. God destroyed an entire city of homosexuals. Given that example not baking them a cake should be interpreted as a kindness. Hmmm I wonder what the ratio of gays to straights needs to be before God destroys earth again... He would be a busy God trying to destroy gayness since it has always been a part of mankind... Hmmm again... if God made man in his image then he is 1/5 gay as well. I guess under the Constitution he could always put a gun to his head and end his gayness.... that is if a gun can kill God... if not maybe a thunderbolt.... Either way get that queer out-a-here. Butch Hmmmm...clever. Well, scripture says God told Abraham that if he could find only 10 righteous men in that city then God would spare the city. Only 10. So I think we are covered when discussing the world population. I think God will still spare us for 10 good men and we have 10 percent of that right here so no worries. Maybe.

Arturas -> RE: Religious Rights Not "Good Enough" to Refuse Service (7/30/2015 6:49:13 PM)
quote: Either way get that queer out-a-here. You know, there is only one sin He does not forgive according to scriptures. Guess what that is. Hint: it has nothing to do with homosexuality.

Arturas -> RE: Religious Rights Not "Good Enough" to Refuse Service (7/30/2015 6:54:27 PM)
quote: if God made man in his image... Scripture says that for sure. Funny thing about image when you look under the covers...

GotSteel -> RE: Religious Rights Not "Good Enough" to Refuse Service (7/30/2015 6:55:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Arturas Perhaps I read too much into the account of how if God tells Abraham to flee the city of Sodom because He is about to destroy it. In spite of that lesson I guess anyone who believes in the Bible should accept that while it is okay for God to destroy a city of homosexuals it is still alright for Gods people, I guess that is everyone else from what the lesson seems to imply, it is alright to bake them a cake sell it to them as long as you don't let God know. Wow, that is some pressure on a poor baker just trying to make a business go and be loyal to his God. But maybe that is just me. I guess one can answer God by saying Obama says it is okay. The reason god hated the sodomites is because they weren't liberals: quote: ORIGINAL: Ezekiel 16:49-50New International Version (NIV) 49 “‘Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. 50 They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen.

Arturas -> RE: Religious Rights Not "Good Enough" to Refuse Service (7/30/2015 6:58:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic THis is an update to the prescription n religious bigotry kerfuffle Court Smacks Down Pharmacy That Refused To Fill Prescriptions On Religious Grounds http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2015/07/25/3684270/court-pharmacy-religious-grounds/ Pharmacy owners do not have a constitutional right to refuse to dispense medicines that they object to on religious grounds, according to a decision handed down Thursday by a federal appeals court. Had the plaintiffs in this case prevailed, it would have not only permitted them to refuse to fill many birth control prescriptions (which is what these particular plaintiffs hoped to achieve), but it could have also potentially enabled pharmacists to refuse to fill a long list of prescriptions, including “diabetic syringes, insulin, HIV-related medications, and Valium.” Stormans v. Wiesman concerned a Washington state rule that permits individual pharmacists to refuse to fill a particular prescription “so long as another pharmacist working for the pharmacy provides timely delivery,” but does not generally allow the pharmacy itself to refuse to deliver a prescription “even if the owner of the pharmacy has a religious objection.” Intervenors in the case, who joined on the side of the state officials defending the rule, include an HIV-positive man and a woman with AIDS who feared that they would be denied “timely access to their prescription medications” if the court sided with these plaintiffs. As a legal matter, this is an extraordinarily easy case. Although a federal law known as the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) expands religious liberty beyond the minimum requirements of the Constitution — this law formed the basis of the Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby decision — RFRA only applies to challenges to federal law. State law challenges, such as Stormans, are governed by a much less stringent constitutional standard, at least when those challenges are brought in federal court. Under this less stringent standard, the Supreme Court held in 1990, the Constitution “does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a valid and neutral law of general applicability on the ground that the law proscribes (or prescribes) conduct that his religion prescribes (or proscribes).” As a unanimous panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit explains, the Washington state rules are just such a neutral law of general applicability. Among other things, the court explains, “the rules’ delivery requirement applies to all objections to delivery that do not fall within an exemption, regardless” of whether that objection is rooted in religious faith or some other reason. A person who refuses to fill an anti-HIV prescription due to a religious objection to sexual activity that may cause someone to become infected with HIV is treated identically to someone with a purely secular objection to filling the same prescription. Indeed, it is unlikely that this case would have gained much steam at all except for the fact that the plaintiffs drew a particularly sympathetic trial judge. Among other things, the trial judge implied that these plaintiffs had the right to refuse to fill certain prescriptions for contraception “premised on the right ‘to refrain from taking human life.’” Link to download the courts descision http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2015/07/23/12-35221.pdf I think right and truth are simpler than this. If one needs all this to justify their position then there is little truth to be found.

