Update on Masterpiece Cake Shop Case

[Scott Lloyd]

On 6/25/2021 at 5:43 PM, smac97 said:

On vacation

 

Well you should have all that leisure time to post, then. 

[Daniel2]

On 6/25/2021 at 5:43 PM, smac97 said:

On vacation

 

Hope you enjoy your time off and I look forward to your contributions when you return. 

[Daniel2]

In related news, today SCOTUS declined to review a case in which lower courts ruled that schools must allow transgender students to use the bathroom associated with their gender identity, not their sex at birth-a win for trans men and women.  

That certainly seems to indicate a majority of justices consider trans individuals protected by anti-discrimination law on the basis of gender, though the court may be waiting for a different case, such as the one pending in the article below…

[quote]

Religion and free speech among cases justices could add

https://www.kgw.com/mobile/article/news/nation-world/cases-supreme-court-could-add/507-f43089fe-ef5e-42fa-b7e4-ddd87459e415?utm_campaign=snd-autopilot

The Supreme Court justices could say whether they’ll add more high-profile issues to what already promises to be a consequential term, beginning in October.

Author: MARK SHERMAN and JESSICA GRESKO Associated Press

Published: 1:37 AM PDT June 28, 2021  Updated: 7:22 AM PDT June 28, 2021

WASHINGTON —  A closely watched voting rights dispute from Arizona is among five cases standing between the Supreme Court and its summer break. But even before the justices wrap up their work, likely later this week, they could say whether they’ll add more high-profile issues to what already promises to be a consequential term, beginning in October.

This month, the court has already issued big decisions on health care and religious freedom. And next term, the high court has agreed to take on cases about abortion and guns. The court on Monday passed on two potentially big cases but was still considering others.

Here are the issues the court declined and others the court has not yet acted on:

DECLINED: TRANSGENDER RIGHTS

The court on Monday declined to take an appeal by a Virginia school board asking the justices to uphold a policy that prohibits transgender students from using school bathrooms that correspond with their gender identity. Lower courts had struck down the policy. The case has been around for six years, since then-high school student Gavin Grimm filed a federal lawsuit over the Gloucester County board's refusal to allow him to use the boys' bathroom.

STILL PENDING: RELIGION

The justices just wrapped up a case involving a church-affiliated foster care agency that declined to work with same-sex couples, ultimately siding with the agency. Now they'll have to decide whether to hear other cases involving religious freedom claims. Alternately, they could send the cases back to lower courts for review in light of their recent decision.

The pending cases include a dispute out of Washington state involving a florist who refused to provide arrangements for a same-sex wedding. The Supreme Court already sent that case back once to lower courts to be revisitedafter the court's 2018 ruling involving a Colorado baker who declined to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple.

Also waiting is a case involving a Catholic hospital in Maryland sued by a transgender man who sought to have a hysterectomy. The hospital canceled the procedure, saying it was contrary to its Catholic faith, after learning the reason for it.

[/quote]

Edited June 28, 2021 by Daniel2

[bsjkki]

1 hour ago, Daniel2 said:

In related news, today SCOTUS declined to review a case in which lower courts ruled that schools must allow transgender students to use the bathroom associated with their gender identity, not their sex at birth-a win for trans men and women.  

That certainly seems to indicate a majority of justices consider trans individuals protected by anti-discrimination law on the basis of gender, though the court may be waiting for a different case, such as the one pending in the article below…

[quote]

Religion and free speech among cases justices could add

https://www.kgw.com/mobile/article/news/nation-world/cases-supreme-court-could-add/507-f43089fe-ef5e-42fa-b7e4-ddd87459e415?utm_campaign=snd-autopilot

The Supreme Court justices could say whether they’ll add more high-profile issues to what already promises to be a consequential term, beginning in October.

Author: MARK SHERMAN and JESSICA GRESKO Associated Press

Published: 1:37 AM PDT June 28, 2021  Updated: 7:22 AM PDT June 28, 2021

WASHINGTON —  A closely watched voting rights dispute from Arizona is among five cases standing between the Supreme Court and its summer break. But even before the justices wrap up their work, likely later this week, they could say whether they’ll add more high-profile issues to what already promises to be a consequential term, beginning in October.

