Religious Freedom & the Return of Slavery in America

Posted in the Columbus Forum

Comments
1 - 20 of 502 Comments Last updated Mar 22, 2014
First Prev
of 26
Next Last

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1
Mar 4, 2014
 
The following two articles are closely related and worth a read...
if you cherish your Constitutional rights.

http://tinyurl.com/k2kyynp

"Gay Wedding Cakes, Religious Freedom and the Return of Slavery in America"

via Flopping Aces

The most common definition of a slave is: A person who is the property of and wholly subject to another. There is another definition however: A person entirely under the domination of some influence or person. Slavery has been outlawed in the US for 150 years, but some people want to bring it back… but not necessarily in the form you might think. Uncle Sam of course is not a master and citizens are not his slaves. The government – at least not the government defined in the Constitution – doesn’t have the right to tell Americans who they have to work for or who their businesses have to serve.

It can however, at least according to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, demand that businesses that offer to provide services to the public not discriminate based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. That means however that if you are offering to sell cakes, you must not decide that you will sell cakes to men and not women, to Jews but not Christians, to blacks but not whites, or to a native born American but not a naturalized citizen born in Canada.

Interestingly, other than religion all of the limitations are innate, things that people are born with or had from birth. That prohibition also applies to the later characteristics defined by the Americans with Disabilities Act. The CRA says what a business can’t do, it can’t discriminate based on a clear set of criteria… but it says nothing about what they must do. A black chef can’t legally refuse to provide service to someone who walks in simply because he’s white. He can however choose not to provide service to him when the man tells him that the event is a celebration of KKK history. That’s discrimination, but it’s legal discrimination and its well within the chef’s rights.

The CRA lists specific criteria upon which a business is not allowed to discriminate: race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. But that’s it. Other than those reasons any business can choose who they would like to serve. A 7-11 store is well within its rights to say “No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service”. By the same token a gun store can choose not to sell a gun to a drunk person and business can choose not to hire people with tattoos. A community can limit its inhabitants to those over 55 or a storekeeper with a Napoleon complex can choose to never serve customers over 6 ft. These restrictions may or may not be prudent, but none of them are illegal as businesses have the right to choose to whom they provide services within the framework of the CRA, the ADA and the Equal Protection Clause upon which both are based.

Which brings us to the issue of bakers and photographers and others. The question is, working under the shadow of the Equal Protection Clause, do such businesses have the right to refuse to provide services for a gay wedding, something their faith tells them is a sin? Absolutely. Do they have the right to refuse to provide services for a gay wedding? Absolutely. Should they be protected from lawsuits for doing so? Of course.

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2
Mar 4, 2014
 
p2

The point is, in almost every one of these cases the service providers did not refuse service because someone was gay. Rather, they declined to participate in an activity their faith tells them is sinful. Indeed the baker in the case actually offered to let the gay couple purchase any one of the cakes in his shop. He was simply refusing to bake a gay themed wedding cake.

The distinction between the activity and a customer’s gayness or lack thereof may be a fine one, but it is an important one. The CRA says businesses cannot discriminate against customers based on various innate or unchangeable characteristics. Significantly, the characteristic of being gay is not among them. Which means that theoretically businesses have the right to discriminate against gays or 22 year olds or journalists with no threat of government sanction. Nonetheless, most Americans oppose discriminating against people for their sexual orientation and the businesses in question were not doing so.(Similarly, 85% of Americans believe service providers should be allowed to decline to participate in gay weddings.) They were simply declining to participate in an activity that their faith says is sinful.

The jilted couples in these cases looked to the government to force the said businesses to provide the services they wanted. In all three cases the government obliged stating that the religious objections of the business owners were trumped by the couple’s equal protections. That is both unfortunate and absurd. If the government can force a Christian baker to bake a cake for a gay couple, can it force a Muslim grocer who does special orders to special order pork? Can it compel the aforementioned black chef to cater the KKK’s event? Can it force a vegan landlord to rent his building to someone wanting to open a steakhouse? The answer of course is no, no and no and the reason is because Americans are not slaves and the government has no right to compel them to do things that go against their moral convictions.

