Colo. gay discrimination alleged over...

Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake

There are 37409 comments on the Denver Post story from Jun 6, 2013, titled Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake. In it, Denver Post reports that:

Engaged gay couple Dave Mullins, second from left, and Charlie Craig, left, were joined by a small group of supporters in Lakewood on Aug. 4, 2012 to protest and boycott the Masterpiece Cakeshop at 3355 S. Wadsworth Blvd. The couple went to the cake shop, and the owner turned the couple away saying he would not make them a rainbow-themed wedding ... (more)

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Denver Post.

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#211 Dec 11, 2013
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
“NOPE! The bible was used to defend slavery and bans on interracial marriage.” And it was Bible believing Christians who fought to end slavery and now it’s more common as Americans realize there is only one HUMAN race.
“The US told the bigots to take a hike with their 1st amendment in those cases.” No, it was Christians that fought to afford the 1st Amendment to EVERY AMERICAN.
Do I have to look up transcripts of court cases where the bible was used to take away the freedom of others, just as it is beign done in this case?

Listen to this to see what I mean about interracial marraige

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#212 Dec 11, 2013
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
Against the 1st Amendment of our Constitution… Constitution trumps law…. Government cannot force anyone to do something that goes against their religious belief.

Is your assertion that Christians should be wiping out towns based on one verse from an Old Testament book?
I am talking about the Constitution. Read the 14th amendment. It affords equal protection to all and stops discrimination.

I hope they don't, but if they truly want to follow the god of the bible they should be doing so. Otherwise they are hypocrites who just pick and choose.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#213 Dec 12, 2013
Christsharian Law wrote:
<quoted text>
Speaking of which, lying mullah filth, you didn't address your obvious lie about "religious freedom."
You fundie scrum are not about to permit other organized religious prayers in public schools - as "religious freedom" would dictate. You're only about freedom for jeeshush storm troopers.
And you're "religious freedom" sort spend your waking hours blocking the construction of mosques.
Unless you would like to publicly decry your talib an gelical brethren for always doing that, you stupid mullah.
Did you cite anything to support the point you are trying to make? I will help you:
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/religion/...
WAIT! This article supports my point! You just hate Christians just don’t act on it.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#214 Dec 12, 2013
southern alien wrote:
<quoted text>
Like I said, it was settled years ago. The religion part of the 1st amendment means jack when it comes to discrimination. Religion was the big reason people were against interracial marriages. Courts struck it down.
It is EXACTLY the same. You are being dishonest by saying the whole gay thing is a choice. They are born that way. Wake up tomorrow and choose to be gay and I will admit defeat.
“Like I said, it was settled years ago. The religion part of the 1st amendment means jack when it comes to discrimination. Religion was the big reason people were against interracial marriages. Courts struck it down.” Show us where in history the government FORED a black man to marry a while woman. Forcing a man to do business that goes against a religious belief is Unconstitutional.

“It is EXACTLY the same. You are being dishonest by saying the whole gay thing is a choice. They are born that way. Wake up tomorrow and choose to be gay and I will admit defeat.” When did I claim “saying the whole gay thing is a choice”? Re-read any of my posts and you will see I have never claimed such a thing.
HOWEVER, skin color and what you do in the bedroom is not the SAME… We are talking about behaviors and religious beliefs, NOT skin color.
Would you be okay with the government force the owner of a gay bar to allow Christians to patronize the bar?

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#215 Dec 12, 2013
southern alien wrote:
<quoted text>
Do I have to look up transcripts of court cases where the bible was used to take away the freedom of others, just as it is beign done in this case?
Listen to this to see what I mean about interracial marraige
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =A8JsRx2loisXX
“Do I have to look up transcripts of court cases where the bible was used to take away the freedom of others, just as it is beign done in this case?” As long as it applies to this case specifically, as there are NO RIGHTS removed from the gay couple whatsoever and the rights of the shop owner is absolutely being removed.

