Home Mail MemberMap Chat (0) Wallpapers
Go Back   ChiefsPlanet > The Lounge > D.C.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-25-2014, 08:06 PM  
ChiefsandO'sfan ChiefsandO'sfan is offline
Alex Smith
 
ChiefsandO'sfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Casino cash: $9657
NFL could pull Super Bowl if Arizona religious rights bill passes

Call it what you want -- anti-gay or religious rights -- but if Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer signs a controversial bill, you might not be calling Arizona the home of the 2015 Super Bowl.

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act, S.B. 1062, is the current controversy du jour out of Arizona, and the National Football League is with the opposition.

“Our policies emphasize tolerance and inclusiveness and prohibit discrimination based on age, gender, race, religion, sexual orientation or any other improper standard,” NFL spokesman Greg Aiello told USA Today. “We are following the issue in Arizona and will continue to do so should the bill be signed into law, but will decline further comment at this time.”

Sign Up for the Politics Today newsletter!
The Arizona Super Bowl Host committee released a statement saying it disagreed with the bill and its impact on Arizona’s economy.

“On that matter we have heard loud and clear from our various stakeholders that adoption of this legislation would not only run contrary to that goal but deal a significant blow to the state's economic growth potential,” a committee spokesperson said. “We do not support this legislation.”

Arizona is currently slated to host the 2015 Super Bowl at Glendale’s University of Phoenix Stadium.

Opponents of the bill contend that it will allow Arizona businesses to refuse service to homosexual customers.

But, as with most bills in Congress, the attack ads have little to do with the actual legislation.

Proponents of the bill claim that no, businesses will not have carte blanche to refuse service to anyone they disagree with based on religious grounds.

Specifically, proponents claim that there is nothing in Arizona’s current laws that prevent businesses from discriminating against anyone — and yet, strangely enough, discrimination isn’t happening.

Apparently, businesses in Arizona have wanted to discriminate but have just been waiting for a bill to allow them to do so — which this bill does not. Also, what business would quietly wait to discriminate?

“Business owners do not want to deny service to gays,” the Christian Post wrote. “This is not because they fear government sanction. Rather, it is because: 1) Their religious, ethical or moral beliefs tell them it is wrong to deny service; and/or, 2) the profit motive — turning away customers is no way to run a business.”

Sounds like the opponents — and the NFL — need to take a knee.


http://washingtonexaminer.com/nfl-co...rticle/2544606
Posts: 17,325
ChiefsandO'sfan threw an interception on a screen pass.ChiefsandO'sfan threw an interception on a screen pass.ChiefsandO'sfan threw an interception on a screen pass.ChiefsandO'sfan threw an interception on a screen pass.ChiefsandO'sfan threw an interception on a screen pass.ChiefsandO'sfan threw an interception on a screen pass.ChiefsandO'sfan threw an interception on a screen pass.ChiefsandO'sfan threw an interception on a screen pass.ChiefsandO'sfan threw an interception on a screen pass.ChiefsandO'sfan threw an interception on a screen pass.ChiefsandO'sfan threw an interception on a screen pass.
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-2014, 05:15 PM   #211
listopencil listopencil is offline
sic semper tyrannis
 
listopencil's Avatar
 

Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In Partibus Infidelium
Casino cash: $13979
Quote:
Originally Posted by patteeu View Post
No, I don't think anyone would be committing a crime. Why is that a problem? It could happen today. There's no reason to prevent churches from holding their own ceremonies for polygamous relationships and it would be a violation of our constitution if we tried to.

Churches were holding gay marriage ceremonies before same sex marriage became law.
I would think that it would be. But, for instance, there is a law that goes into effect on July 1st of this year in Indiana reducing the criminal punishment for solemnizing a marriage that isn't recognized as legal by the state.

http://americablog.com/2013/07/india...-marriage.html
__________________
"As I walked out the door toward the gate that would lead to my freedom, I knew if I didn't leave my bitterness and hatred behind I'd still be in prison."


