Delhaize America Earns Top Marks in 2017 CEI

Clippings from news sources involving fashion freedom and other gender equality issues.

Re: Delhaize America Earns Top Marks in 2017 CEI

Postby moonshadow » Fri Jun 02, 2017 6:06 am

crfriend wrote:
moonshadow wrote:There is no such case.

However, that does not necessarily mean that you cannot be denied access to an establishment because of your attire. Straight males have no "cover" afforded by a protected status condition. It's open season. If your own demeanour can override objections, then great; otherwise, you'll have to find someplace else to eat.

Of note is that I have not once been hassled by the proprietor of any establishment, nor by any underlings. Money is money, and these folks know it.


Of course, there's the big question of why we'd want to actually hand money over to people with such an unreasonable prejudice anyway. If it's the proprietor who's staging the objection, I'll just leave. If it's just an hourly clerk, I'll ask the manager if the clerk speaks for the business, if yes, then I'll leave. If no, then let the manger handle it as he sees fit.

Now if they just don't like me, then I've got no defense for that, it is what it is, but if they cite a religious objection, then we'll throw down. Before I leave I'd like to know why this particular sin has been selected for target while certainly ignoring the multitude of other sinners that pass through the door. I will most certainly win the debate as all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God per the bible, thus if a business were to turn away sinners, there would be no one left to serve!

But he' still not going to get my money.

Ehhh. I may stand alone here on this one, but I don't have a problem with anti-discrimination laws, and find hiding behind "religious freedom" laws is no more ethical than claiming you're transgender when you're just a guy in a dress. There is obnoxiousness and system gaming on both sides. We can not crack down on the "fake transgender" people and completely ignore "fake Christians" who use the bible as an excuse to hate and disrupt secular commerce.

If they're that deeply committed to their faith, I challenge them to stop engaging in this heathen Babylonian commerce, sell everything they own, give it to the poor, take a leap of faith and follow Jesus... but they wont. They're too busy playing God and handing down judgements. I'm sorry... I've got a problem with that.

I stand by what I said, though based on the replies, I think I've been somewhat misunderstood by a few.
User avatar
moonshadow
Member Extraordinaire
 
Posts: 4279
Joined: Sun Aug 09, 2015 1:58 am
Location: Appalachian Mountains (VA)

Re: Delhaize America Earns Top Marks in 2017 CEI

Postby moonshadow » Fri Jun 02, 2017 6:22 am

And by the way, if we're' going to take the position that Joe cake baker has the right to deny you service because you're wearing a skirt, but the lady at the DMV has to suck it up because she works for the government, well that's hardly fair for the DMV worker. Both are humans, citizens, and entitled to the same rights. If Joe cake baker can deny service, then it stands to reason that government workers should be allowed the same.

I'm not saying I think this is acceptable, or a good idea, I'm just saying that here we go again... picking and choosing which rights apply to who...

If the Walton family is willing to sell to anyone, but the Muslim clerk at the register refuses to ring up a ham. Do we fire the Muslim clerk? Or does the clerks rights trump the rights of the Walton family to run their business as they see fit? It's a matter of religion no?

What if I took a religious objection to wearing trousers on the job (assuming there was no safety reason to prohibit it, such as I was a checker or bagger)? Does that not count? Do my religious beliefs trump the rights of my employer to require a certain dress code for male employees while on duty. But my religion isn't a "real" religion though... right? Says who? Who decides what religious views are valid?

Why not just have everyone play by the same rules? If one wants to hate and be a bigot, that's there right, but such behavior has no place on the open market- let them rot their souls in private.
User avatar
moonshadow
Member Extraordinaire
 
Posts: 4279
Joined: Sun Aug 09, 2015 1:58 am
Location: Appalachian Mountains (VA)

Re: Delhaize America Earns Top Marks in 2017 CEI

Postby Tor » Fri Jun 02, 2017 7:48 am

Moonshadow wrote:And by the way, if we're' going to take the position that Joe cake baker has the right to deny you service because you're wearing a skirt, but the lady at the DMV has to suck it up because she works for the government, well that's hardly fair for the DMV worker. Both are humans, citizens, and entitled to the same rights. If Joe cake baker can deny service, then it stands to reason that government workers should be allowed the same.