“Listen to this to see what I mean about interracial marraige
http://www.youtube.com/watch ...” Interracial marriage? He was talking about gays… Do we know the specific ordinance he was speaking on? Did you pick a different state for a reason?

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#216 Dec 12, 2013
southern alien wrote:
<quoted text>
I am talking about the Constitution. Read the 14th amendment. It affords equal protection to all and stops discrimination.
I hope they don't, but if they truly want to follow the god of the bible they should be doing so. Otherwise they are hypocrites who just pick and choose.
“I am talking about the Constitution. Read the 14th amendment. It affords equal protection to all and stops discrimination.” The 1st Amendment states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;” And the 14th Amendment States “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Which in this case is his right to exercise his religious freedom… The gays rights aren’t being removed by his not serving them, however, the law is preventing him from “free exercise thereof”(removing his right).

“I hope they don't, but if they truly want to follow the god of the bible they should be doing so. Otherwise they are hypocrites who just pick and choose.” You have a blatant ignorance of the Bible who God is… It’s HUMAN NATUIRE to be hypocrites and for Christians even more so, because of their sin and need for a Savior.
Let me know if you would like to know more about the Bible so you have a clear understanding.
Christsharian Law

Philadelphia, PA

#217 Dec 12, 2013
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
Did you cite anything to support the point....
You're not supposed to bear false witness.

I don't hate Christians. I'm always talking about bigoted, fundie theocrats.

Everyone knows that our christian mullahs have been trying to block the construction of mosques in many parts of the US, have been trying to get Halloween costumes out of public schools, have objected to meditation and yoga classes in public schools, have even objected to anti sex abuse curricula on public schools for fear that kids won't put up with corporal punishment from their buybull parents.

Everyone knows all this, anyone can look it up if they're too addled to remember the news stories.

Now, the other point is conjectural, but obviously evilgelicals are not about to permit organized religious prayers in public schools from non judeo christian faiths.

You better git rite wit jeeesus for all your lying, you sick, christianist pos.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#218 Dec 12, 2013
Christsharian Law wrote:
<quoted text>
You're not supposed to bear false witness.
I don't hate Christians. I'm always talking about bigoted, fundie theocrats.
Everyone knows that our christian mullahs have been trying to block the construction of mosques in many parts of the US, have been trying to get Halloween costumes out of public schools, have objected to meditation and yoga classes in public schools, have even objected to anti sex abuse curricula on public schools for fear that kids won't put up with corporal punishment from their buybull parents.
Everyone knows all this, anyone can look it up if they're too addled to remember the news stories.
Now, the other point is conjectural, but obviously evilgelicals are not about to permit organized religious prayers in public schools from non judeo christian faiths.
You better git rite wit jeeesus for all your lying, you sick, christianist pos.
“You're not supposed to bear false witness.” Yet, I posted facts, and you have yet to cite one thing.

1st Amendment protects even praying in schools.
Christsharian Law

Philadelphia, PA

#219 Dec 12, 2013
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
“You're not supposed to bear false witness.” Yet, I posted facts, and you have yet to cite one thing.
1st Amendment protects even praying in schools.
You claimed I hate Christians. I do not hate all Christians, only the smug, bigoted, ly ing, cafeteria christianist theocrats. You lie habitually.

I could cite scientists that the earth is more than 10000 years old; that wouldn't be good enough for our deluded mullah freeeks. They don't deal in evidence or reason, as your dissembling shows.

And little christer snot may pray anytime he wants to during public school. It's organized prayer that's the problem, especially when the Constitution says the government, public schools, may not elevate christianist beliefs over any other. You're dissembling.

As for the activities of our evilgelical bigots to squash the freedoms of others regarding Halloween, mosques, other organized prayers, anti sex abuse curricula, yoga, meditation, and so on, everyone knows about these efforts in whole or in part.