Posts: 29,167
listopencil is obviously part of the inner Circle.listopencil is obviously part of the inner Circle.listopencil is obviously part of the inner Circle.listopencil is obviously part of the inner Circle.listopencil is obviously part of the inner Circle.listopencil is obviously part of the inner Circle.listopencil is obviously part of the inner Circle.listopencil is obviously part of the inner Circle.listopencil is obviously part of the inner Circle.listopencil is obviously part of the inner Circle.listopencil is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-2014, 05:30 PM   #212
listopencil listopencil is offline
sic semper tyrannis
 
listopencil's Avatar
 

Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In Partibus Infidelium
Casino cash: $13979
I was just perusing a list of state marriage laws here: http://www.theamm.org/marriage-laws

It looks like several states have fines or even jail time listed as punishments for breaking marriage laws. From what I can see the punishments are for people performing the ceremony who aren't allowed to do so, or otherwise engage in some kind of fraud. I have no idea if they come into play regarding the solemnization of an "illegal" marriage. I'll keep digging around as time permits. Unless I see a shiny object that captures my attention.
__________________
"As I walked out the door toward the gate that would lead to my freedom, I knew if I didn't leave my bitterness and hatred behind I'd still be in prison."


Posts: 29,167
listopencil is obviously part of the inner Circle.listopencil is obviously part of the inner Circle.listopencil is obviously part of the inner Circle.listopencil is obviously part of the inner Circle.listopencil is obviously part of the inner Circle.listopencil is obviously part of the inner Circle.listopencil is obviously part of the inner Circle.listopencil is obviously part of the inner Circle.listopencil is obviously part of the inner Circle.listopencil is obviously part of the inner Circle.listopencil is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-2014, 06:22 PM   #213
patteeu patteeu is offline
The 23rd Pillar
 
patteeu's Avatar
 

Join Date: Sep 2002
Casino cash: $5000
Quote:
Originally Posted by listopencil View Post
I would think that it would be. But, for instance, there is a law that goes into effect on July 1st of this year in Indiana reducing the criminal punishment for solemnizing a marriage that isn't recognized as legal by the state.

http://americablog.com/2013/07/india...-marriage.html
That's an interesting find. I don't see how it could be constitutional unless by "solemnizing" they mean performing the ceremonial functions of a state-sanctioned marriage as opposed to performing a purely religious ceremony. The statute doesn't include a definition for "solemnize" so there is some ambiguity, but one reasonable principle of construction is to embrace the meaning that makes a law constitutional instead of the meaning that makes it unconstitutional.

In a lawsuit concerning this Indiana provision, a court refused to grant injunctive relief to a plaintiff who was suing on a somewhat unrelated issue. In it's decision, the court says (.pdf):

Quote:
Id. § 31-11-6-1. The individual who “solemnizes” the marriage has three related responsibilities: (1) completing the original and duplicate marriage certificates; (2) presenting the original certificate to the couple; and (3) “[n]ot later than thirty (30) days after the date of the marriage,” filing the duplicate certificate and the actual marriage license with the clerk of the circuit court who issued the couple’s license. Id. § 31-11-4-16. Under Indiana law, anyone who discharges these duties without authority to do so under the Solemnization Statute commits a Class B misdemeanor. Id. § 31-11-6-1.
This judge seems to be thinking in terms of the state aspect of a solemnization rather than the ceremonial parts. Since this case isn't really testing the issue we're discussing, it's not necessarily dispositive, but it definitely doesn't support the idea that it could be used to prevent a purely religious activity.
__________________


"I'll see you guys in New York." ISIS Caliph Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi to US military personnel upon his release from US custody at Camp Bucca in Iraq during Obama's first year in office.
Posts: 75,744
patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-2014, 06:37 PM   #214
listopencil listopencil is offline
sic semper tyrannis
 
listopencil's Avatar
 

Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In Partibus Infidelium
Casino cash: $13979
Quote:
Originally Posted by patteeu View Post
That's an interesting find. I don't see how it could be constitutional unless by "solemnizing" they mean performing the ceremonial functions of a state-sanctioned marriage as opposed to performing a purely religious ceremony. The statute doesn't include a definition for "solemnize" so there is some ambiguity, but one reasonable principle of construction is to embrace the meaning that makes a law constitutional instead of the meaning that makes it unconstitutional.