First, remember to distinguish Joe Cake Baker from Mr. John D. Cakeshop Owner.

They all arguably do have the right to deny service. The question is what the results of denying service are or should be.
The DMV worker letting her own views deny service that the laws say is to be provided [0] should be promptly and summarily fired. That doesn't mean she can't do so if she's prepared to deal with the appropriate fallout.
Joe Cakebaker can deny service, but would be prudent to be able to justify doing so in a way that John will approve of if he'd like John to keep paying him to bake cakes.
John D. Cakeshop Owner can only be fired by enough of his employers [1] deciding the move was wrong and deserving of being fired, without a sufficient group of his other employers deciding it was a laudable choice deserving of a raise. This is what gives him so much freedom to choose, not anything to do with religious or other freedom.

Might as well not worry so much about the anti-acting-on-conscience laws, and let it hang out in the open so you can fire those engaging in such practices. Otherwise it'll just simmer quietly in the pressure cooker, with each new law adding insulation.

[0] I shall refrain from comments here, but we are getting into territory where what I write doesn't exactly match my views of "how things should be".
[1] AKA customers
human@world# ask_question --recursive "By what legitimate authority?"
Tor
Member Extraordinaire
 
Posts: 615
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2012 3:20 am

Re: Delhaize America Earns Top Marks in 2017 CEI

Postby moonshadow » Fri Jun 02, 2017 8:07 am

But you see, the way I'm reading this (and it is getting a little complicated :wink: ) it seems to me that John (the bakery owner) has more rights than Joe (the baker) just because he's the business owner.

Of course Joe could always find another job, but then again, if John has an issue with it too, he can always take up a trade where he doesn't have to deal with the public.

I'll just go on to say here, that we're obviously splitting hairs, these scenarios would be very rare I'd say, as Carl has pointed out, and I will also attest, I have never been turned away anywhere.

I will admit, thought experiments like this have painted me in many-a-proverbial mental corners....

No matter what happens in this hypothetical... somebody's going to wind up getting screwed.... and I'm just sitting here wondering why we all just can't get along?

At any rate, I can bake my own cake if need be, and I'd personally love to be turned away at the DMV.... guess I wouldn't have to pay the registration tax on my vehicles! :lol:
User avatar
moonshadow
Member Extraordinaire
 
Posts: 4279
Joined: Sun Aug 09, 2015 1:58 am
Location: Appalachian Mountains (VA)

Re: Delhaize America Earns Top Marks in 2017 CEI

Postby Tor » Fri Jun 02, 2017 9:07 am

It's not that John has more rights, it's that he is answerable in a small way each to a lot of people for how he chooses to exercise those rights. He's almost certainly got quite a bit of money on the line if he fails to answer to his customer's wishes, and he's the one who loses his shirt if he ignores them. Even aside from refusing service in a way that might anger people he's at risk of losing his shirt in a host of ways. It is through that risk that he buys stability [/i]a diverse group to please a sufficiently large portion of[/i] when choosing to refuse service based on his conscience.

Joe answers to John and through him to the same people John answers to, because if Joe makes the wrong choice, he could cost John his shirt at the same time (and hence lose his job that way).

The DMV clerk, on the other hand, has agreed to uphold the laws by accepting the job, which implies that everyone in front of her the laws say is to be served must be served if she wants to keep that job. It's no longer a question of religious or other freedom, but a matter of doing or not doing what she agreed and contracted to do.
human@world# ask_question --recursive "By what legitimate authority?"
Tor
Member Extraordinaire
 
Posts: 615
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2012 3:20 am

Re: Delhaize America Earns Top Marks in 2017 CEI

Postby crfriend » Fri Jun 02, 2017 9:13 am

moonshadow wrote:And by the way, if we're' going to take the position that Joe cake baker has the right to deny you service because you're wearing a skirt, but the lady at the DMV has to suck it up because she works for the government, well that's hardly fair for the DMV worker. Both are humans, citizens, and entitled to the same rights. If Joe cake baker can deny service, then it stands to reason that government workers should be allowed the same.