You disgusting, sick liar (supposedly) for Jesus. You deranged homophobes need to be dealt with by demography already. You're lingering too long.
The Troll Stopper

Blacksburg, VA

#220 Dec 12, 2013
Respect71 wrote:
Yap yap yap skin color and what you do in the bedroom is not the SAME blah blah blah...
Actually, yes they are. Just like race, sexual orientation is NOT -- never has been and never will be -- a choice. Every respected medical and mental-health organization on the planet agrees with me.

Think I'm lying? Then try and prove me wrong by choosing to be gay for a day, and then tell us how that worked out for you.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#221 Dec 12, 2013
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
“I am talking about the Constitution. Read the 14th amendment. It affords equal protection to all and stops discrimination.” The 1st Amendment states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;” And the 14th Amendment States “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Which in this case is his right to exercise his religious freedom… The gays rights aren’t being removed by his not serving them, however, the law is preventing him from “free exercise thereof”(removing his right).
“I hope they don't, but if they truly want to follow the god of the bible they should be doing so. Otherwise they are hypocrites who just pick and choose.” You have a blatant ignorance of the Bible who God is… It’s HUMAN NATUIRE to be hypocrites and for Christians even more so, because of their sin and need for a Savior.
Let me know if you would like to know more about the Bible so you have a clear understanding.
The right of the individual to freely exercise their religious beliefs and practice their religion is not an absolute. It can be limited if it serves a compelling interest of the state in order to do so. The Constitution is heavily on the believers side in this, hence the strict scrutiny of the governments actions. This allows the government to prohibit things like human sacrifice, to regulate things like animal sacrifice and the use of drugs, but the benefit of the doubt falls to the believer unless the government can demonstrate a compelling need to be prohibiting and regulating. The governments interest in limiting 1st Amendment rights in my examples ought to be obvious. What apparently isn't obvious to you is the interest at work here. The government has had an interest in preventing discrimination in the public square by ensuring equal access to goods and services on offer. In Colorado, twelve other states, the D of C and many communities in states which don't offer protection, it is illegal to discriminate on the basis of someone's sexual orientation. Although religious entities and many of their extensions have been granted exemption to this and a few other suspect classifications, this special exception does not extend to the individual of faith, never did, on any of them. The baker is asking for an exception to the law which does not exist. He cannot invoke his religious beliefs in order to discriminate on the basis of ANY of the suspect classifications, let alone, just this one. I have yet to hear of a case where someone blaming God for what they have done has won. Not even the Camp Meeting Association, a good Methodist group in New Jersey, was allowed to get away with that kind of discrimination.

Just so you know, the case of the New Mexico photographer and the lesbian commitment ceremony is sitting in the in box of the SCOTUS. If they take the case, it's over for this sort of thing. She doomed the rest of you when she sent them an unsolicited email to them with Bible tracts condemning them to hell. If y'all imagine that is just the sort of right you should have guaranteed to you by the Constitution, think again. Amen.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#222 Dec 12, 2013
Christsharian Law wrote:
<quoted text>
You claimed I hate Christians. I do not hate all Christians, only the smug, bigoted, ly ing, cafeteria christianist theocrats. You lie habitually.
I could cite scientists that the earth is more than 10000 years old; that wouldn't be good enough for our deluded mullah freeeks. They don't deal in evidence or reason, as your dissembling shows.
And little christer snot may pray anytime he wants to during public school. It's organized prayer that's the problem, especially when the Constitution says the government, public schools, may not elevate christianist beliefs over any other. You're dissembling.
As for the activities of our evilgelical bigots to squash the freedoms of others regarding Halloween, mosques, other organized prayers, anti sex abuse curricula, yoga, meditation, and so on, everyone knows about these efforts in whole or in part.
You disgusting, sick liar (supposedly) for Jesus. You deranged homophobes need to be dealt with by demography already. You're lingering too long.
“You claimed I hate Christians.” The language you choose to use shows this.

“I do not hate all Christians, only the smug, bigoted, ly ing, cafeteria christianist theocrats. You lie habitually.” You need to be specific. What did I lie about?