In a lawsuit concerning this Indiana provision, a court refused to grant injunctive relief to a plaintiff who was suing on a somewhat unrelated issue. In it's decision, the court says (.pdf):



This judge seems to be thinking in terms of the state aspect of a solemnization rather than the ceremonial parts. Since this case isn't really testing the issue we're discussing, it's not necessarily dispositive, but it definitely doesn't support the idea that it could be used to prevent a purely religious activity.
Right. There are two different issues here. (1)The person who "solemnizes" the marriage doesn't have to be a religious authority and (2) that person has responsibilities beyond the ceremony itself. So a good chunk of marriage law is just going to be about whether the ceremony was performed by someone who is authorized to do so and if that person did the paperwork correctly. The solemnization and the recording are two distinct acts (or sets of acts) though. A link in that article points to this Indiana Code:

IC 31-11-11-8
Failure to timely file marriage license and duplicate marriage certificate
Sec. 8. A person who:
(1) solemnizes a marriage; and
(2) fails to file the marriage license and a duplicate marriage certificate with the clerk of the circuit court not later than ninety (90) days after the date the marriage was solemnized;

From that I would say that "solemnization" refers to the ceremony whether it is or is not a religious one.
__________________
"As I walked out the door toward the gate that would lead to my freedom, I knew if I didn't leave my bitterness and hatred behind I'd still be in prison."


Posts: 29,167
listopencil is obviously part of the inner Circle.listopencil is obviously part of the inner Circle.listopencil is obviously part of the inner Circle.listopencil is obviously part of the inner Circle.listopencil is obviously part of the inner Circle.listopencil is obviously part of the inner Circle.listopencil is obviously part of the inner Circle.listopencil is obviously part of the inner Circle.listopencil is obviously part of the inner Circle.listopencil is obviously part of the inner Circle.listopencil is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-2014, 06:57 PM   #215
patteeu patteeu is offline
The 23rd Pillar
 
patteeu's Avatar
 

Join Date: Sep 2002
Casino cash: $5000
Quote:
Originally Posted by listopencil View Post
Right. There are two different issues here. (1)The person who "solemnizes" the marriage doesn't have to be a religious authority and (2) that person has responsibilities beyond the ceremony itself. So a good chunk of marriage law is just going to be about whether the ceremony was performed by someone who is authorized to do so and if that person did the paperwork correctly. The solemnization and the recording are two distinct acts (or sets of acts) though. A link in that article points to this Indiana Code:

IC 31-11-11-8
Failure to timely file marriage license and duplicate marriage certificate
Sec. 8. A person who:
(1) solemnizes a marriage; and
(2) fails to file the marriage license and a duplicate marriage certificate with the clerk of the circuit court not later than ninety (90) days after the date the marriage was solemnized;

From that I would say that "solemnization" refers to the ceremony whether it is or is not a religious one.
Right, but the question is whether it applies to both state-implicated ceremonies (which are accompanied by the recording acts) and religious-only ceremonies (which aren't).
__________________


"I'll see you guys in New York." ISIS Caliph Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi to US military personnel upon his release from US custody at Camp Bucca in Iraq during Obama's first year in office.
Posts: 75,744
patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-2014, 08:28 PM   #216
listopencil listopencil is offline
sic semper tyrannis
 
listopencil's Avatar
 

Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In Partibus Infidelium
Casino cash: $13979
Quote:
Originally Posted by patteeu View Post
Right, but the question is whether it applies to both state-implicated ceremonies (which are accompanied by the recording acts) and religious-only ceremonies (which aren't).
The other law (as of 07/01/14) refers to the solemnization, which can be either:
IC 31-11-11-7
Solemnization of marriage between persons prohibited from marrying
Sec. 7. A person who knowingly solemnizes a marriage of individuals who are prohibited from marrying by IC 31-11-1 commits a Class B misdemeanor.
As added by P.L.1-1997, SEC.3.