This month, the court has already issued big decisions on health care and religious freedom. And next term, the high court has agreed to take on cases about abortion and guns. The court on Monday passed on two potentially big cases but was still considering others.

Here are the issues the court declined and others the court has not yet acted on:

DECLINED: TRANSGENDER RIGHTS

The court on Monday declined to take an appeal by a Virginia school board asking the justices to uphold a policy that prohibits transgender students from using school bathrooms that correspond with their gender identity. Lower courts had struck down the policy. The case has been around for six years, since then-high school student Gavin Grimm filed a federal lawsuit over the Gloucester County board's refusal to allow him to use the boys' bathroom.

STILL PENDING: RELIGION

The justices just wrapped up a case involving a church-affiliated foster care agency that declined to work with same-sex couples, ultimately siding with the agency. Now they'll have to decide whether to hear other cases involving religious freedom claims. Alternately, they could send the cases back to lower courts for review in light of their recent decision.

The pending cases include a dispute out of Washington state involving a florist who refused to provide arrangements for a same-sex wedding. The Supreme Court already sent that case back once to lower courts to be revisitedafter the court's 2018 ruling involving a Colorado baker who declined to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple.

Also waiting is a case involving a Catholic hospital in Maryland sued by a transgender man who sought to have a hysterectomy. The hospital canceled the procedure, saying it was contrary to its Catholic faith, after learning the reason for it.

[/quote]

Yay. I’m so excited to see penises in women’s locker rooms. Young girls, teens and women don’t deserve biological female only spaces. 

[Daniel2]

41 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

Yay. I’m so excited to see penises in women’s locker rooms. Young girls, teens and women don’t deserve biological female only spaces. 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.charlotteobserver.com/news/politics-government/article70255967.html

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/32594395

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/32594395

I’m not aware of of any incidents of trans women or men displaying their genitalia to others in any locker-rooms or bathrooms. Do you have actual evidence of such?

Edited June 28, 2021 by Daniel2

[bsjkki]

6 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.charlotteobserver.com/news/politics-government/article70255967.html

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/32594395

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/32594395

I’m not aware of of any incidents of trans women or men displaying their genitalia to others in any locker-rooms or bathrooms. Do you have actual evidence of such?

Yes. 

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DyPyXMnr93I

My sister in law quit going to her gym because she did not feel comfortable with trans women in the locker room. Women’s needs/feeling here are secondary to the needs of trans women.

Edited June 28, 2021 by bsjkki

[Bernard Gui]

8 hours ago, bsjkki said:

Yes. 

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DyPyXMnr93I

My sister in law quit going to her gym because she did not feel comfortable with trans women in the locker room. Women’s needs/feeling here are secondary to the needs of trans women.

@cubanaangel has posted a video in which she confronts workers at Wi Spa in LA for allowing a biological male to enter their women/girls-only area. 

[Bob Crockett]

On 6/25/2021 at 4:18 PM, Daniel2 said:

It’s American—not Socialist—to prohibit discrimination based on religion, race, gender, etc.

After all, America is a nation founded on freedom OF belief and on freedom FROM religious oppression and discrimination. 

But your system uses coercion.  Coerce a doctor to provide fertility treatments.  Coerce a landlord to provide housing.  Coerce Hobby Lobby to provide contraceptions.  Etc. and etc.  

Coercion is really the tool of the Adversary.

[carbon dioxide]

On 6/28/2021 at 11:01 AM, Daniel2 said:

I’m not aware of of any incidents of trans women or men displaying their genitalia to others in any locker-rooms or bathrooms. Do you have actual evidence of such?

So boys can go into girls locker rooms and bathrooms as long as they don't pull their pants down?  I think for a lot of people, especially women, having these people in the room is bad enough regardless of what they are doing.  That is the biggest problem I have.  So much attention is made to the rights of the transgender without any regard at all for the other people in the room.  The rights of the 1 trump the rights of the 99. 

