Recommend
2 
 Thumb up
 Hide
33 Posts
1 , 2  Next »   | 

BoardGameGeek» Forums » Everything Else » Religion, Sex, and Politics

Subject: Discrimination -- it's what's for dinner at the DOJ rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: sealion [+] [View All]
J.D. Hall
United States
Oklahoma
flag msg tools
The federal Department of Justice, despite not being a party to the tort claim, has filed an amicus brief in favor of the plaintiff in a case going to SCOTUS concerning the dreaded "gay wedding cake" controversy.

http://us.cnn.com/2017/09/07/politics/justice-department-col...


How Sessions' DOJ justifies this:
Quote:
Justice Department spokesperson Lauren Ehrsam said the filing emphasizes that the "First Amendment protects the right of free expression for all Americans. Although public-accommodations laws serve important purposes, they -- like other laws -- must yield to the individual freedoms that the First Amendment guarantees. That includes the freedom not to create expression for ceremonies that violate one's religious beliefs."


Wow. Sessions basically declared open season on homosexuals, Muslims, and other non-Protestant, non-white Christians. Yeah....


WE JUST MADE AMERICA SHITTY AGAIN!!!! YAY!!!
10 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Pontifex Maximus
United States
CA
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
For the reason all you have to do is go to The Donald's twitter page

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7...

The pinned photo on top shows his surrounded by his evangelical council

The one I can recognize is Robert Jeffress. Rev. Robert thinks Homosexuality and pedophilia are connected

http://www.dallasobserver.com/news/top-10-things-first-bapti...

When people keep telling you you are God's anointed one (especially if you are Trump), you get results (like the Transgender ban for example)

BTW, If some kind soul could post the picture here as a gif I would be much obliged as my internet skills are lacking


6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls

Pennsylvania
msg tools
badge
Bitter acerbic harridan
Avatar
mbmbmb
Why do the laws have to yield the in that direction?
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J.D. Hall
United States
Oklahoma
flag msg tools
Sue_G wrote:
Why do the laws have to yield the in that direction?

Because, you know, queers! Brown people! Brown queers!

Jesus weeps when people who claim his name shit all over the message he tried to teach.
7 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Adrian Hague
United Kingdom
Bristol
Bristol
flag msg tools
badge
RAWKET LAWNCHA!!!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Sue_G wrote:
Why do the laws have to yield the in that direction?

Because god has an endless fascination about your junk and where you place it.
9 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Pontifex Maximus
United States
CA
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Sue_G wrote:
Why do the laws have to yield the in that direction?


Like so many things, the answer can be found in the Words of The Christ

Quote:
“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of the bones of the dead and everything unclean. In the same way, on the outside you appear to people as righteous but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness."

Matthew 23:28-29
7 
 Thumb up
0.25
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Andre
United States
Connecticut
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
And with Gorsuch now on the court, I would not doubt that the discrimination will be legally sanctioned. Sadly. But this is what we get, when we vote for Trump. And there could have been no doubt that this was coming down the pike.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
BoB 3K
msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I think there were already threads about the gay cake when it happened, and I don't remember all the details, but as a private business, being able to refuse to do business with other private parties for your own personal reasons sure seems like a part of being in a free country. In my mind it's actually at a level much simpler than free speech. They are not really putting a message out into the world, they are just refusing to do a private business transaction that they don't agree with. And, considering we are talking about a private business transaction and not a public service, I don't see how they could be forced to.

And I know, the come back is, well then is it okay for a store to refuse to sell to black people? Well, what if they did. It's a free country and a free market. They should be allowed, and anyone that disagrees with that viewpoint should stop shopping there.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J.D. Hall
United States
Oklahoma
flag msg tools
BoB3K wrote:
I think there were already threads about the gay cake when it happened, and I don't remember all the details, but as a private business, being able to refuse to do business with other private parties for your own personal reasons sure seems like a part of being in a free country. In my mind it's actually at a level much simpler than free speech. They are not really putting a message out into the world, they are just refusing to do a private business transaction that they don't agree with. And, considering we are talking about a private business transaction and not a public service, I don't see how they could be forced to.

And I know, the come back is, well then is it okay for a store to refuse to sell to black people? Well, what if they did. It's a free country and a free market. They should be allowed, and anyone that disagrees with that viewpoint should stop shopping there.