That is likely news to people in government (and their liberal enablers) who believe they are the masters of the American people. They are not. Americans are free and by constitution they have given government limited powers – even if the government is increasingly obliterating those limits. Of those freedoms, religious freedom is among the most important. It is what brought the Pilgrims to America 400 years ago and it’s been a hallmark of American society ever since. A government commanding its citizens to do things beyond its scope is never a good idea, which Obamacare demonstrates on a daily basis. A government commanding its citizens to do something that goes against their religious faith is even worse because it undermines the fundamental legitimacy of the government itself. If these rulings stand, if the most basic freedom to abstain from participating in activities your religion tells you are sinful is now largely gone, then the progressive barbarians are no longer at the gate… they’ve entered your home, taken control of your life and have carte blanche to force you to do whatever it is they demand – or face ruinous consequences otherwise. Such is the kindling with which revolutionary fires are often started…

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3
Mar 4, 2014
 
http://tinyurl.com/lfd3z4z

"Obama Administration Wins Fight To Have Christian Home-School Family Deported?"

via IBA

I'm not sure what this story has to do with the Obama Administration, but it is an important story, and it needs to be noted.

The Obama Administration has certainly created an atmosphere in which people like this family are disrespected.

From Fox News:

Uwe and Hannelore Romeike came to the United States in 2008 seeking political asylum. They fled their German homeland in the face of religious persecution for homeschooling their children.

They wanted to live in a country where they could raise their children in accordance with their Christian beliefs. The Romeikes were initially given asylum, but the Obama administration objected – claiming that German laws that outlaw homeschooling do not constitute persecution.

“The goal in Germany is for an open, pluralistic society,” the Justice Department wrote in a legal brief last year.“Teaching tolerance to children of all backgrounds helps to develop the ability to interact as a fully functioning citizen in Germany.”

On Monday, the Supreme Court declined to hear the Romeike’s appeal – paving the way for the Christian family of eight to be deported.
“I think this is a part of the Obama administration’s overall campaign to crush religious freedom in this country,” said Michael Farris, chairman of the Home School Legal Defense Association. His organization is representing family.

“The Obama administration’s attitude toward religious freedom, particularly religious freedom for Christians is shocking,” he told me in an exclusive telephone interview.

“I have little doubt that if this family had been of some other faith that the decision would have never been appealed in the first place. They would have let this family stay.” Had the family stayed in Germany, where homeschooling is illegal, they would have faced the prospect of losing their children.

Like the Pilgrims, they fled their homeland yearning for a place where they could be free. Farris said the religious bias perpetrated by the Obama administration is “palpable.”

“It’s a denial of the essence of America,” he said.“The Pilgrims left England to go to Holland to seek religious freedom. They came here to seek religious freedom and parental rights for their children. Had this administration been waiting at Plymouth Rock, they would’ve told the Pilgrims to go back home.”

There are nearly 12 million illegal immigrants living in the United States. You’d think the Obama administration could find a place eight immigrants who want to live here legally. Farris said the Supreme Court’s decision not to hear the case sends a chilling message to Americans who currently home school their children.

“This administration thinks it’s a privilege to home school – not a right,” he told me.“We’d better buckle down and be ready to fight them every step of the way.” As for now, the Romeike family will be able to stay at their four-acre farm in the eastern Tennessee. But it’s only a matter of time before the Obama administration begins formal deportation proceedings.
Pope Che Reagan Christ I

Lodi, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4
Mar 4, 2014
 

Judged:

3

3

2

It might someday be possible to have discussion about important issues in this country if people would stop sensationalizing things.

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5
Mar 4, 2014
 

Judged:

2

Pope Che Reagan Christ I wrote:
It might someday be possible to have discussion about important issues in this country if people would stop sensationalizing things.
Here's a special case just for you.

http://tinyurl.com/nxz7h5m

"Muslim Barber Refuses to Cut Hair of Lesbian: Whose Rights Trump Whose?"

by Howard Portnoy

Being a believer in all -isms can get hairy at times. Take as an illustration a case reported in the Toronto Sun by Ezra Levant:

So a lesbian walks into a Muslim barbershop, and asks for a “businessmen’s haircut”.

It sounds like the beginning of a joke, but it really happened, and now a government agency called the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario will hear her complaint.

Faith McGregor is the lesbian who doesn’t like the girly cuts that they do at a salon. She wants the boy’s hairdo.

Omar Mahrouk is the owner of the Terminal Barber Shop in Toronto. He follows Shariah law, so he thinks women have cooties. As Mahrouk and the other barbers there say, they don’t believe in touching women other than their own wives.

The incident occurred in Canada in November 2012, but it could easily happen here and now. Let’s take a state at random -- say Arizona -- and graft on the same scenario. Gay rights activists usually tend to be protectors of adherents to America’s lone “diverse” religion, Islam, so where do their sympathies lie?

This question is a real head scratcher in Canada, which passed a Multiculturalism Act in 1988, paving the way for an influx of immigrants with medieval attitudes toward second-class citizens [read: women and gays]. Faith McGregor belongs to both groups.

How to resolve this this “human rights” impasse? Levant envisions a hierarchy similar to the one found in the game of poker, except in this case based on some ad hoc notion of degrees of political correctness. He quips:

***
A white, Christian male has the lowest hand -- it’s like he’s got just one high card, maybe an ace. So almost everyone trumps him.

A white woman is just a bit higher -- like a pair of twos. Enough to beat a white man, but not much more.

A gay man is like having two pairs in poker.

A gay woman -- a lesbian like McGregor -- is like having three of a kind.

A black lesbian is a full house -- pretty tough to beat.

Unless she’s also in a wheelchair, which means she’s pretty much a straight flush.

The only person who could trump that would be a royal flush. If the late Sammy Davis Jr.-- who was black, Jewish and half-blind -- were to convert to Islam and discover he was 1/64th Aboriginal.

So which is a better hand: A lesbian who wants a haircut or a Muslim who doesn’t want to give it to her?

***

Joking aside, when government attempts to decide which protected class of citizens is more aggrieved in cases like this, they run into trouble. The only “out” is to look the other way, which is what liberals have been doing here for years. The question of tolerance for one protected group over another arose during the murder trial of George Zimmerman, when the prosecution’s star witness Rachel Jeantel intimated under cross-examination that Trayvon Martin was anti-gay. Do you recall any marches by the Lambda Society or GLAAD denouncing blacks for their Stone Age view of homosexuality? Nah. Instead, liberals buried their heads in the sand, waiting till the news cycle moved on to other headlines. Hypocrisy much?

“Zuzu's Petals”

Since: Sep 10

Bedford Falls

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6
Mar 4, 2014
 

Judged:

1

Liberals are destroying this country!
Reality Speaks

Columbus, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7
Mar 4, 2014
 
Pope Che Reagan Christ I wrote:
It might someday be possible to have discussion about important issues in this country if people would stop sensationalizing things.
what does it matter?.........Hillary Clinton 2013

discussions make people like Putin laugh.
Pope Che Reagan Christ I

Lodi, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8
Mar 4, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

Thanks for proving my point. Again.

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9
Mar 4, 2014
 

Judged:

1

Pope Che Reagan Christ I wrote:
Thanks for proving my point. Again.
A black baker may refuse to provide a KKK-themed cake for an event.
But...a Christian baker may not refuse to provide a gay-themed cake for an event.

Please explain.

Also, which party's rights are superior in the case of the Muslim barber v. Lesbian customer?

Please advise.
Pope Che Reagan Christ I

Lodi, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10
Mar 4, 2014
 

Judged:

2

1

1

-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
A black baker may refuse to provide a KKK-themed cake for an event.
But...a Christian baker may not refuse to provide a gay-themed cake for an event.
Please explain.
Also, which party's rights are superior in the case of the Muslim barber v. Lesbian customer?
Please advise.
These are complicated issues that need rational, reasoned, unemotional analysis. It is important to know the statutes being applied and there are some fundamental issues of constitutional interpretation that need resolved. I disagree with a fundamental basis of the anti-gay argument that homosexuality is not an immutable characteristic. I think it is. Your muslim barber example is flawed since the scenario occurred in Canada, but if it occurred in the Washington where the wedding cake incident occurred, then I don't believe that the barber could deny service.

I am sure you are aware, by the way, that the wedding cake case was not a Civil Rights Act case but was based on a Washington State statute that specifically included homosexuals in the list of protected classes. That error in the article colors the entire "analysis."

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11
Mar 4, 2014
 
Pope Che Reagan Christ I wrote:
<quoted text>
These are complicated issues that need rational, reasoned, unemotional analysis. It is important to know the statutes being applied and there are some fundamental issues of constitutional interpretation that need resolved. I disagree with a fundamental basis of the anti-gay argument that homosexuality is not an immutable characteristic. I think it is. Your muslim barber example is flawed since the scenario occurred in Canada, but if it occurred in the Washington where the wedding cake incident occurred, then I don't believe that the barber could deny service.
I am sure you are aware, by the way, that the wedding cake case was not a Civil Rights Act case but was based on a Washington State statute that specifically included homosexuals in the list of protected classes. That error in the article colors the entire "analysis."
Religious freedom, as guaranteed by the US Constitution, is not complicated at all.
That you oppose it is no surprise.

Further, the locales of these cases are not relevant to the broader discussion.
But you leftists must attempt to muddy the clear waters of Constitutional rights at every turn.
Duke for Mayor

Uniontown, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12
Mar 4, 2014
 

Judged:

2

-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
Religious freedom, as guaranteed by the US Constitution, is not complicated at all.
That you oppose it is no surprise.
Further, the locales of these cases are not relevant to the broader discussion.
But you leftists must attempt to muddy the clear waters of Constitutional rights at every turn.
Here's a little secret Tip. It is something that you probably are unaware of.

Many states in this Country offer greater and/or different protections for fundamental rights under their own State Constitutions than are found under the US Constitution.

Your ignorance of that fact is skewing your perceptions of this issue.

woof
Duke for Mayor

Uniontown, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13
Mar 4, 2014
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Hey Tip.

You do realize that not all wedding ceremonies are religious, or sacramental ones, and that such a ceremony is not required to make a spousal relationship valid under the eyes of the law, right?

http://www.osbar.org/public/legalinfo/1131_Ma...

There's a big gaping hole in your argument that a baker is asserting a Constitutional right to exercise his or her religious convictions by denying service to gay couples.

With a photographer, who is more actively engaged in the ceremony than a baker, I might be more inclined to agree with you, but the same counter argument could be made if it isn't a religious ceremony.

woof

Since: Jan 13

Returning with a vengeance

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#14
Mar 4, 2014
 

Judged:

1

Duke for Mayor wrote:
Hey Tip.
You do realize that not all wedding ceremonies are religious, or sacramental ones, and that such a ceremony is not required to make a spousal relationship valid under the eyes of the law, right?
http://www.osbar.org/public/legalinfo/1131_Ma...
There's a big gaping hole in your argument that a baker is asserting a Constitutional right to exercise his or her religious convictions by denying service to gay couples.
With a photographer, who is more actively engaged in the ceremony than a baker, I might be more inclined to agree with you, but the same counter argument could be made if it isn't a religious ceremony.
woof
One either has "freedom of association" or they don't. The Progressive and the Supreme Court have ruled that mythical "civil rights" exceed the actual right of freedom of association that is in the Constitution.

FWIW, the NM Supreme Court did rule that the photographer was not allowed to discriminate.

It's just the typical leftist hostility to revealed religion, in favor of its egalitarian trash
Duke for Mayor

Uniontown, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#15
Mar 4, 2014
 

Judged:

2

2

1

-The-Artist- wrote:
<quoted text>
One either has "freedom of association" or they don't. The Progressive and the Supreme Court have ruled that mythical "civil rights" exceed the actual right of freedom of association that is in the Constitution.
FWIW, the NM Supreme Court did rule that the photographer was not allowed to discriminate.
It's just the typical leftist hostility to revealed religion, in favor of its egalitarian trash
Sorry Karl, but the fundamental right of freedom of association isn't invoked when someone walks into McDonald's and orders fries.

Same result with a cake.

woof
Reality Speaks

Columbus, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16
Mar 4, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

Duke for Mayor wrote:
Hey Tip.
You do realize that not all wedding ceremonies are religious, or sacramental ones, and that such a ceremony is not required to make a spousal relationship valid under the eyes of the law, right?
http://www.osbar.org/public/legalinfo/1131_Ma...
There's a big gaping hole in your argument that a baker is asserting a Constitutional right to exercise his or her religious convictions by denying service to gay couples.
With a photographer, who is more actively engaged in the ceremony than a baker, I might be more inclined to agree with you, but the same counter argument could be made if it isn't a religious ceremony.
woof
you do realize that the Baker could deliver the cake a day late by accident, and you already paid for it so nothing to lose for Baker. You know....payback for something?

at best in court he refunds purchase.

Defense.....marked wrong day on calendar.

Now....in the real world....Lawyers are not necessary to bake cakes.

People should want to do business with those who are helping them. They want each others business. This is not a difficult task in America. No lawyer is required to review cake contract, or determine hate crimes. People because of free will can leave any store and go elsewhere.

Please let me know if you find it difficult to spend your money, and I will fix the problem Johnny on the spot. Never again will you be turned down for buying rings and cakes. This service is free to you.
Big Johnson

Columbus, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17
Mar 4, 2014
 

Judged:

2

2

2

-tip- wrote:
The following two articles are closely related and worth a read...
if you cherish your Constitutional rights.
http://tinyurl.com/k2kyynp
"Gay Wedding Cakes, Religious Freedom and the Return of Slavery in America"
via Flopping Aces
The most common definition of a slave is: A person who is the property of and wholly subject to another. There is another definition however: A person entirely under the domination of some influence or person. Slavery has been outlawed in the US for 150 years, but some people want to bring it back… but not necessarily in the form you might think. Uncle Sam of course is not a master and citizens are not his slaves. The government – at least not the government defined in the Constitution – doesn’t have the right to tell Americans who they have to work for or who their businesses have to serve.
It can however, at least according to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, demand that businesses that offer to provide services to the public not discriminate based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. That means however that if you are offering to sell cakes, you must not decide that you will sell cakes to men and not women, to Jews but not Christians, to blacks but not whites, or to a native born American but not a naturalized citizen born in Canada.
Interestingly, other than religion all of the limitations are innate, things that people are born with or had from birth. That prohibition also applies to the later characteristics defined by the Americans with Disabilities Act. The CRA says what a business can’t do, it can’t discriminate based on a clear set of criteria… but it says nothing about what they must do. A black chef can’t legally refuse to provide service to someone who walks in simply because he’s white. He can however choose not to provide service to him when the man tells him that the event is a celebration of KKK history. That’s discrimination, but it’s legal discrimination and its well within the chef’s rights.
The CRA lists specific criteria upon which a business is not allowed to discriminate: race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. But that’s it. Other than those reasons any business can choose who they would like to serve. A 7-11 store is well within its rights to say “No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service”. By the same token a gun store can choose not to sell a gun to a drunk person and business can choose not to hire people with tattoos. A community can limit its inhabitants to those over 55 or a storekeeper with a Napoleon complex can choose to never serve customers over 6 ft. These restrictions may or may not be prudent, but none of them are illegal as businesses have the right to choose to whom they provide services within the framework of the CRA, the ADA and the Equal Protection Clause upon which both are based.
Which brings us to the issue of bakers and photographers and others. The question is, working under the shadow of the Equal Protection Clause, do such businesses have the right to refuse to provide services for a gay wedding, something their faith tells them is a sin? Absolutely. Do they have the right to refuse to provide services for a gay wedding? Absolutely. Should they be protected from lawsuits for doing so? Of course.
Have a good cry over it and you will feel much better.
Reality Speaks

Columbus, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#18
Mar 4, 2014
 
-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
A black baker may refuse to provide a KKK-themed cake for an event.
But...a Christian baker may not refuse to provide a gay-themed cake for an event.
Please explain.
Also, which party's rights are superior in the case of the Muslim barber v. Lesbian customer?
Please advise.
These stupid laws do nothing but make matters worse.

Who wants someone who despises them.......... baking them a cake period?

a show of hands please..........

see, not a single hand up.

This total exercise is for Lawyers to bill hours.......problem solved.

moral of the story..........shaking hands when making deals like buying cakes is more productive than using a Lawyer in court to force the issue, and a whole lot less expensive.

Kroger has cakes 24/7 in the bakery.
Reality Speaks

Columbus, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#19
Mar 4, 2014
 

Judged:

1

Big Johnson wrote:
<quoted text>
Have a good cry over it and you will feel much better.
I am ignoring it, and chalking it up to stupidity.

I will sell you all the cakes you can pay for.
I will sell you all the rings you can pay for.
I will rent you a facility for a reception and provide free security.
Will decorate the facility anyway you want, as long as you can pay for it.

could care less if you are green, purple, marrying a chimpanzee, or your Grandmother.

I am here to serve customers with 100% satisfaction.

Problems solved.

Anything else I can do for you sir?
Pope Che Reagan Christ I

Lodi, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#20
Mar 4, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

1

-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
Religious freedom, as guaranteed by the US Constitution, is not complicated at all.
That you oppose it is no surprise.
Further, the locales of these cases are not relevant to the broader discussion.
But you leftists must attempt to muddy the clear waters of Constitutional rights at every turn.
I knew it was a mistake to even attempt a nuanced, intellectual discussion with you. No one's religious freedom is being infringed. No one is being forced to become gay. No one is being forced to get gay married. This isn't a religious freedom issue. The people who oppose this are trying to dress it up as one so that they have some constitutional and political cover for their discrimination.

The locales are essential to discussions of specific examples, Tip, because different laws apply. You aren't the legal scholar that you fancy yourself to be.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

First Prev
of 26
Next Last
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

26 Users are viewing the Columbus Forum right now

Search the Columbus Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
Man shot during chase with deputy | The Columbu... (Aug '10) 18 min ohsssffizzfirPAIN 37
OH Who do you support for Governor in Ohio in 2010? (Oct '10) 1 hr Old Guy 30,160
Bennett Smith gate stories from the victims poi... (May '13) 2 hr Bowens 2,268
Where Do MIA Threads Go? 2 hr sidekick 11
ISIS beheads James Foley 3 hr Pope Che Reagan C... 16
Do you agree with Obama's plan to fundamentally... 3 hr Neutral Party 173
Debate: Ferguson - Columbus, OH 3 hr They cannot kill ... 60
Xenos Christian Fellowship is a CULT! (Jul '12) 5 hr Anon 912
•••
•••
•••
•••

Columbus Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

Columbus People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Columbus News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Columbus
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••