Governments are a special case, and this is an example of precisely why governments need to be secular to the core (save in entirely homogeneous societies). Governments, you see, make laws; if the DMV droid turns you away for wearing a skirt it doesn't release you from your duty to get your car registered and to pay your tax -- you face stiff penalties for not doing so. In the case of the cakeshop owner and baker, you can always (or at least usually) find another supplier.

Ideally all rights would apply equally to all, and all would embrace that notion. However, this is seldom the case as prejudices and the like run rampant in diverse societies and decent behaviour is not even close to a guarantee. The problem with setting up protected classes of individuals is that the laws doing so create a super-class that has rights -- but not responsibilities -- that the rest of society does not have. The worst part of this scenario is that it has the power to make thought illegal and that's where the slippery slope is. Criminalising speech is bad enough, but when it comes to criminalising thought then we're done for as a society. Even the suppression of speech is corrosive because it means that concepts -- no mater how repugnant we may find them -- cannot be aired and debated. Recall, also, that if one has the power to dictate and legislate "rights" one also has the power to create under-classes, and I worry that we're in the 1930s again in central Europe.
Retrocomputing -- It's not just a job, it's an adventure!
User avatar
crfriend
Master Barista
 
Posts: 10567
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2004 9:52 pm
Location: New England (U.S.)

Re: Delhaize America Earns Top Marks in 2017 CEI

Postby oldsalt1 » Fri Jun 02, 2017 11:38 am

I think we are safe at the DMV back in October or November I posted about my trip to get a new license.and went to the DMV wearing a skirt. I did get a couple of looks from the guard but the lady clerk was very pleasant and as I posted on Good Comments in November I even got a compliment from her on my skirt
User avatar
oldsalt1
Member Extraordinaire
 
Posts: 2056
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 8:25 pm
Location: Long Island, New York

Re: Delhaize America Earns Top Marks in 2017 CEI

Postby Fred in Skirts » Fri Jun 02, 2017 5:13 pm

I have been to the DMV on numerous occasions in my skirts and have not had so much as a glance or comment. :D It is very easy to just be yourself and be happy in skirts. :lol:
Fred :kiltdance:

"The universal aptitude for ineptitude makes any human accomplishment an incredible miracle."

"It is better to be hated for what you are than be loved for what you are not" Andre Gide: 1869 - 1951
User avatar
Fred in Skirts
Member Extraordinaire
 
Posts: 2438
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2016 6:48 pm
Location: Southeast Corner of Aiken County, SC USA

Re: Delhaize America Earns Top Marks in 2017 CEI

Postby Pdxfashionpioneer » Wed Jun 07, 2017 9:59 am

I guess it's just my lot in life to be the party pooper who's always bringing up those silly things called facts.

The Oregon Department of Labor levied a significant fine against the mom & pop bakery shop in a small town that refused to bake a wedding cake for a lesbian couple. Even though the shop owners have appealed their fines to several layers of the judiciary and become a cause celebre amongst the religious right in this neck of the woods, the state Secretary of Labor's finding still stands and their bakery is still shuttered.

Because you see Tor, the anti-discrimination laws apply to small businesses and large alike. As well they should; either you're in business to serve the public or you're not. And it's not okay to define the public as you damned well please just because you happened to have adopted the title of "business-owner," because that attitude flies in the face of everything this country stands for; freedom and justice for all. Anything less than that in effect dehumanizes the people who the bigoted business owner would deny service to. So in my book the government has the obligation to deny such would-be business owners a license to do business.

There is nothing "disingenuous" nor "dishonest" about calling on the protections of gender expression written into a number of states' laws and companies' human resources policies and Carl, I'm damned sick and tired of you libeling me by saying otherwise. I stood up for myself and management not only supported me but I feel were encouraging. Over the last two months no one showed me any resentment, asked on what grounds I was flouting social norms or anything else of the kind. Even the old curmudgeon who always greeted me with a frown finally showed me a smile the other day. On the other hand, one of the female permanent employees, who was the coordinator of us temps, told me she felt I am better at putting together outfits than she is and was grateful for the advice I gave her on color coordination.

Btw, this Fortune 100 Company that I just finished up my temporary gig with, is proudly flying the Rainbow Flag for the month of June in recognition of it being Pride Month. Btw all of you misanthropes who think we're all alone in this world because we're hetero and plan to live the rest of our lives as males, the name has been changed from Gay Pride to Pride to indicate that whoever you are, whatever your deviance from the presumed norm, you should be proud of yourself and be treated with respect.