__________________
"As I walked out the door toward the gate that would lead to my freedom, I knew if I didn't leave my bitterness and hatred behind I'd still be in prison."


Posts: 29,167
listopencil is obviously part of the inner Circle.listopencil is obviously part of the inner Circle.listopencil is obviously part of the inner Circle.listopencil is obviously part of the inner Circle.listopencil is obviously part of the inner Circle.listopencil is obviously part of the inner Circle.listopencil is obviously part of the inner Circle.listopencil is obviously part of the inner Circle.listopencil is obviously part of the inner Circle.listopencil is obviously part of the inner Circle.listopencil is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-2014, 10:50 PM   #217
patteeu patteeu is offline
The 23rd Pillar
 
patteeu's Avatar
 

Join Date: Sep 2002
Casino cash: $5000
Quote:
Originally Posted by listopencil View Post
The other law (as of 07/01/14) refers to the solemnization, which can be either:
IC 31-11-11-7
Solemnization of marriage between persons prohibited from marrying
Sec. 7. A person who knowingly solemnizes a marriage of individuals who are prohibited from marrying by IC 31-11-1 commits a Class B misdemeanor.
As added by P.L.1-1997, SEC.3.




If it means what you're worried it means, then I'm definitely opposed to it.
__________________


"I'll see you guys in New York." ISIS Caliph Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi to US military personnel upon his release from US custody at Camp Bucca in Iraq during Obama's first year in office.
Posts: 75,744
patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2014, 12:54 AM   #218
Chiefshrink Chiefshrink is offline
MVP
 
Chiefshrink's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: donkey land
Casino cash: $9149
Quote:
Originally Posted by King_Chief_Fan View Post
we will see how much the NFL really cares about the homosexual agenda when/if Sam makes the NFL and how they manage it. They really don't care, they are just making noise I believe. It's what in vogue right now.
Oh my friend they already have shown how much they care and they are not just making noise. Just like every other corporation in this country they will 'bow down' to 'political correctness'(a la forced worldview on you whether you like it or not and you will think,talk and express your feelings as WE(The Fed Govt) sees fit and we will use our Marxist Majority Media to beat you down when you don't) and they will bow down to avoid bad press and lawsuits. Count on it.
Posts: 12,434
Chiefshrink is too fat/Omaha.Chiefshrink is too fat/Omaha.Chiefshrink is too fat/Omaha.Chiefshrink is too fat/Omaha.Chiefshrink is too fat/Omaha.Chiefshrink is too fat/Omaha.Chiefshrink is too fat/Omaha.Chiefshrink is too fat/Omaha.Chiefshrink is too fat/Omaha.Chiefshrink is too fat/Omaha.Chiefshrink is too fat/Omaha.
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2014, 01:03 AM   #219
Chiefshrink Chiefshrink is offline
MVP
 
Chiefshrink's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: donkey land
Casino cash: $9149
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bowser View Post
Lol, missed this before my last post.

Question - have any of you religious homophobes been told that thinking homosexuality is a sin is illegal? Because if you haven't, then your "religious rights" really haven't been stepped on.
and neither does the Constitution step on the homo lifestyle. You haven't answered my question as to why the homo lifestyle needs protected legal rights when heterosexuality does not receive them either.