Zonie63 -> RE: Religious Rights Not "Good Enough" to Refuse Service (7/30/2015 7:00:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Arturas quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 quote: ORIGINAL: Arturas quote: There are NO RULES in the Christian religion about baking a cake for a gay wedding Actually there is. God destroyed an entire city of homosexuals. Given that example not baking them a cake should be interpreted as a kindness. Are there are any scriptures which state "Thou shalt not bake a cake for a gay wedding"? Perhaps I read too much into the account of how if God tells Abraham to flee the city of Sodom because He is about to destroy it. In spite of that lesson I guess anyone who believes in the Bible should accept that while it is okay for God to destroy a city of homosexuals it is still alright for Gods people, I guess that is everyone else from what the lesson seems to imply, it is alright to bake them a cake sell it to them as long as you don't let God know. Wow, that is some pressure on a poor baker just trying to make a business go and be loyal to his God. But maybe that is just me. I guess one can answer God by saying Obama says it is okay. But why would anyone who is supposedly "righteous" live in a city (or a country) with so much sin and depravity in the first place? Just living in the same city with them would be enough for condemnation, so refusing to bake a cake wouldn't really protect them from that kind of judgment. Abraham could have saved the city from God's wrath if only he could have found 10 "righteous" people, but he was unsuccessful. And the reasons for the city's destruction was not because of homosexuality. Ezekial 16:49 mentions that: quote: Ezekiel 16:48-50New International Version (NIV) 48 As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign Lord, your sister Sodom and her daughters never did what you and your daughters have done. 49 “‘Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. 50 They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen. "Arrogant, overfed, and unconcerned" and "they did not help the poor and needy." Does that sound like any political faction we know?

Zonie63 -> RE: Religious Rights Not "Good Enough" to Refuse Service (7/30/2015 7:01:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel quote: ORIGINAL: Arturas Perhaps I read too much into the account of how if God tells Abraham to flee the city of Sodom because He is about to destroy it. In spite of that lesson I guess anyone who believes in the Bible should accept that while it is okay for God to destroy a city of homosexuals it is still alright for Gods people, I guess that is everyone else from what the lesson seems to imply, it is alright to bake them a cake sell it to them as long as you don't let God know. Wow, that is some pressure on a poor baker just trying to make a business go and be loyal to his God. But maybe that is just me. I guess one can answer God by saying Obama says it is okay. The reason god hated the sodomites is because they weren't liberals: quote: ORIGINAL: Ezekiel 16:49-50New International Version (NIV) 49 “‘Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. 50 They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen. Oh man, you beat me to it. I pulled up the same quote.

Arturas -> RE: Religious Rights Not "Good Enough" to Refuse Service (7/30/2015 7:05:42 PM)
quote: they did not help the poor and needy Scripture says that in order to help the poor and needy you do not feed them a fish every day but instead feed them a fish and then teach them to fish so they may feed themselves and others in need and then teach them to fish (learn a trade) and so on and so on. This is why scripture says one is blessed with abundance when you follow this policy and why one is not blessed with abundance when you are a liberal city or state.

Lucylastic -> RE: Religious Rights Not "Good Enough" to Refuse Service (7/30/2015 7:09:33 PM)
Proverbs 19:17 Whoever is generous to the poor lends to the Lord, and he will repay him for his deed. Matthew 5:42 Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you. Acts 20:35 In all things I have shown you that by working hard in this way we must help the weak and remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he himself said, ‘It is more blessed to give than to receive.’” Luke 14:12-14 He said also to the man who had invited him, “When you give a dinner or a banquet, do not invite your friends or your brothers or your relatives or rich neighbors, lest they also invite you in return and you be repaid. But when you give a feast, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed, because they cannot repay you. For you will be repaid at the resurrection of the just.” Proverbs 22:9 Whoever has a bountiful eye will be blessed, for he shares his bread with the poor. Luke 12:33-34 Sell your possessions, and give to the needy. Provide yourselves with moneybags that do not grow old, with a treasure in the heavens that does not fail, where no thief approaches and no moth destroys. For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.