Edited June 29, 2021 by carbon dioxide

[Bob Crockett]

Regarding coercion, the essence of libertarianism is the absence of coercion:  "[L]ibertarians insist that justice poses stringent limits to coercion. While people can be justifiably forced to do certain things (most obviously, to refrain from violating the rights of others) they cannot be coerced to serve the overall good of society, or even their own personal good."  From https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/libertarianism/.  

Whereas libertarian thought has most of its genesis in French and English thought after Joseph Smith, I am convinced that he was, at core, a libertarian of sorts. In 1835 the leaders of the Church adopted unanimously a statement that is known today as Section 134 of the Doctrine and Covenants. It preaches freedom of conscience. “We believe that no government can exist in peace, except such laws are framed and held inviolate as will secure to each individual the free exercise of conscience, the right and control of property, and the protection of life.”  Furthermore, the essence of the atonement as the Book of Mormon describes is freedom to choose.  Freedom to choose death or life, sin or righteousness.

So public accommodation laws compelling people to act in a politically correct manner are not consistent with the idea that we should help people make the right decisions, particularly when this coercion compels people to act affirmatively against the principles of their religion.  Compel a doctor to provide fertility services to a gay couple versus permit the doctor to abstain from so providing?   California law would compel it.  That isn't right nor is it consistent.  As a lawyer I am free to choose which clients I will represent and which I don't want; as a trial lawyer I can even strike from the panel all minority panelists (not that that is right, but there is no remedy).

Edited June 29, 2021 by Bob Crockett

[Daniel2]

SCOTUS’s final ruling on Arlene’s Flowers was issued today:

U.S. Supreme Court rebuffs appeal by florist who spurned gay couple

Lawrence Hurley

July 2, 20218:01 AM MDT

Last Updated 3 hours ago

WASHINGTON, July 2 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday declined to hear an appeal by a florist fined by Washington state for refusing to make a flower arrangement for a same-sex wedding due to her Christian beliefs, sidestepping another major case pitting gay rights against religious liberty.

After ruling in 2018 in favor of a Colorado baker who refused to make a wedding cake for two men for religious reasons, the justices turned away an appeal by Barronelle Stutzman, owner of Arlene's Flowers in the city of Richland, after a lower court upheld Washington's action. Stutzman refused service to gay couple Robert Ingersoll and Curt Freed in 2013.

Three of the court's six conservative justices - Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch - said they would have heard the case.

The appeal had been on hold while the Supreme Court considered a separate religious rights case involving a Catholic Church-affiliated agency that sued after the city of Philadelphia refused to place children for foster care with the organization because it barred same-sex couples from applying to be foster parents. The court ruled unanimously on June 17 in favor of Catholic Social Services but left certain legal questions unresolved.

Washington state imposed a $1,000 fine on Stutzman for violating an anti-discrimination law and was directed to make floral arrangements for same-sex weddings if she does so for opposite-sex weddings. The Washington state Supreme Court upheld the fine.

The case raised two separate legal questions under the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment. Stutzman's lawyers at the conservative Christian legal group Alliance Defending Freedom had argued that the state violated not only her right to religious expression but her free speech rights, too. The latter argument was based on the legal theory that arranging flowers is a form of creative expression protected in the same way as free speech.

The florist case was similar to the one that prompted the Supreme Court's 2018 ruling on narrow legal grounds siding with a Denver-area baker named Jack Phillips. The court said in that case that the state civil rights commission that imposed sanctions on Phillips was motivated by anti-religious bias.

But the Supreme Court in that case did not resolve a broader question: under what circumstances can religious beliefs be cited to win exemption from penalties under anti-discrimination laws. The justices opted not to use the florist case as another opportunity to do so.

Stutzman, a member of the Southern Baptist denomination, has said marriage should be exclusively between a man and a woman, based on her Christian beliefs.

In court papers, Stutzman's lawyers said she and Ingersoll were friends before the incident and that she had frequently provided him with flowers for various purposes. Her lawyers also said she would sell pre-made arrangements for use in same-sex weddings, but not custom arrangements.

When she refused to prepare custom arrangements for Ingersoll's wedding, she referred him to three other florists, according to court filings.

The couple, represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, have said they were shocked and hurt by Stutzman's refusal, stopped planning for a big wedding and held a small wedding at their home.