Hmmm....really, that last sentence is incorrect. It should be:

Anyone who agrees with that viewpoint should find another country.
7 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
MGK
Canada
Toronto
Ontario
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
BoB3K wrote:
I think there were already threads about the gay cake when it happened, and I don't remember all the details, but as a private business, being able to refuse to do business with other private parties for your own personal reasons sure seems like a part of being in a free country. In my mind it's actually at a level much simpler than free speech. They are not really putting a message out into the world, they are just refusing to do a private business transaction that they don't agree with. And, considering we are talking about a private business transaction and not a public service, I don't see how they could be forced to.

And I know, the come back is, well then is it okay for a store to refuse to sell to black people? Well, what if they did. It's a free country and a free market. They should be allowed, and anyone that disagrees with that viewpoint should stop shopping there.


yes but here's the problem: we tried that way of doing things and it didn't work, it only enshrined bigotry in the economic system, so this viewpoint is actively stupid

like, if nobody had ever tried this system out and we were discussing hypotheticals, maybe you would be advancing a hypothetical argument worthy of consideration, but that's not the case because we know what happens from countless examples when your method is actively tried out, and all you're doing is that old canard of assuming that since freedom as a general rule is good, all freedoms are good, including the freedom to be racist and harmful, except that this is stupid on its face
11 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
BoB 3K
msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I don't know. In the end it really sounds like people asking the government to force a private company to do something because they like the outcome, and not because they think the government should have that kind of control.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J.D. Hall
United States
Oklahoma
flag msg tools
BoB3K wrote:
I don't know. In the end it really sounds like people asking the government to force a private company to do something because they like the outcome, and not because they think the government should have that kind of control.

Maybe a hypothetical or two might help:

--A corporation is led by a CEO who has a strange religious prohibition against facial coverings. Thus, the CEO orders the people who work at the paint shop to stop wearing air filter masks.

--A business owner and devout Christian who provides ice cream cones to retail outlets refuses to hire homosexuals.

--A manager for a large company and devout Muslim refuses to hire any women for any position in the company.

All three can claim that their actions are to keep them from violating their religious inclinations. Are they okay? Recall that all three actions would be in violation of federal employment and worker safety laws.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Andre
United States
Connecticut
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
And let us clarify private business transaction vs public service. his store is open for business to ALL people, not just straights, or whites, or thin people. Although the business is not funded by federal or state dollars, I question whether it is subject to anti-discrimination laws. In deciding not to serve gays, he is essentially discriminating against one class of people. So he is in business to make money, and will take "straight money", but wont take "gay money". And you see nothing wrong with that? And by the way, "gay money" looks like "straight money", and works equally well anywhere you try to use it.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Wendell
United States
Yellow Springs
Ohio
flag msg tools
Si non potes reperire Berolini in tabula, ludens essetis non WIF.
badge
Hey, get your stinking cursor off my face! I got nukes, you know.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
BoB3K wrote:
I think there were already threads about the gay cake when it happened, and I don't remember all the details, but as a private business, being able to refuse to do business with other private parties for your own personal reasons sure seems like a part of being in a free country. In my mind it's actually at a level much simpler than free speech. They are not really putting a message out into the world, they are just refusing to do a private business transaction that they don't agree with. And, considering we are talking about a private business transaction and not a public service, I don't see how they could be forced to.

And I know, the come back is, well then is it okay for a store to refuse to sell to black people? Well, what if they did. It's a free country and a free market. They should be allowed, and anyone that disagrees with that viewpoint should stop shopping there.


We've been thru all these arguments. Only store in town refuses to sell to (THE GROUP YOU HATE OF YOUR CHOICE) and there aren't easy alternatives, fundamentally unfair to said group. Also, motive enters into it; courts aren't usually all that warm and fuzzy to groups whose refusal to sell to (THE GROUP YOU HATE OF YOUR CHOICE) due to hatred and animus, as opposed to a real religious/other reason.

The alternative argument is - don't want to have to associate with (THE GROUP YOU HATE OF YOUR CHOICE)? Then don't open a fucking business that deals with the public.
13 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Daniel Kearns
United States
Bloomington
Indiana
flag msg tools
Silence is golden.
badge
Your sea is so great and my boat is so small.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
remorseless1 wrote:
BoB3K wrote:
I don't know. In the end it really sounds like people asking the government to force a private company to do something because they like the outcome, and not because they think the government should have that kind of control.

Maybe a hypothetical or two might help:

--A corporation is led by a CEO who has a strange religious prohibition against facial coverings. Thus, the CEO orders the people who work at the paint shop to stop wearing air filter masks.

--A business owner and devout Christian who provides ice cream cones to retail outlets refuses to hire homosexuals.