Please bless me with your 'Bow Wow' wisdom
Posts: 12,434
Chiefshrink is too fat/Omaha.Chiefshrink is too fat/Omaha.Chiefshrink is too fat/Omaha.Chiefshrink is too fat/Omaha.Chiefshrink is too fat/Omaha.Chiefshrink is too fat/Omaha.Chiefshrink is too fat/Omaha.Chiefshrink is too fat/Omaha.Chiefshrink is too fat/Omaha.Chiefshrink is too fat/Omaha.Chiefshrink is too fat/Omaha.
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2014, 01:12 AM   #220
Chiefshrink Chiefshrink is offline
MVP
 
Chiefshrink's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: donkey land
Casino cash: $9149
Quote:
Originally Posted by GloryDayz View Post
I liked the NFL better when they played football.
Those days are long gone my friend. The game only gets worse from here on out. It's bad enough with all the rule changes that force the defense to play with one hand tied behind their back which also includes the new tackling rules which only get worse as the concussions continue to mount(some real some fake for obvious reasons). But now as 'political correctness' begins to take hold in the NFL you won't be able to stomach this game within 5-10yrs from now IMO.
Posts: 12,434
Chiefshrink is too fat/Omaha.Chiefshrink is too fat/Omaha.Chiefshrink is too fat/Omaha.Chiefshrink is too fat/Omaha.Chiefshrink is too fat/Omaha.Chiefshrink is too fat/Omaha.Chiefshrink is too fat/Omaha.Chiefshrink is too fat/Omaha.Chiefshrink is too fat/Omaha.Chiefshrink is too fat/Omaha.Chiefshrink is too fat/Omaha.
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2014, 01:15 AM   #221
cosmo20002 cosmo20002 is offline
Debunking your bullshit
 
cosmo20002's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: KC area
Casino cash: $22828
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chiefshrink View Post
Those days are long gone my friend. The game only gets worse from here on out. It's bad enough with all the rule changes that force the defense to play with one hand tied behind their back which also includes the new tackling rules which only get worse as the concussions continue to mount(some real some fake for obvious reasons). But now as 'political correctness' begins to take hold in the NFL you won't be able to stomach this game within 5-10yrs from now IMO.
If I know that a player is gay, it ruins the game for me.
/complete nutjob
Posts: 20,578
cosmo20002 is obviously part of the inner Circle.cosmo20002 is obviously part of the inner Circle.cosmo20002 is obviously part of the inner Circle.cosmo20002 is obviously part of the inner Circle.cosmo20002 is obviously part of the inner Circle.cosmo20002 is obviously part of the inner Circle.cosmo20002 is obviously part of the inner Circle.cosmo20002 is obviously part of the inner Circle.cosmo20002 is obviously part of the inner Circle.cosmo20002 is obviously part of the inner Circle.cosmo20002 is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2014, 09:55 AM   #222
BigChiefTablet BigChiefTablet is offline
Veteran
 

Join Date: Oct 2010
Casino cash: $9235
I don't have any problems with gay people, but here's a question to get you thinking.

How is say a caterer refusing to cater a gay wedding different than BET refusing to sell advertising to the KKK?
Posts: 2,277
BigChiefTablet Forgot to Remove His Claytex and Got Toxic Shock Syndrome.BigChiefTablet Forgot to Remove His Claytex and Got Toxic Shock Syndrome.BigChiefTablet Forgot to Remove His Claytex and Got Toxic Shock Syndrome.BigChiefTablet Forgot to Remove His Claytex and Got Toxic Shock Syndrome.BigChiefTablet Forgot to Remove His Claytex and Got Toxic Shock Syndrome.BigChiefTablet Forgot to Remove His Claytex and Got Toxic Shock Syndrome.BigChiefTablet Forgot to Remove His Claytex and Got Toxic Shock Syndrome.BigChiefTablet Forgot to Remove His Claytex and Got Toxic Shock Syndrome.BigChiefTablet Forgot to Remove His Claytex and Got Toxic Shock Syndrome.BigChiefTablet Forgot to Remove His Claytex and Got Toxic Shock Syndrome.BigChiefTablet Forgot to Remove His Claytex and Got Toxic Shock Syndrome.
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2014, 10:01 AM   #223
King_Chief_Fan King_Chief_Fan is online now
Praise Him
 