Washington state Attorney General Robert Ferguson, a Democrat whose office sued Stutzman, said in court papers Stutzman's version of events "never occurred." Ferguson said Stutzman outright refused to serve Ingersoll before the customer even made a request.

The state sued Stutzman only after she refused to comply with its anti-discrimination law, Ferguson added.

The Supreme Court in 2018 threw out the Washington Supreme Court's first ruling against Stutzman in light of its baker ruling. The Washington court in 2019 stood by its original finding in favor of the state.

Similar legal fights have been waged in other states after other small business owners including a wedding photographer and a calligrapher refused to serve same-sex couples.

The Supreme Court in recent years has been at the center of collisions between LGBT and religious rights. It backed gay rights in a series of landmark rulings culminating in the 2015 decision legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide. In 2020, the court expanded protections for LGBT workers under federal law.

The Philadelphia foster care ruling and the 2018 baker case were losses for LGBT activists.

Reporting by Lawrence Hurley; Editing by Will Dunham

[Daniel2]

On 6/28/2021 at 11:15 AM, bsjkki said:

Yes. 

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DyPyXMnr93I

My sister in law quit going to her gym because she did not feel comfortable with trans women in the locker room. Women’s needs/feeling here are secondary to the needs of trans women.

 

On 6/28/2021 at 7:37 PM, Bernard Gui said:

@cubanaangel has posted a video in which she confronts workers at Wi Spa in LA for allowing a biological male to enter their women/girls-only area. 

I have been looking into the incident you’ve described and am working on a response, but plan to move it to a new thread, as the transgender bathroom access case warrants its own focus due to the differences involved. 

[LoudmouthMormon]

32 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

I have been looking into the incident you’ve described and am working on a response, but plan to move it to a new thread, as the transgender bathroom access case warrants its own focus due to the differences involved. 

I will eagerly await this new thread.  I'd like to ask some questions about folks who identify as trans lesbians.

[AtlanticMike]

On 6/28/2021 at 12:21 PM, bsjkki said:

Yay. I’m so excited to see penises in women’s locker rooms. Young girls, teens and women don’t deserve biological female only spaces. 

Be careful saying the "P" word, it got me thrown in Mormon dialogue and discussion jail for two weeks. There's a lot of sensitive people on here, kinda like a grown up version of high school. 

Edited July 2, 2021 by AtlanticMike

[bsjkki]

57 minutes ago, AtlanticMike said:

Be careful saying the "P" word, it got me thrown in Mormon dialogue and discussion jail for two weeks. There's a lot of sensitive people on here, kinda like a grown up version of high school. 

Context counts.

[AtlanticMike]

On 6/28/2021 at 1:15 PM, bsjkki said:

Yes. 

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DyPyXMnr93I

My sister in law quit going to her gym because she did not feel comfortable with trans women in the locker room. Women’s needs/feeling here are secondary to the needs of trans women.

Do you mind explaining this ⬆️ to me? Why would someone quit going to a gym because someone walks into the locker room with a different body part? 

     If equality is what the masses want then this is part of it. If women want to fight in combat in the name of equality, ok. If you want to take down male traditions like all male colleges like Virginia Military Institute in the name of equality, ok. I could go on and on. But becoming "equal" comes with some "uncomfortable" situations. Personally, I say make all gyms and locker rooms open to anyone who wants to go in. While we're at it, let's combine all sports. Let's start slow, maybe golf first. Men and women play together from the same tees, no handicaps, straight up golf, head to head. Then we venture out other sports, basketball, football, soccer, and so on. Heck, there's transgender athletes going to the Olympics. do you find it problematic that a trans-gender athlete would represent the United States?

[bsjkki]

27 minutes ago, AtlanticMike said:

Do you mind explaining this ⬆️ to me? Why would someone quit going to a gym because someone walks into the locker room with a different body part? 