--A manager for a large company and devout Muslim refuses to hire any women for any position in the company.

All three can claim that their actions are to keep them from violating their religious inclinations. Are they okay? Recall that all three actions would be in violation of federal employment and worker safety laws.


The big problem is that these decisions are automatically made with Christianity first-and-foremost in mind.

The problem is a company could justify any action claiming some religious belief.

Now, in truth, if someone did try to justify behavior using a non-Christian ideology, well it would either be shot down immediately as being invalid or, because the vast majority of the US is Christians, they have much more power voting with their wallet than other groups.

I would greatly prefer these laws if they were honest and specifically mentioned protection of Christian ideals, particularly the evangelical kind that tends to ignore the actual words of Christ.

Do unto others blah blah.... nah, Fuck you is easier!
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
BoB 3K
msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
remorseless1 wrote:
BoB3K wrote:
I don't know. In the end it really sounds like people asking the government to force a private company to do something because they like the outcome, and not because they think the government should have that kind of control.

Maybe a hypothetical or two might help:

--A corporation is led by a CEO who has a strange religious prohibition against facial coverings. Thus, the CEO orders the people who work at the paint shop to stop wearing air filter masks.

--A business owner and devout Christian who provides ice cream cones to retail outlets refuses to hire homosexuals.

--A manager for a large company and devout Muslim refuses to hire any women for any position in the company.

All three can claim that their actions are to keep them from violating their religious inclinations. Are they okay? Recall that all three actions would be in violation of federal employment and worker safety laws.

Those examples all have to do with company's hiring practices, work environmnet, etc. There are laws already on the books for all of those things.

The cake case is specifically about a company--and in this case, really a single person--accepting or not a business deal with another private party. You are saying it should be illegal for a private business or even just a single person to be able to decide what business they accept or decline? So--to make up an example that doesn't have any race/sex/religion in it-- if I run a lawn service and a local guy comes in and wants to pay me to go to his house and cut down all of the trees in his yard, and I know that he is in the middle of a messy divorce and he's doing it to fuck with his ex-wife, I HAVE to accept that job? I HAVE to take his money?

That really isn't how our country works. If I have my services for offer and you come in and want to hire me, and I don't like you or your idea, I can say no. Now, if word gets around that I decline people for asshole-y reasons, then maybe my business suffers. And that's my own choice.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Daniel Kearns
United States
Bloomington
Indiana
flag msg tools
Silence is golden.
badge
Your sea is so great and my boat is so small.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
BoB3K wrote:
remorseless1 wrote:
BoB3K wrote:
I don't know. In the end it really sounds like people asking the government to force a private company to do something because they like the outcome, and not because they think the government should have that kind of control.

Maybe a hypothetical or two might help:

--A corporation is led by a CEO who has a strange religious prohibition against facial coverings. Thus, the CEO orders the people who work at the paint shop to stop wearing air filter masks.

--A business owner and devout Christian who provides ice cream cones to retail outlets refuses to hire homosexuals.

--A manager for a large company and devout Muslim refuses to hire any women for any position in the company.

All three can claim that their actions are to keep them from violating their religious inclinations. Are they okay? Recall that all three actions would be in violation of federal employment and worker safety laws.

Those examples all have to do with company's hiring practices, work environmnet, etc. There are laws already on the books for all of those things.

The cake case is specifically about a company--and in this case, really a single person--accepting or not a business deal with another private party. You are saying it should be illegal for a private business or even just a single person to be able to decide what business they accept or decline? So--to make up an example that doesn't have any race/sex/religion in it-- if I run a lawn service and a local guy comes in and wants to pay me to go to his house and cut down all of the trees in his yard, and I know that he is in the middle of a messy divorce and he's doing it to fuck with his ex-wife, I HAVE to accept that job? I HAVE to take his money?

That really isn't how our country works. If I have my services for offer and you come in and want to hire me, and I don't like you or your idea, I can say no. Now, if word gets around that I decline people for asshole-y reasons, then maybe my business suffers. And that's my own choice.


Could a supermarket stop selling food to gay people (as they are an abomination before God)? Not so far fetched, the cases in point deal with food (cake and blueberries).

Could all supermarkets in an area stop selling food to gay people? Could essential services collude to ethnically cleanse an area?

Conversely, should people be required to declare all of their potentially offensive characteristics so as not to infringe on the freedom of the religious who would discriminate against them if only they knew?