Arturas -> RE: Religious Rights Not "Good Enough" to Refuse Service (7/30/2015 7:09:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 quote: ORIGINAL: Arturas quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 quote: ORIGINAL: Arturas quote: There are NO RULES in the Christian religion about baking a cake for a gay wedding Actually there is. God destroyed an entire city of homosexuals. Given that example not baking them a cake should be interpreted as a kindness. Are there are any scriptures which state "Thou shalt not bake a cake for a gay wedding"? Perhaps I read too much into the account of how if God tells Abraham to flee the city of Sodom because He is about to destroy it. In spite of that lesson I guess anyone who believes in the Bible should accept that while it is okay for God to destroy a city of homosexuals it is still alright for Gods people, I guess that is everyone else from what the lesson seems to imply, it is alright to bake them a cake sell it to them as long as you don't let God know. Wow, that is some pressure on a poor baker just trying to make a business go and be loyal to his God. But maybe that is just me. I guess one can answer God by saying Obama says it is okay. But why would anyone who is supposedly "righteous" live in a city (or a country) with so much sin and depravity in the first place? Just living in the same city with them would be enough for condemnation, so refusing to bake a cake wouldn't really protect them from that kind of judgment. Abraham could have saved the city from God's wrath if only he could have found 10 "righteous" people, but he was unsuccessful. And the reasons for the city's destruction was not because of homosexuality. Ezekial 16:49 mentions that: quote: Ezekiel 16:48-50New International Version (NIV) 48 As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign Lord, your sister Sodom and her daughters never did what you and your daughters have done. 49 “‘Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. 50 They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen. "Arrogant, overfed, and unconcerned" and "they did not help the poor and needy." Does that sound like any political faction we know? "They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen." Notice there is no "and" preceding this explanation of why God destroyed Sodom.

Arturas -> RE: Religious Rights Not "Good Enough" to Refuse Service (7/30/2015 7:27:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic Proverbs 19:17 Whoever is generous to the poor lends to the Lord, and he will repay him for his deed. Matthew 5:42 Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you. Acts 20:35 In all things I have shown you that by working hard in this way we must help the weak and remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he himself said, ‘It is more blessed to give than to receive.’” Luke 14:12-14 He said also to the man who had invited him, “When you give a dinner or a banquet, do not invite your friends or your brothers or your relatives or rich neighbors, lest they also invite you in return and you be repaid. But when you give a feast, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed, because they cannot repay you. For you will be repaid at the resurrection of the just.” Proverbs 22:9 Whoever has a bountiful eye will be blessed, for he shares his bread with the poor. Luke 12:33-34 Sell your possessions, and give to the needy. Provide yourselves with moneybags that do not grow old, with a treasure in the heavens that does not fail, where no thief approaches and no moth destroys. For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also. Proverbs 31:18 Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute. NIV

Kirata -> RE: Religious Rights Not "Good Enough" to Refuse Service (7/30/2015 7:29:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 And the reasons for the city's destruction was not because of homosexuality. Ezekial 16:49 mentions that: quote: Ezekiel 16:48-50New International Version (NIV) 48 As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign Lord, your sister Sodom and her daughters never did what you and your daughters have done. 49 “‘Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. 50 They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen. "Arrogant, overfed, and unconcerned" and "they did not help the poor and needy." Does that sound like any political faction we know? It wasn't just because they didn't help the needy... As I live, declares the Lord God, your sister Sodom and her daughters have not done as you and your daughters have done. Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy. They were haughty and did an abomination before me. So I removed them, when I saw it. Ezekiel 16:48-50 ESV As a further note, the "abomination" was whoring. K.

Lucylastic -> RE: Religious Rights Not "Good Enough" to Refuse Service (7/30/2015 7:36:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Arturas quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic Proverbs 19:17 Whoever is generous to the poor lends to the Lord, and he will repay him for his deed. Matthew 5:42 Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you. Acts 20:35 In all things I have shown you that by working hard in this way we must help the weak and remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he himself said, ‘It is more blessed to give than to receive.’” Luke 14:12-14 He said also to the man who had invited him, “When you give a dinner or a banquet, do not invite your friends or your brothers or your relatives or rich neighbors, lest they also invite you in return and you be repaid. But when you give a feast, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed, because they cannot repay you. For you will be repaid at the resurrection of the just.” Proverbs 22:9 Whoever has a bountiful eye will be blessed, for he shares his bread with the poor. Luke 12:33-34 Sell your possessions, and give to the needy. Provide yourselves with moneybags that do not grow old, with a treasure in the heavens that does not fail, where no thief approaches and no moth destroys. For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also. Proverbs 31:18 Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute. NIV Matthew 25:34-46 Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’ Then the righteous will answer him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? ...

Page: << < prev 6 7 [8] 9 10 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875