     If equality is what the masses want then this is part of it. If women want to fight in combat in the name of equality, ok. If you want to take down male traditions like all male colleges like Virginia Military Institute in the name of equality, ok. I could go on and on. But becoming "equal" comes with some "uncomfortable" situations. Personally, I say make all gyms and locker rooms open to anyone who wants to go in. While we're at it, let's combine all sports. Let's start slow, maybe golf first. Men and women play together from the same tees, no handicaps, straight up golf, head to head. Then we venture out other sports, basketball, football, soccer, and so on. Heck, there's transgender athletes going to the Olympics. do you find it problematic that a trans-gender athlete would represent the United States?

As a woman, I don't want to see male anatomy in a women's locker room. I don't think young girls need to see male anatomy in female spaces. Many feminists are quite upset that transgender women's feelings matter more than the feelings of biological woman. Biology matters and I am very unhappy transgender women are taking biologically female spots on Olympic teams. Men who feel like they are women have more rights than women. Many feminists agree and are quite upset with this. Plus, I think you are trolling and using this issue to slam women who feel women's rights  do matter and equal treatment is a good thing.

Your comments belittle the work women have done to be treated fairly.

[AtlanticMike]

17 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

As a woman, I don't want to see male anatomy in a women's locker room

Well, I didn't want to see girls in the boy scouts, many years ago I didn't want to see women in Virginia Military Institute. But times are a changin, better get used to seeing the male anatomy in locker rooms. 

    And I'm not trolling. It seems you're upset because I don't agree with your view of transgender rights. 

25 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

female spaces

What's a female space? 

[Calm]

11 minutes ago, AtlanticMike said:

It seems you're upset because I don't agree with your view of transgender rights

And you say you are not trolling…

[bsjkki]

13 minutes ago, Calm said:

And you say you are not trolling…

He’s such a troll. False equivalencies. 

[AtlanticMike]

4 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

He’s such a troll. False equivalencies. 

 

7 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

He’s such a troll. False equivalencies. 

Maybe you and calm are upset because your comfort zones are disappearing. Let's look through history. Intergraded Schools made a lot of people uncomfortable. Blacks receiving the priesthood made a lot of Mormons uncomfortable. Same sex marriage to this day still makes many Mormons uncomfortable. And now here I am talking to you and calm because you find your locker room uncomfortable because you might see a certain body part. Are you one of those people who turn away when two men kiss in a movie?? Ahhh, don't answer that. How bout if you had a transgender kid, would you accept them? Would you hold them while they were crying and wondering where they fit in. Would you tell a transgender girl she would have to walk into a bathroom full of men if she was more comfortable in a ladies restroom? Have you ever really sat down and thought about that?

    Here's one thing I've come to realize about some of the women on this board, they love to call people names. You call me a troll, calm called me a jerk a couple weeks ago because I would run to the aid of a women if she was being attacked, raingirl insinuated I was a sexist and I think a male chauvinist because I gave a compliment to Ahab on how pretty his wife was. Life can be full of joy, private message me, I'll help you find the correct path. 

 

[Calm]

I am not upset.  I am laughing at your attempt to paint bsjkki as emotional.  And I call you a jerk and a troll because yet again you are attempting to tell women how they should feel and react even before knowing what they actually think, not because you wanted to protect anyone.

And seriously you have no clue what my comfort zone is.  Nudity is not something that makes me uncomfortable, but I also recognize I may be unusual in the American culture given how I have seen girls and women acting in gym locker rooms in various countries and states and I don’t believe my comfort should trump others.  
 

I am most concerned that women and girls who in the past have been traumatized through sexual harassment and assault by men may suddenly encounter situations that trigger them when they themselves are feeling highly vulnerable being unclothed where they had no opportunity to make a choice to enter that situation or not.  Also problematic for many women and girls if they are alone.

I am also very sympathetic to the problem of transgender women being assaulted by men in male only designated spaces.  I do not know what a workable solution would be, there are issues with every version I can think of.

My daughter is queer, I have other family members in homosexual relationships that I would have no problem inviting into my home if I was inviting anyone right now beyond my son’s family and a niece who cleans for me; I grew up in San Fran and had friends, acquaintances, and bosses active in the queer communities there.

Edited July 3, 2021 by Calm

[Daniel2]

Andrew Stoddard: My LDS faith leads me to support the Equality Act

By Andrew Stoddard | Special to The Salt Lake Tribune

  | June 30, 2021, 1:00 p.m.

We are all a part of a heavenly family and our Heavenly Parents love us all equally.

This year, for the first time, we raised a rainbow flag at our home in honor of Pride Month. It prompted good discussions with my older kids about what the flag stands for and why we are displaying it. These talks were helpful both in trying to teach my kids to practice inclusiveness and as a reminder that we respect the dignity of all people.

As an active member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, my faith has led me to support the rights of LGBTQ+ people. The Equality Act would do just that.

Two of the regularly repeated tenets of the church are “we are the children of God” and “all are alike unto God.” These two aspects of the gospel are deeply intertwined. We are all part of a heavenly family and our Heavenly Parents love each of us equally.

Our Church’s President Russell M. Nelson, who I consider to be a prophet, stated clearly that “We truly believe that we are brothers and sisters - all part of the same divine family.” As such, I believe that it is our duty to make sure that all of our brothers and sisters are able to enjoy the same privileges and blessings that we enjoy.

This is the reason I spent two scorching years in northeastern Brazil teaching people of Christ, and it is the reason I entered public service. I want to make sure that all of my brothers and sisters can live in our great country and enjoy all of its wonderful amenities and experiences free from discrimination and prejudice regardless of their gender, race, socioeconomic status, religion and, yes, sexual orientation and gender identity.

The Equality Act codifies these beliefs by amending the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to ensure that businesses that are open to the public treat all people equally and fairly. As a member of the church and someone with pioneer heritage, I am painfully aware of what the early members of the church went through. Expulsion, bigotry, hatred and the worst kind of violence were regular occurrences for members in the early years of the church.

I believe no one should ever endure that kind of exclusion, just because of who they are, how they pray, or who they love. Our common humanity calls us to be more inclusive; for me, it is also an act of faith. I believe it is what my Heavenly Parents would do and want me to do.

Unfortunately, not all people share the belief that all people should be able to enjoy and share the same freedoms. Because of this, our state of Utah recognized that we needed to put into law protections for vulnerable individuals who were experiencing regular discrimination and passed SB 296 in the 2015 legislative session, which was supported by the church. This bill’s language expertly shows that legislation can protect religious freedoms alongside other nondiscrimination protections.

I believe that the Equality Act builds upon these same protections for all. It updates federal law to include explicit protections for LGBTQ+ Americans in employment, housing, education and public spaces. It would also expand religious protections to a broader array of businesses and services, thus better guaranteeing our religious freedom.

This is something that I strongly believe because I want to ensure that all people have the privilege of worshiping “how, where, or what they may.” And while I wish that this did not have to be legislated, I also recognize that members of the Church believe in “obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law” and that these protections will extend to all of us.

King Benjamin, in what I regard as the perfect sermon on being Christlike, taught that it is our responsibility to teach our children to “love one another, and to serve one another.” The Equality Act at its core conveys that same teaching. And it is what I teach my children when explaining why we now fly a rainbow flag to honor Pride Month.

State Rep. Andrew Stoddard, D-Sandy

Andrew Stoddard, Midvale, was born and raised in Utah, is a lifelong member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, a husband, father to four boys and a state representative from House District 44.

Edited July 3, 2021 by Daniel2

[AtlanticMike]

17 minutes ago, Calm said:

And I call you a jerk and a troll

funny how I can be banned from posting for two weeks because of a immature joke, but you can call people names and guess what there intentions are. Probably because you spend so much time on here, who the heck has enough time to post over 40,000 times, gee whiz!! 

[Calm]

3 minutes ago, AtlanticMike said:

funny how I can be banned from posting for two weeks because of a immature joke, but you can call people names and guess what there intentions are. Probably because you spend so much time on here, who the heck has enough time to post over 40,000 times, gee whiz!! 

Report me.  I don’t know your intent, I just am commenting on your actions.

PS:  I have time to post because I am restricted to home and laying flat in bed most of the time.  I have generally found the message board to be a better use of my time than watching soaps or game shows or playing video games….though I am hooked on Asian TV at the moment.

Edited July 3, 2021 by Calm