At what point does publically refusing service on religious grounds diminish the denied persons pursuit of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. I realize this is a supply-side biased country but citizens and consumers also have intrinsic value.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Andre
United States
Connecticut
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
BoB3K wrote:
remorseless1 wrote:
BoB3K wrote:
I don't know. In the end it really sounds like people asking the government to force a private company to do something because they like the outcome, and not because they think the government should have that kind of control.

Maybe a hypothetical or two might help:

--A corporation is led by a CEO who has a strange religious prohibition against facial coverings. Thus, the CEO orders the people who work at the paint shop to stop wearing air filter masks.

--A business owner and devout Christian who provides ice cream cones to retail outlets refuses to hire homosexuals.

--A manager for a large company and devout Muslim refuses to hire any women for any position in the company.

All three can claim that their actions are to keep them from violating their religious inclinations. Are they okay? Recall that all three actions would be in violation of federal employment and worker safety laws.

Those examples all have to do with company's hiring practices, work environmnet, etc. There are laws already on the books for all of those things.

The cake case is specifically about a company--and in this case, really a single person--accepting or not a business deal with another private party. You are saying it should be illegal for a private business or even just a single person to be able to decide what business they accept or decline? So--to make up an example that doesn't have any race/sex/religion in it-- if I run a lawn service and a local guy comes in and wants to pay me to go to his house and cut down all of the trees in his yard, and I know that he is in the middle of a messy divorce and he's doing it to fuck with his ex-wife, I HAVE to accept that job? I HAVE to take his money?

That really isn't how our country works. If I have my services for offer and you come in and want to hire me, and I don't like you or your idea, I can say no. Now, if word gets around that I decline people for asshole-y reasons, then maybe my business suffers. And that's my own choice.


Your analogy is flawed, the cake guy owns a brick and mortar store, and a "potential" customer came in to have a cake made, which is his business. He is in the business to make money. Nothing in his store indicates "I won't serve gays". Imposing his religious belief, that gays should not be served, is discriminating against gays. The analogy the other gent raised is more appropriate, how would you feel if Target did not sell you your new vacuum, because you have a beard, and they don't like people with beards. It's called discrimination, and it's wrong. It doesn't even have to be about religion, it's discrimination against a class of people, for whatever reason, period.

1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chief Slovenly
United States
Burlington
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
BoB3K wrote:
So--to make up an example that doesn't have any race/sex/religion in it--


But this is where the example falls down completely, because all of these examples have race/sex/religion in them to begin with. That's where the dispute comes from. If these factors weren't involved, there would be no case and this would properly be handled under contract/tort/property/employment law.

The example of the lawn service therefore doesn't work this way, since you can reserve the right to refuse business to anyone based on considerations that aren't suspect classes.

So in essence, it simply sounds like you're gunning for the entire concept/body of law of suspect classes in the first place.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J.D. Hall
United States
Oklahoma
flag msg tools
bbenston wrote:
BoB3K wrote:
So--to make up an example that doesn't have any race/sex/religion in it--


But this is where the example falls down completely, because all of these examples have race/sex/religion in them to begin with. That's where the dispute comes from. If these factors weren't involved, there would be no case and this would properly be handled under contract/tort/property/employment law.

The example of the lawn service therefore doesn't work this way, since you can reserve the right to refuse business to anyone based on considerations that aren't suspect classes.

So in essence, it simply sounds like you're gunning for the entire concept/body of law of suspect classes in the first place.

To boil it down to simplicity:

If you're going to hate, you have to hate individuals, not groups.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Andre
United States
Connecticut
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
This is an argument that highly depends on the Superior Courts definition of private business vs public service. The fact that the gent owned a brick and mortar store that was open for business I think complicates the equation. Is baking a cake for profit considered to be a public service? If so, I suspect that the Court will rule that you cannot discriminate purely on personal beliefs, and a religious belief qualifies as a personal belief.

You can see how the argument fails, when one applies the criteria to other personal beliefs. I don't like you because you're fat, so you are not getting a cake. I don't like you because I believe hairy people are evil, no cake for you. As a public service, one either serves ALL and ANY of the public, or does not serve ANYONE at all. Public services cannot discriminate based on gender, race, etnicity, etc...
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chad Ellis
United States
Brookline
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
BoB3K wrote:
I think there were already threads about the gay cake when it happened, and I don't remember all the details, but as a private business, being able to refuse to do business with other private parties for your own personal reasons sure seems like a part of being in a free country. In my mind it's actually at a level much simpler than free speech. They are not really putting a message out into the world, they are just refusing to do a private business transaction that they don't agree with. And, considering we are talking about a private business transaction and not a public service, I don't see how they could be forced to.