I too have shook my head at the proliferation of initials that keep getting added to the mix. I was wrong to do so. The initials keep getting added to this alphabet soup for the simple reason that the members of the pride movement keep finding out just how diverse the world really is and are diligently trying to find ways to share the progress they've made with people who could use some help. And yeah, that means us too. We just need to get off of our high horses and take a look at what's on the books and see how it applies to ourselves personally.

In short men, I'm flashing the basement light switches on this pity party and suggesting that you suspend your suppositions and look at the facts. The efforts of the gay community to turn around the public's perception of same-sex marriage has first of all effected the greatest change in public opinion in the shortest amount of time in history. And it's had a carryover effect that benefits us. Stopping whining about what was and start reveling in what is.

About 12 years ago with the help of hypnosis I stopped crossdressing and didn't wear a single item of womenswear for 10 years. When I started presenting myself as a male in a dress I quickly discovered that the portion of my personality that is drawn to wearing womenswear (you guessed it, they're the elements of my personality that are generally referred to as feminine) had gone through a Rip Van Winkle experience. They'd gone to sleep in one world and woke up in an entirely different one. When I was crossdressing, the goal was to pass as a woman. The benefit was as much for the implicit accolade as to avoid the opprobrium. The latter was so common, my wife at the time asked why I didn't quit instead of putting up with the derision. And no one made bones about laying it on us.

Now, as Caultron has experienced, at worst I've had a few frowns, one episode of cat-calling (I still have no idea what that was about, but I sure have more empathy for women who are on the receiving end of it.) and another of laughter at my appearance over my last two years of public skirting. By and large I am getting the best treatment of my life; so many more people have shown appreciation, support and admiration for how I present myself than the few who have been at all disapproving it's mind-boggling.

Stop skulking around in the shadows feeling sorry for yourselves, it really is a bright sunny day out here. And don't let Trump's Presidential victory fool you; he lost the popular vote and while it's emboldened the bigots, they're just having their last gasping hurrah before history puts them in its rear view mirror. At the kind of speeds I hit in my Miata when traffic is light.
David, the PDX Fashion Pioneer

Social norms aren't changed by Congress or Parliament; they're changed by a sufficient number of people ignoring the existing ones and publicly practicing new ones.
User avatar
Pdxfashionpioneer
Member Extraordinaire
 
Posts: 1072
Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2015 6:39 am
Location: Portland, OR, USA

Re: Delhaize America Earns Top Marks in 2017 CEI

Postby moonshadow » Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:01 pm

Okay, I'm going to attempt to put the brakes on this thread turning into a cake debate, as that wasn't it's original intent, rather it was to simply recognize a primarily southern subsidiarity of a larger company making a voluntary endevour towards progressive tolerance on the account of LGBT people. Whether it's nothing more than political correctness, or just the company trying to obtain favorable P.R., who are we to criticize? It's their business after all. How can we in good conscious kick dirt at them for their stand (which is their right), and turn around and be totally cool with more bigoted businesses? Further, if it's nothing more then P.R. (which seems to be implied), still yet, how is that any different that the political grandstanding of more right wing businesses who take the utmost pride in their shunning of folks they don't agree with?

But let's bring this back home to the matter of men in skirts, or rather men's choice to wear whatever they want, which is what this whole site is really about...

I think we're all ignoring the 800lb gorilla in the room... we were all (with the exception of a few members such as Jenn and others like her) born of the male sex. That will never change for it is in the past. This was how our creator made us, human beings with penises. Thus, we have no choice on this matter, regardless of what we call ourselves today, we will always have it in our past that we were born male, and still most of the membership on this site still identifies with that, myself included.

Hypothetically, if we were to be turned away from a business, fired, or discriminated in any manner simply for the reason of wearing a skirt or dress, than it IS discrimination, and SHOULD be illegal on the simple grounds that woman can and do wear skirts and dresses. Simply put, if we were born with vaginas rather than penises, then we simply wouldn't be having this discussion, period.

Now.. back to that fat gorilla... RELIGION IS A CHOICE... OUR SEX IS NOT.