“I could cite scientists that the earth is more than 10000 years old;” Cite away, that would be a first for you. Some scientist claim climate change is a man caused occurrence. Doesn’t mean it’s fact.

“that wouldn't be good enough for our deluded mullah freeeks. They don't deal in evidence or reason, as your dissembling shows.” Based on what? Cite any source.

“And little christer snot may pray anytime he wants to during public school. It's organized prayer that's the problem, especially when the Constitution says the government, public schools, may not elevate christianist beliefs over any other. You're dissembling.” More interesting language, and you are very misinformed. Organized prayer is allowed in schools (how would you explain Bible clubs)... Because you hate “little christer snot” doesn’t mean you are right.

The Equal Access Act 20 U. S. C.§§ 4071-74: requires public schools which meet certain criteria to treat all student-initiated groups equally, regardless of the religious, political, philosophical or other orientation of the groups. This means that to the extent that a school board opens up its school facilities to any student-led and run non-curriculum related group, it must uniformly open its facilities to all student-led and run groups, including religious ones.

“As for the activities of our evilgelical bigots to squash the freedoms of others regarding Halloween, mosques, other organized prayers, anti sex abuse curricula, yoga, meditation, and so on, everyone knows about these efforts in whole or in part.” Yet you have yet to cite one.

“You disgusting, sick liar (supposedly) for Jesus. You deranged homophobes need to be dealt with by demography already. You're lingering too long.” Oh I am all in for Jesus! My love for Him is greater than you can imagine and I pray for you.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#223 Dec 12, 2013
The Troll Stopper wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, yes they are. Just like race, sexual orientation is NOT -- never has been and never will be -- a choice. Every respected medical and mental-health organization on the planet agrees with me.
Think I'm lying? Then try and prove me wrong by choosing to be gay for a day, and then tell us how that worked out for you.
Actually, yes they are. Just like race, sexual orientation is NOT -- never has been and never will be -- a choice. Every respected medical and mental-health organization on the planet agrees with me.” I need to disagree... Not about whether it’s a choice to be gay or not but the act of being gay is a behavior, which, like it or not, some people don’t want to submit themselves and their family to for religious reasons. If you have any respect for our Constitution the you should have respect for people like this Baker.

Absolutely no rights are removed from gays by this ONE baker who chooses to make wedding cakes for man-woman couples, however, his 1st Amendment right is removed from him by prosecuting him.

AGAIN, I am not defending this man, I am defending our 1st Amendment right as Americans.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#224 Dec 12, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>The right of the individual to freely exercise their religious beliefs and practice their religion is not an absolute. It can be limited if it serves a compelling interest of the state in order to do so. The Constitution is heavily on the believers side in this, hence the strict scrutiny of the governments actions. This allows the government to prohibit things like human sacrifice, to regulate things like animal sacrifice and the use of drugs, but the benefit of the doubt falls to the believer unless the government can demonstrate a compelling need to be prohibiting and regulating. The governments interest in limiting 1st Amendment rights in my examples ought to be obvious. What apparently isn't obvious to you is the interest at work here. The government has had an interest in preventing discrimination in the public square by ensuring equal access to goods and services on offer. In Colorado, twelve other states, the D of C and many communities in states which don't offer protection, it is illegal to discriminate on the basis of someone's sexual orientation. Although religious entities and many of their extensions have been granted exemption to this and a few other suspect classifications, this special exception does not extend to the individual of faith, never did, on any of them. The baker is asking for an exception to the law which does not exist. He cannot invoke his religious beliefs in order to discriminate on the basis of ANY of the suspect classifications, let alone, just this one. I have yet to hear of a case where someone blaming God for what they have done has won. Not even the Camp Meeting Association, a good Methodist group in New Jersey, was allowed to get away with that kind of discrimination.
Just so you know, the case of the New Mexico photographer and the lesbian commitment ceremony is sitting in the in box of the SCOTUS. If they take the case, it's over for this sort of thing. She doomed the rest of you when she sent them an unsolicited email to them with Bible tracts condemning them to hell. If y'all imagine that is just the sort of right you should have guaranteed to you by the Constitution, think again. Amen.
You understand I don’t claim freely exercise their religious beliefs is an absolute, and I agree that discrimination is a very poor business practice. In the case, however, the government is forcing him to serve a cake that he views as something spiritually special reserved only for one man and one woman. If we allow the government to prosecute him it will set a very poor president for government forcing beliefs upon people of religion.

Should the government then force Churches to provide wedding ceremonies for gay couples, it is illegal to discriminate on the basis of someone's sexual orientation? You stated,“this special exception does not extend to the individual of faith,” What would make you think that is appropriate when our founding is based on INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY?

AGAIN, I am not defending this man, I am defending our 1st Amendment right as Americans.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#225 Dec 12, 2013
Respect71 wrote:
You understand I don’t claim freely exercise their religious beliefs is an absolute, and I agree that discrimination is a very poor business practice. In the case, however, the government is forcing him to serve a cake that he views as something spiritually special reserved only for one man and one woman.
He sells wedding cakes, all customers who come in have a right to that service on an equal basis, despite ANY religious objection he claims. This applies whether his religious objection is based on their race, nationality, religion or ant other suspect classification.
Respect71 wrote:
If we allow the government to prosecute him it will set a very poor president for government forcing beliefs upon people of religion.
Sorry, but your right to practice your beliefs ends at you practicing them on others uninvited in the public square. If he isn't prosecuted, it would set the precedent that this kind of do unto others something they cannot legally do unto you in the name of God ambush is an acceptable expression of one's freedom of religion.
Respect71 wrote:
Should the government then force Churches to provide wedding ceremonies for gay couples, it is illegal to discriminate on the basis of someone's sexual orientation?
No place of worship or member of the clergy could be forced to perform or host ANY wedding even before same sex weddings. You don't have a right to a Catholic wedding, even if you are Catholic. Same sex marriage changes nothing in that regard, even with anti-discrimination protections in place.
Respect71 wrote:
You stated,“this special exception does not extend to the individual of faith,” What would make you think that is appropriate when our founding is based on INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY?
I'd personally be fine in holding places of worship and their clergy were bound by all the same laws that the rest of us individuals have to abide by regarding the services they provide, but that ain't happening, nor would we really want it to. Churches and those they employ in a religious role have to adhere to church doctrine, individuals do not. He faces no repercussions from his faith for doing such a cake. If he was going to be drummed out of his Church for doing what they asked for, he might have an argument, but no.
Respect71 wrote:
AGAIN, I am not defending this man, I am defending our 1st Amendment right as Americans.
A 1st Amendment right to be right b*st*rds to unsuspecting customers, because we choose to believe that God hates you or what you're doing. Does this right to p*ss on the day of gay folk in the name of God stop with us, or does God get you out of p*ssing on the day of anyone you say he hates? God hates the Swedes, the Rev Fred Phelps has told us that one. Can I start with them?

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#226 Dec 12, 2013
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
Show us where in history the government FORED a black man to marry a while woman. Forcing a man to do business that goes against a religious belief is Unconstitutional.

When did I claim “saying the whole gay thing is a choice”? Re-read any of my posts and you will see I have never claimed such a thing.
HOWEVER, skin color and what you do in the bedroom is not the SAME… We are talking about behaviors and religious beliefs, NOT skin color.

Would you be okay with the government force the owner of a gay bar to allow Christians to patronize the bar?

He isn't forced to do anything. He can leave the business. Private citizens can have all the religious freedom they want. Business are not people and have to be fair to everyone by law. Its the same as the pharmacists who refuse to sell birth control pills. Don't go into a business if you cant do the job!

You just claimed it again. If being gay isn't a choice, it is the very same as skin color. An immutable characteristic. It makes no difference if the interracial couple or gay couple never have sex their entire lives, you have to afford them the same rights of marriage as everyone else.

Yes I would be ok with that. As I said, it is the law that you can't discriminate against your patrons in a business to the public.

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#227 Dec 12, 2013
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
“Do I have to look up transcripts of court cases where the bible was used to take away the freedom of others, just as it is beign done in this case?” As long as it applies to this case specifically, as there are NO RIGHTS removed from the gay couple whatsoever and the rights of the shop owner is absolutely being removed.
“Listen to this to see what I mean about interracial marraige
http://www.youtube.com/watch ...” Interracial marriage? He was talking about gays… Do we know the specific ordinance he was speaking on? Did you pick a different state for a reason?
Their right to equal protection under the law. It is the law of the land that businesses cannot discriminate in their clientele.

The point was, that the arguments against gays and interracial relationships are indistinguishable and both come from religion.

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#228 Dec 12, 2013
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
Which in this case is his right to exercise his religious freedom… The gays rights aren’t being removed by his not serving them, however, the law is preventing him from “free exercise thereof”(removing his right).

You have a blatant ignorance of the Bible who God is…
If someone's religion says its ok to go around murdering people, do we let them do it? Of course not. Religious freedom only extends in that it doesn't contradict other laws. We take away children from 'faith healing' families, from cults, etc. Your religion ends when it comes into contact with another individual. The whole 'equal protection' part applies to the gay couple. If he wants to run a business, he had to follow the law. Otherwise he should have to close up shop if he can't do his job.

No, Christians have a blatant ignorance of the Bible and the god it portrays. They just go on feeling instead of facts. They hear 'feel good' verses and don't actually read the book their religion is based on. If they did, they would be horrified.

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#229 Dec 12, 2013
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
Cite away, that would be a first for you. Some scientist claim climate change is a man caused occurrence. Doesn’t mean it’s fact.
Oh lord you are one of those too. Manmade global warming is settled science with data to back it up. Why do religious types refuse to believe stuff with actual evidence and still believe in a fairy tale book with none? You claim to love a person that you have no evidence ever existed...never seen or spoken to. I just can't wrap my head around that.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#231 Dec 12, 2013
Disgusted wrote:
Some people just don't want to deal with homosexuals & shouldn't have to .
You have the freedom and the right to not deal with us in your home and place of worship, but we enjoy the right of equal access in the public square. If you don't want to deal with us in the public square, you don't have to, but your only option is staying home.
Disgusted wrote:
Some don't want to write in their own hand anything portraying homosexuals or homosexuality as a good thing because it is not !
If they are in the business of providing goods and services in the public square, that's unfortunate, because they have to treat their homosexual customers just like they would anyone else.
Disgusted wrote:
Serve a homosexual a plate of food or fix their shoes , sure no problem .
Hypocrite, encouraging homosexuals to eat. That's darn straight of you by the way. Darn straight.
Disgusted wrote:
Make a homosexual a cake encouraging homosexuality by what you are forced to write even with frosting or by the homosexual 'rainbow', no way !
How is their problem with homosexuality their customer's problem?
Disgusted wrote:
Some Dr's refuse to perform abortions & its a right of women to get one so should the Dr's quit or get sued for their refusal ?
If a doctor does not perform abortions for anyone, he isn't required to perform abortions for anyone. You have the right to the goods and services provided.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Greenwood Village Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Republicans the party of LIARS (Dec '11) 8 hr Roy R 23,574
Lookin' for dank in all the wrong Places lol 10 hr Big Rob 2
106.7 kbpi is the worst morning show ever! (Feb '15) 11 hr Rene 587
The Parade of Double Standards Continues in the... 16 hr Culture Auditor 1
Looking for work at Lockheed Martin Wed waleedtahmad 1
News Old evidence at new trial (May '06) Tue jww 1,123
Memorial Day Jun 28 Taylor V 13

Greenwood Village Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Greenwood Village Mortgages