King_Chief_Fan's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: St. Louis MO
Casino cash: $7173
doesn't any privately owned business have the right to refuse service to any one? Don't need a reason? Just don't want to?
__________________
Ephesians 2:8-10

English Standard Version (ESV)

8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.
Posts: 8,301
King_Chief_Fan Forgot to Remove His Claytex and Got Toxic Shock Syndrome.King_Chief_Fan Forgot to Remove His Claytex and Got Toxic Shock Syndrome.King_Chief_Fan Forgot to Remove His Claytex and Got Toxic Shock Syndrome.King_Chief_Fan Forgot to Remove His Claytex and Got Toxic Shock Syndrome.King_Chief_Fan Forgot to Remove His Claytex and Got Toxic Shock Syndrome.King_Chief_Fan Forgot to Remove His Claytex and Got Toxic Shock Syndrome.King_Chief_Fan Forgot to Remove His Claytex and Got Toxic Shock Syndrome.King_Chief_Fan Forgot to Remove His Claytex and Got Toxic Shock Syndrome.King_Chief_Fan Forgot to Remove His Claytex and Got Toxic Shock Syndrome.King_Chief_Fan Forgot to Remove His Claytex and Got Toxic Shock Syndrome.King_Chief_Fan Forgot to Remove His Claytex and Got Toxic Shock Syndrome.
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2014, 10:07 AM   #224
Bowser Bowser is offline
Eff an A, Cotton!!
 
Bowser's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: In Transition
Casino cash: $9068
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chiefshrink View Post
and neither does the Constitution step on the homo lifestyle. You haven't answered my question as to why the homo lifestyle needs protected legal rights when heterosexuality does not receive them either.

Please bless me with your 'Bow Wow' wisdom
Because homosexual couples aren't legally acknowledged? Surely you're not THAT dense.

Quote:
Originally Posted by King_Chief_Fan View Post
doesn't any privately owned business have the right to refuse service to any one? Don't need a reason? Just don't want to?
Kind of like if you don't want to serve black people, you shouldn't have to? That kind of thing?
Posts: 53,176
Bowser is obviously part of the inner Circle.Bowser is obviously part of the inner Circle.Bowser is obviously part of the inner Circle.Bowser is obviously part of the inner Circle.Bowser is obviously part of the inner Circle.Bowser is obviously part of the inner Circle.Bowser is obviously part of the inner Circle.Bowser is obviously part of the inner Circle.Bowser is obviously part of the inner Circle.Bowser is obviously part of the inner Circle.Bowser is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2014, 10:11 AM   #225
cosmo20002 cosmo20002 is offline
Debunking your bullshit
 
cosmo20002's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: KC area
Casino cash: $22828
Quote:
Originally Posted by King_Chief_Fan View Post
doesn't any privately owned business have the right to refuse service to any one? Don't need a reason? Just don't want to?
No. How old are you?
Posts: 20,578
cosmo20002 is obviously part of the inner Circle.cosmo20002 is obviously part of the inner Circle.cosmo20002 is obviously part of the inner Circle.cosmo20002 is obviously part of the inner Circle.cosmo20002 is obviously part of the inner Circle.cosmo20002 is obviously part of the inner Circle.cosmo20002 is obviously part of the inner Circle.cosmo20002 is obviously part of the inner Circle.cosmo20002 is obviously part of the inner Circle.cosmo20002 is obviously part of the inner Circle.cosmo20002 is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:15 PM.


This is a test for a client's site.
A new website that shows member-created construction site listings that need fill or have excess fill. Dirt Monkey @ https://DirtMonkey.net
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.