Why do we so faithfully (pardon the pun) defend one (religion) with such passion, yet ignore the other (our sex) in matters such as this? How is this any different from turning away someone because they're black, or Asian, Indian, or any other race? Granted, sex and race are two different matters, yet BOTH share one SAME COMMON DENOMINATOR: that being that both are a matter of how our creator made us- not a choice.

Further, women can AND DO wear whatever they want! It's a two fold double standard! Not only can women wear skirts and dresses, despite the fact that men across the eons of human history have ALSO worn skirts an dresses as a part of their culture, but woman are also culturally allowed to wear trousers and pants, even of the men's side of the store!

Nope... that's not right, you can't sit here and ignore one person's rights and take no issue with the others. If a business were to discriminate on the grounds of a man wearing a skirt or dress... that's fine. I don't want to see them serve women who wear cargo pants, people with tattoo's, cakes baked for couples who were previously divorced, folks who enjoy pork and shell fish.

What's even more interesting is how the religious right takes such a big issue with these "sins" while completely ignoring the "big ten" (commandments), you know they ones they like to erect on court house lawns and school hallways? So lets turn away everyone who breaks any one of these:

You shall have no other gods before Me.
Okay, most right wing religious type probably adhere to this one pretty faitfully...

You shall not make idols.
Most every Christian I know does this in some capacity. Many are not opposed to having statues, talismans, or even worshiping secular things like foot ball, money, and the material things that are bought with it [money].

You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.
Well, scratch my right wing father off the list, he cusses like a sailor (no offense Carl) I'll grant that a fair number of Christians don't take the lords name in vain, but than again, a fair number also do!

Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
Oh let me just LAUGH OUT LOUT! NOBODY DOES THIS! :lol: :lol: :lol:
As a lifelong retail worker, it always ticked me to observe the "church rush" in virtually every restaurant. They start to shuffle in about 1230pm in their Sunday best. Funny... they're supposed to be at home praying, CERTAINLY NOT supporting any business with such a savage heathen custom as working on the sabbath! *gasp!* :shock:

Honor your father and your mother.
Some Christians do, most do not, and we've got the overflowing domestic court dockets to prove it!

You shall not murder.
Okay, this one is pretty easy for most people I think....

You shall not commit adultery.
Another laughable commandment. Biblically speaking, EVERYONE commits adultery.. better start voiding those marriage licenses NOW!

You shall not steal.
Okay, fair enough, I'll even forget the little things like stealing a pen, or "forgetting" to return that power tool to your neighbor who loaned it to you. But lots of people have on their records some type of breaking and entering, theft, etc. Do we turn those people away? God knows retailers would have justifiable cause to, as theft is probably the ONLY commandment that would actually INJURE a retailer.

You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
I can think of a lot of private and public investigators, department of justice, forensic analyst and polygraph administrators who would be out of a job if everyone followed this one... to quote Dr. House... "everybody lies". (and they do! :wink: )

You shall not covet.
Ahh... my favorite one! Lets face it guys... To Envy is to be American! If we didn't covet each other's stuff, the whole economy would come crashing down! This IS the essence of the "keeping up with the Jones's mentality". Everyone, including churches have to make it bigger and better! Everyone wants to be number one! Everyone wants that big car, that big house, that trophy wife/husband!

So lets just cut the crap here... unless as proprietor,or even a lowly cashier is prepared to live according to "the big ten", then who are they to get all bent out of shape about one of the sin's (I.E. men who wear clothes intended for women :wink: ) that isn't even on the list!?

It's nothing more than hate filled bigotry hiding behind a bible, and if you're trading on a secular business license, open to the public... well.. that public includes everyone! It's just that simple.

You see, it's not so much the "rights" of this person or that person that bug me, it's the HYPOCRISY, it's this swelling American self righteous, holier than thou mentality that's spreading like a virus among the religious sector of the west, and even Joe six pack who has a prejudice against ANYONE different from themselves, who by the way probably goes to church maybe twice a year and MIGHT be able to quote John 3:16... but that's it, will hide behind Mike Huckabee's blank bible and say "I ain't gonna do nutin fer dem gawd da_n [0] fa_ots 'cause Gawd say it be-a sin, and we betta than that o'er hea..."