And I know, the come back is, well then is it okay for a store to refuse to sell to black people? Well, what if they did. It's a free country and a free market. They should be allowed, and anyone that disagrees with that viewpoint should stop shopping there.


The utilitarian argument (that preventing discrimination in the marketplace trumps individual liberty) isn't the only one at play here.

I run a business that depends on people coming to our facility and paying us to have fun here. Every single person who comes to us uses public resources to get here. Some use public transit, others use public roads and park in public facilities. When we've had issues with our fire alarms, the city fire department came to help sort them out. When someone stole from us, the city police dealt with it -- and they are always there, protecting our investment and the people who come here. We get public water, etc., etc.

So while my wife and I own our business and have all sorts of legal property rights (e.g. to sell it, to close it and change to a different business, to charge what prices we choose, etc.,), I don't think it's particularly "big state" to think that the community that supports us in all these ways has some legitimate claims on how we do business. Saying that we're not allowed to discriminate on things like race, religion, or sexual orientation seems pretty reasonable.

That said, I still have some ambivalence about the whole cake thing because I can see the argument that you're not refusing to sell to gay people but are refusing to sell for a particular event. I would, for similar reasons, support a law that said you can't refuse service to someone for their religious or political beliefs but would not want to do anything that made me feel like I was participating in a child marriage (even a legal one) or someone's initiation into the KKK.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chief Slovenly
United States
Burlington
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
abadolato01 wrote:
The analogy the other gent raised is more appropriate, how would you feel if Target did not sell you your new vacuum, because you have a beard, and they don't like people with beards. It's called discrimination, and it's wrong. It doesn't even have to be about religion, it's discrimination against a class of people, for whatever reason, period.



Eh, not exactly.

Target: "I won't sell you this Dyson because you have a beard, and I'm a nutcase." >> Employee fired, against company policy, maybe PR nightmare, but still legal

Target: "I won't sell you this Dyson because all Sikhs have the beard you've got." >> federal case, definite PR nightmare

The former turns on something (facial hair) that's not intrinsically part of being in a discriminated-against group. The latter does. It would be the same if Target started refusing to sell vacuum cleaners to people with beards one day, then people with headscarves the next, then with obvious Muslim clothing the next, and so on. The facts and evidence are used to establish animus/prejudice against an entire class of people.

And this is the crucial point: you're balancing the freedom to conduct business as you see fit in the marketplace against the public's freedom to participate in that same marketplace. If you have a business predicated on freedom of public access, then don't restrict that business based on bullshit classes of people.

This stuff isn't hard.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Andrew Bartosh

Sunnyvale
California
msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
BoB3K wrote:
I don't know. In the end it really sounds like people asking the government to force a private company to do something because they like the outcome, and not because they think the government should have that kind of control.


The generalized argument is thus:

Let us say we are in one of the small towns along the 5 in California. The tiny communities that you barely pass through and all that. There's a limited number of stores there. Now let us say that you are [thingpeopleobjectto] and the guy who owns the local grocery store decides you can't shop there because he hates [thingpeopleobjectto] people. Unless the community is willing to take a stand for you, you have, effectively, been forced out of the community.

In larger communities it might be possible to get around this by virtue of other venues to get your stuff existing and the like (potentially) or more social pressure, but in smaller areas or areas with limited access to certain things, it could be used as a tool to drive people out and create no [thingpeopleobjectto] zones. Which, again, is less than ideal.

Thus some view it as a necessary evil to protect people in small towns and the like. Essentially, in a warped enough demographic representation, it is another tool for oppression and people believe that the choice should be either deal with being a public accommodation or be a private club/business/whatever it is. Of course, this does hit some fuzzy lines with creative work (and I do sympathize in broad strokes with that issue - that one is tough).

EDIT: Sorry, forgot to hit post so this may be covered by things written in the intervening time.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Pontifex Maximus
United States
CA
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
BoB3K wrote:
I don't know. In the end it really sounds like people asking the government to force a private company to do something because they like the outcome, and not because they think the government should have that kind of control.


The "outcome" that is desired is that all residents of this country be treated equally in the public market place. For the proven purposes of the health and well being of the nation as a whole.

You seem to be under a misunderstanding as well. No one is "forcing" someone to do something, like bake a cake. No one is dragging people out of their homes to the US Government Bakery to bake cakes. What they are saying is that if you offer a cake for sale in the public market place, you have to do so for all citizens.

Is the positive societal aspects of treating all people equally in the public market place without bigotry such a hard concept to grasp
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2  Next »   | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.