[0] Whoops... didn't we just break one...? BTW: I put the above example in quotes because I actually have people in my family who have said this.... :roll:
User avatar
moonshadow
Member Extraordinaire
 
Posts: 4279
Joined: Sun Aug 09, 2015 1:58 am
Location: Appalachian Mountains (VA)

Re: Delhaize America Earns Top Marks in 2017 CEI

Postby pelmut » Wed Jun 07, 2017 8:01 pm

moonshadow wrote:...This was how our creator made us, human beings with penises.

[Nitpick:] The plural of penis is "penes".
There is no such thing as a normal person, only someone you don't know very well yet.
pelmut
Member Extraordinaire
 
Posts: 945
Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2014 10:36 am
Location: Somerset, England

Re: Delhaize America Earns Top Marks in 2017 CEI

Postby moonshadow » Thu Jun 08, 2017 4:55 am

pelmut wrote:
moonshadow wrote:...This was how our creator made us, human beings with penises.

[Nitpick:] The plural of penis is "penes".


I didn't know that. However upon re-reading my post, I discovered several errors that I'm frankly ashamed of! :shock:

moonshadow wrote:despite the fact that men across the eons of human history have ALSO worn skirts an dresses as a part of their culture, but woman are also culturally allowed to wear trousers and pants, even of the men's side of the store!


Should read:
despite the fact that men across the eons of human history have ALSO worn skirts and dresses as a part of their culture, but women are also culturally allowed to wear trousers and pants, even from the men's side of the store!

Uaghhh. My brain is scrambled this week.... so so so much PAAAAAPERWORK!!!!! Phone calls, rides, meetings, yada yada yada....
User avatar
moonshadow
Member Extraordinaire
 
Posts: 4279
Joined: Sun Aug 09, 2015 1:58 am
Location: Appalachian Mountains (VA)

Re: Delhaize America Earns Top Marks in 2017 CEI

Postby Disaffected.citizen » Thu Jun 08, 2017 9:22 am

moonshadow wrote:I didn't know that. However upon re-reading my post, I discovered several errors that I'm frankly ashamed of! :shock:

You mean "of which I am, frankly, ashamed", don't you? :D :hide: :sorry:
Me just being a pedant!
Disaffected.citizen
Member Extraordinaire
 
Posts: 433
Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2015 6:16 am
Location: UK

Re: Delhaize America Earns Top Marks in 2017 CEI

Postby Sinned » Thu Jun 08, 2017 6:01 pm

Have you read "Eats, Shoots & Leaves" by any chance D.C? I see many speling erors and grammatical faux pas but I just reckon that, as well educated as most of us are, not everyone is as pernickety as me and as long as I can make sense of the text I let it pass over as if I added a correction every time I was an error there would be a lot more entries. And, anyway some may take offence at being corrected too often. Anyway, I make enough mistakes even though I skim through my post before I press the submit button I still can miss the errors. That's why there are a number of post- submission corrections on some of my posts.
I believe in offering every assistance short of actual help but then mainly just want to be left to be myself in all my difference and uniqueness.
User avatar
Sinned
Member Extraordinaire
 
Posts: 3780
Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2012 5:28 pm
Location: York, England

Re: Delhaize America Earns Top Marks in 2017 CEI

Postby crfriend » Thu Jun 08, 2017 8:33 pm

Sinned wrote:Have you read "Eats, Shoots & Leaves" [...]?

I don't know about D.C., but that is one of my all-time favourite tomes! The inner stickler deserves to be unchained!
I see many speling erors and grammatical faux pas but I just reckon that, as well educated as most of us are, not everyone is as pernickety as me and as long as I can make sense of the text I let it pass over as if I added a correction every time I was an error there would be a lot more entries.

The only time I usually get my knickers in a knot is with fluffed quoting where the poster simply didn't take the time to use the "Preview" button. If it's egregious or the poster gets the attribution wrong I'll frequently change it, but if I did that to any and all posts that had "difficulties" I'd not have time to do anything else.

Post-submission corrections are entirely OK if you spot a fluff.
Retrocomputing -- It's not just a job, it's an adventure!
User avatar
crfriend
Master Barista
 
Posts: 10567
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2004 9:52 pm
Location: New England (U.S.)

PreviousNext

Return to In the News / Advocacy

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests