Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest seicer

Gay / Transgender Rights

Recommended Posts

I lost my job at a major corporation in Ohio that did not have a protection clause for sexual orientation. I had worked there for about 3 years as an openly gay man, without incident. Our company then merged  and the result was that I began reporting to a new manger from the other company. One day this manager pulled me into her office and told me that my lifestyle was in direct opposition of her religious beliefs and I was terminated. I contacted a lawyer who said that in Ohio you are an at will employee and there is no legal recourse for being fired for being gay. He said that he would contact some local civil rights organizations to see if there was anything he could do, but in the end there wasn't. Now tell me again how we're not second class citizens?

 

This situation left me devastated. I went to an Ivy League school and this was my first job after graduation. Having worked there for over 3 years, I had started to build dreams of being successful at this corporation and hoped to retire one day from there. I was very successful in my role, with reviews to back my performance; I was happy and hard working, and then 1 person changed it all. I went into a serious depression and started to question everything about my life. It took me almost 3 years to get back to a place  where I could find some sort of peace with it and with myself and who I am. So, if I sound passionately about this issue, I am.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just want to say, it is refreshing to be able to have a discussion of the issues without all the name calling.  Like I said earlier, I am someone you need to convince.  It does no good to have a one-sided conversation about how "mean" and "hateful" all the Republicans are because that doesn't change anything.

 

PTOD,  I'm not doubting or questioning your claims, but I find it difficult to believe that the company you worked for was truly a "major" corporation.  I work for a major corporation (Procter & Gamble) who is bending over backwards to provide equal protection to gays, including health care for partners, etc.

 

Certainly the negative publicity over such an incident would be very embarrassing for a major corporation, if that truly is what happened.  Why did you not make an issue out of it?  Certainly any worthy news organization would love to get their hands on a story like this.

 

Gee, after reading my response, it does sound like I'm doubting your story!  :?  It makes me think something else happened, and that you might be blaming it on your being gay.

 

Believe me, "major" corporations do not fire people without just cause in Ohio, especially if they have the performance reviews to back up there work.

 

Out of curiosity, why would you be reluctant to name this so called "major" corporation?  Certainly it would be a signal to others that they may want to think twice before going to work for them.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:-o

 

Wow, that story makes me sick.  Its absolutely crazy to sit back and think about these kinds of things.  We live in the most prosperous nation in the world and we can't afford all our citizens equal rights.  it is 2007 and we are still discussing these types of things.  Blows my mind sometimes. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Less weighing in on the debate and more a question. I understand reluctance of particular denominations to recognize gay marriage. If gay marriage was legal, would all churches be legally required to marry gay couples? Could laws be structured in some way to give churches the ability to decide themselves? I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around this issue ... for instance, I can't believe that a church could legally deny an interracial couple from marrying, even if they had religious beliefs against it. But I would think that a church could choose to use religious doctrine as a rationale for not marrying someone of another faith. Personally, I'm pretty secular/agnostic, so civil unions would be just fine by me, but unless all churches would be compelled to marry gay people, I don't think any one church's faith should be able to trump the decisions made by more gay-friendly denominations.

 

If someone is discriminated against, there are laws to protect them.  I don't believe in unnecessary laws though. 

 

As a point of clarification, discrimination laws are not universal. Constitutional protections have been interpreted to provide strong protections based on race and religion and intermediate protections for gender and disability. But someone who's fired for being obese has no legal recourse (unless they successfully argued under disability). Someone who's fired for having tattoos has no legal recourse. And someone who's fired for being gay has no legal recourse. So once you get past the standard protected classes outlined through Supreme Court decisions, you have only two options to ensure an additional class is protected: have a court interpret that existing laws extend to an additional class or legislate specific protections as amendments to existing laws. As such, we're not asking for a new law ... we're asking that protections be extended in existing laws so that someone can't arbitrarily be fired for something that a) they are genetically predisposed to (in my opinion and experience as a gay man), not unlike race, gender or disability; and b) has no connection whatsoever to the quality of their work product.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just want to say, it is refreshing to be able to have a discussion of the issues without all the name calling.  Like I said earlier, I am someone you need to convince.  It does no good to have a one-sided conversation about how "mean" and "hateful" all the Republicans are because that doesn't change anything.

 

PTOD,  I'm not doubting or questioning your claims, but I find it difficult to believe that the company you worked for was truly a "major" corporation.  I work for a major corporation (Procter & Gamble) who is bending over backwards to provide equal protection to gays, including health care for partners, etc.

 

Certainly the negative publicity over such an incident would be very embarrassing for a major corporation, if that truly is what happened.  Why did you not make an issue out of it?  Certainly any worthy news organization would love to get their hands on a story like this.

 

Gee, after reading my response, it does sound like I'm doubting your story!  :?  It makes me think something else happened, and that you might be blaming it on your being gay.

 

Believe me, "major" corporations do not fire people without just cause in Ohio, especially if they have the performance reviews to back up there work.

 

Out of curiosity, why would you be reluctant to name this so called "major" corporation?  Certainly it would be a signal to others that they may want to think twice before going to work for them.

 

 

DanB you have absolutely NO clue what it's like to be gay. Why didn't I go public, not that you're entitled to any of my personal information, but it was out of respect to my family/parents, who by the way are very staunch conservative Christian Republicans. It's much more complex than I think you can even imagine. But the last thing I wanted to do was have my name in the press and my family disown me (which what was said when I came out to them, we haven't talked about it since for over a decade). . .I may not have a great relationship with them, but it's the only one I have and the only parents I have. So you can doubt the day away, but until you walk a day in my shoes, I'd think twice about how great us gays have it.

 

And for the record, the Corp was a fortune 500 company with NO sexual orientation policy. I didn't name them because it's not my place too and I'm not going to throw stones...those who know me personally or from this forum can figure out what Corp it is, but they moved out the bulk of their business out of Ohio anyway. . .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like I said earlier, I am someone you need to convince. 

 

I, for one, will not resort to name calling and will try not to have emotionally clouded arguments, despite the fact that, as gay men, this is an emotional issue for all of us. What I will say, however, is that when a group is discriminating against another group (even if that discrimination is justified), the onus should be on the group doing the discrimination to explain why it is right, rather than on the class being discriminated against to explain why the discrimination is wrong. I do believe that everyone should be entitled to hold their personal opinions and beliefs, and I am not seeking to challenge those beliefs. But when one group's religious or moral conviction leads to difficulties for some people in securing employment, housing, marital rights, parenting rights, medical rights, survivorship rights, insurance rights, etc., they need to convince me of why this unequal treatment is necessary to our civil society and better for our common good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

DanB you have absolutely NO clue what it's like to be gay. Why didn't I go public, not that you're entitled to any of my personal information but it was out of respect to my family/parents, who by the way are very staunch conservative Christian Republicans. It's much more complex than I think you can even imagine. But the last thing I wanted to do was have my name in the press and my family disown me (which what was said when I came out to them, we haven't talked about it since for over a decade). . .I may not have a great relationship with them, but it's the only one I have and the only parents I have. So you can doubt the day away, but until you walk a day in my shoes, I'd think twice about how great us gays have it.

 

And for the record, the Corp was a fortune 500 company with NO sexual orientation policy. I didn't name them because it's not my place too and I'm not going to throw stones...those who know me personally or from this forum can figure out what Corp it is, but they moved out the bulk of their business out of Ohio anyway. . .

 

I never said "you gays" have it great!  Believe it or not, straight, white, middle age males get fired all the time.  Would you say they all have it great?  I never claimed to have a clue as to what it was like to be gay!  What do you mean its not your place to name this great Fortune 500 company?  Who's place is it?  I'd like to know.  This is an anonymous board, certainly naming them here wouldn't be throwing stones.  Besides, if it truly happened you would only be telling the truth. 

 

I'm sorry for your family situation.  That would be a terrible place to be, but maybe its your family that has to face reality before a perfect stranger has to.

 

If you are not willing to stand up and proclaim your situation and stand up for your rights, then why do you expect me too?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Believe it or not, straight, white, middle age males get fired all the time. 

 

Not for being white (not legally anyhow), and given demographics, not for being straight.

 

The "we already have laws against discrimination"/"special rights" arguments when talking about this equal rights issue are completely nonsensical- I'm frankly surprised to still hear them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What do you mean its not your place to name this great Fortune 500 company?  Who's place is it?  I'd like to know.  This is an anonymous board, certainly naming them here wouldn't be throwing stones.  Besides, if it truly happened you would only be telling the truth. 

 

Why is it so important that he names the company? What difference does it make? Um, probably BP but why does that make his story true or not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Come on Mayday, you know what I mean.  I don't know the man, have no interest in finding out who he is or what he does.  He doesn't work for them, and they can't hurt him by saying who it is.  Are you going to follow

me around and cleverly respond to all my postings?  :?

 

Florida Guy,  I think its important because we need to know what companies out there are behaving this way.  If we never found out, we can't change them can we?  I never said it made his story false if he wouldn't name them.  It only helps, in my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Florida Guy,  I think its important because we need to know what companies out there are behaving this way.  If we never found out, we can't change them can we?  I never said it made his story false if he wouldn't name them.  It only helps, in my opinion.

 

...or we could just make it illegal to fire people based on immutable/irrelevant/politically vulnerable traits like sexual orientation and then we wouldn't need to identify each instance to mount letter writing campaigns/boycotts/etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Are you going to follow me around and cleverly respond to all my postings?"

 

As an Admin of this forum, it's my job to check out threads - even those that don't interest me. When I come across someone making potentially inflammatory comments, you'd better believe they're in my crosshairs. If you have a problem with that, there are plenty of unmoderated forums out there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dan, answer my question please: why can a straight non-religious couple be allowed to get married in a church when a gay religious couple cannot?  What is the logic behind that?  If you were a gay man Dan and held strong religious beliefs and wanted to get married in a church, wouldnt you want to?  Seriously, why cant a religious gay couple get married in churches?  I know what the bible says but if you ask me, its discrimination.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I never said "you gays" have it great!  Believe it or not, straight, white, middle age males get fired all the time.  Would you say they all have it great?  I never claimed to have a clue as to what it was like to be gay!  What do you mean its not your place to name this great Fortune 500 company?  Who's place is it?  I'd like to know.  This is an anonymous board, certainly naming them here wouldn't be throwing stones.  Besides, if it truly happened you would only be telling the truth.  

 

I'm sorry for your family situation.  That would be a terrible place to be, but maybe its your family that has to face reality before a perfect stranger has to.

 

If you are not willing to stand up and proclaim your situation and stand up for your rights, then why do you expect me too?

 

If I thought your intentions were even the slightest bit genuine, I would not have a problem telling you everything you wanted to know, including the company in question. But I don't think your intentions are genuine and furthermore, I think your questions are disingenuous.  Based on your comments, I think it's just a big dog and pony show for you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^Because church's are generally free to believe what they want to believe and choose which ceremonies to preside over.  Churches are not places of public accommodation- what they believe is central to their being.  If a church's beliefs are anti-gay, so be it.  If I were gay (and religious), I would probably find a new church.  Looking for logic in church policy...

 

DanB, I hope you don't feel too jumped on here.  But as you've heard from several of the gay posters, this is not just an abstract issue for many.  This is not just some gradual erosion of legislative/constitutional tradition, or an abstract affront to one's religious views- this is part of a set of issues that literally limits how certain citizens are able to participate in society.  I can certainly understand why people get emotional.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^Because church's are generally free to believe what they want to believe and choose which ceremonies to preside over.  Churches are not places of public accommodation- what they believe is central to their being.  If a church's beliefs are anti-gay, so be it.  If I were gay (and religious), I would probably find a new church.

 

I understand that, but can a church deny women or blacks, etc to come to their ceremonies?  Is this legal?  If so, then theoretically they can get away with whatever they want as long as its under their 'belief' umbrella.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do think it's related to the topic at hand. Can churches choose to not provide ceremonies to people based on their religious tenets. Could a church refuse to marry someone, for instance, because they're African American? Or wheelchair-bound? Or, and I think this speaks more to their religious beliefs, because they're Jewish and the congregation is not? Not making an argument here - literally asking. Haven't heard any case law on this topic.

 

The reason it's pertinent is that if churches CAN choose who they marry based on their religious doctrines, then it stands to reason that laws allowing gay marriage would not infringe on the religious rights of those who are opposed to the practice. Churches could decide whether to marry gay couples or not. As is, the state is prohibiting churches from marrying gay people even if their particular religious beliefs allow this to take place. If churches would be forced to marry gay couples, regardless of their beliefs, then I can understand the hesitation and see why civil unions might be an acceptable alternative.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I thought your intentions were even the slightest bit genuine, I would not have a problem telling you everything you wanted to know, including the company in question. But I don't think your intentions are genuine and furthermore, I think your questions are disingenuous.  Based on your comments, I think it's just a big dog and pony show for you.

 

PToD, you don't know me, you don't know anything about my life.  You have nothing to base that on.  I was just participating in the discussion, looking for honest answers or honest debate as to why I should change my opinion.  I enjoy a good debate, arguement, whatever you want to call it.  You post a story about how you have been discriminated against without giving any facts, and you're right; you don't owe me any answers.  You were posting in direct response to me.  I just tried to carry on the discussion.  You see, I am shocked that this could happen in a major corporation in this day and age.  If you think I am naive, so be it; but believe me, I'm not the only one.  All the laws in the world won't protect people from discrimination.  You still need to change the mindset.  I'm a good person to start with; middle age white Republican male.

 

I didn't think you guys wanted to just have a celebration of the house passage of this bill without any discussion.  That was my mistake.  I'll stop posting in this topic if you want, and you can all get back to your party.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^^ Umbrella thread on gay issues relating to Ohio mainly, but it has jumped the shark so to speak.

 

^ True, all the laws won't protect from discrimination. We still have African Americans and women that are discriminated through wage differentials, compared to white men. We still have people fired for being of color, or for giving birth (sadly, some still do this), or for being gay, and what have you. But by instituting a law, we can step up the ante of pressure on corporations to clean up their acts and criminalize those that unfairly punish the 'minorities'.

 

This thread wasn't a "celebration" of the house passage bill. It was a post regarding equal rights for gays, and I put in () that it was a catch all thread for related topics. Given that Ohio had anti-gay policies under the Taft administration, and that it looks like it can be reversed with the present one, there will be a lot more topics and discussions regarding this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WHY Hillary Clinton  :bang:

 

John Nichols: Gay lawmakers line up to support Clinton

By John Nichols, The Capital Times, November 15, 2007

 

Both openly gay members of Congress have now endorsed Hillary Clinton for the Democratic presidential nomination.

 

The New York senator secured the support of Tammy Baldwin, the Wisconsin congresswoman who is the only out lesbian in the House, months ago. And this week Clinton gained the enthusiastic endorsement of House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank, the only out gay man currently serving in the chamber.

 

Frank specifically hailed Clinton's support for gay and lesbian rights in announcing his decision to back the woman who currently leads in national polling in the Democratic race and who is the front-runner in most early caucus and primary states.

 

The Massachusetts Democrat said that he is "convinced that Hillary Clinton is the candidate best equipped to pass laws that will treat all Americans with dignity, fairness and equality no matter who they are or who they love."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do think it's related to the topic at hand. Can churches choose to not provide ceremonies to people based on their religious tenets. Could a church refuse to marry someone, for instance, because they're African American? Or wheelchair-bound? Or, and I think this speaks more to their religious beliefs, because they're Jewish and the congregation is not? Not making an argument here - literally asking. Haven't heard any case law on this topic.

 

The reason it's pertinent is that if churches CAN choose who they marry based on their religious doctrines, then it stands to reason that laws allowing gay marriage would not infringe on the religious rights of those who are opposed to the practice. Churches could decide whether to marry gay couples or not. As is, the state is prohibiting churches from marrying gay people even if their particular religious beliefs allow this to take place. If churches would be forced to marry gay couples, regardless of their beliefs, then I can understand the hesitation and see why civil unions might be an acceptable alternative.

 

 

There's a difference between civil marriage and religious marriage.  Even if you get married in a church (religious marriage,) you still have to apply for a marriage license (civil marriage) for it to be recognized by the state ("state" as in government in general, not specifically Ohio.)  I believe churches can do what they want as far as religious weddings go- even allow gay couples to have a religious ceremony- because without the marriage license, it doesn't legally mean anything.  If civil marriages were allowed, I still don't think churches would be forced to marry gay couples if they didn't want to, because they're private, religious organizations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the hold-up with the term marriage is that, in general, it is an institution of the church. The government should never have been in the business of using that term where 'civil unions' would be adequate.

 

People are against marriage for homosexual couples because of their religious indoctrination-the bible, and most other religious texts, specifically prohibit same-sex activities. There is no way around it, and there is no way you are going to convince church leaders to change their teachings.

 

A civil union is the more appropriate term/activity. It allows room for the state to provide legal methods for shared benefits and equality under law.

 

--------------------

 

As for equal protection laws....

 

There is still a debate for some people as to whether being gay/lesbian is an 'in-born trait' or a life choice. If you believe that it is an in-born trait, then there is no question that equal protection should be provided. However, if you believe that homosexuality is a choice (as in, one day you wake up and decide you are gay), then it is understandable that people would be hesitant to create a protected class for people who chose to be that way.

 

Now, personally, I think it is asinine to think that someone would just up and decide to be gay. I'm not gay, but I imagine it isn't something that is always easy to live with. This may sound bigoted, but why would someone chose to be gay and live such a difficult life?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This may sound bigoted, but why would someone chose to be gay and live such a difficult life?

 

Mostly for the solid appreciation one builds for disco divas, I suppose.

 

There is no way around it, and there is no way you are going to convince church leaders to change their teachings.

 

I wouldn't want them too, honestly. I don't have an interest in having the most intimate ceremony of my life taking place in a church that doesn't welcome me. That being said, the religious beliefs of one subset of religious groups shouldn't set the tone for public policy unless there's some compelling rationale regarding the public good, above and beyond moral beliefs. In other words, the teachings of Our Lady of the Perpetual Fear of Fagg*ts shouldn't influence how gays are treated legally any more or less than the teachings of The Donna Summer Lovers Tabernacle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In other words, the teachings of Our Lady of the Perpetual Fear of Faggots shouldn't influence how gays are treated legally any more or less than the teachings of The Donna Summer Lovers Tabernacle.

 

Okay, that just made my day. Quote of the year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is still a debate for some people as to whether being gay/lesbian is an 'in-born trait' or a life choice. If you believe that it is an in-born trait, then there is no question that equal protection should be provided. However, if you believe that homosexuality is a choice (as in, one day you wake up and decide you are gay), then it is understandable that people would be hesitant to create a protected class for people who chose to be that way.

 

What is debated is if it is a learned behavior or if is something you are born with. While the jury is still out on that one, one thing most Psychologists do agree on is that one's orientation can't be changed. So like you said, no, no one wakes up one day and says "I'll be gay today."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

more commentary on the gay rights issue in Dayton, commentary from the Dayton Daily News columnist Mary McCarty:

 

Ministers' logic on gay rights topsy-turvy

 

By Mary McCarty

 

Staff Writer

 

Thursday, November 15, 2007

 

At times I felt like Alice in Wonderland on Tuesday afternoon at a press conference during which representatives of the International Ministerial Alliance denounced a proposed ordinance granting gays and lesbians equal protection against discrimination. The Rev. Wilburt Shanklin, president of the Interdenominational Ministerial Alliance, said the city commission is "trampling on the blood of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and on the blood of the suffragettes."

 

When I asked commissioner Matt Joseph about Shanklin's comment, his first reaction was, "Wow. Oh my goodness."

 

What more can you say? The logic is so topsy-turvy it leaves you speechless: Legislation aimed at ending discrimination is somehow dishonoring the memory of our civil rights heroes.

 

http://www.daytondailynews.com/search/content/oh/story/opinions/columns/2007/11/14/ddn111507mary.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Issue 1 read "Only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this state and its political subdivisions. This state and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance or effect of marriage." That last part is intended to render useless the legal documents used by gays to prove things like co-habitation, joint accounts, etc. So, by voting in favor of Issue 1, you have voted into law that gay couples - no matter how committed and devoted - are not deserving of the "design, qualities, significance or effects" of marriage.

 

I was wondering how this will affect POAs? It seems that it could void them?  I think wills are OK thought.

 

Seriously....this is a big issue  for gay couples.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Our company then merged  and the result was that I began reporting to a new manger from the other company. One day this manager pulled me into her office and told me that my lifestyle was in direct opposition of her religious beliefs and I was terminated. I contacted a lawyer who said that in Ohio you are an at will employee and there is no legal recourse for being fired for being gay. He said that he would contact some local civil rights organizations to see if there was anything he could do, but in the end there wasn't.

 

Ah-ha, that explains this thread and and this one, too

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On edit, given what PTOD said and knowing the Dayton area, there are only two large corporations in this area that have protections:  NCR and GM.  Maybe Delphi, but they dont count as they are closing.

 

Believe it or not, Lexis-Nexis does not have such a policy, nor do any other large infotech corps, except SAIC (but they are here for defense contracting purposes, so security clearance requirements moots antidisrimination policy).

 

The problem with this proposed Dayton ordnance is that it only covers the city, which is not a big employment center anymore.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No to marriage, yes to adoption.  Now convince me otherwise.  I'm the type of guy whose mind you have to change!  I'm flexible, but I'm entitled to my beliefs. 

 

There's no need to convince idiots, this is why I'm burned out on this kind of shit. I shouldn't have to convince you why I should be able to get married any more than you should have to convince me why we shouldn't genocide mindless robotic "humans"  (in the most painless way of course) who demonstrate that they are just living by instinct by "thinking" that adhering to a belief=obligatory legislation of that belief. Believe that gays shouldn't have the right to be married, that's fine, you can debate that while it's legal. You want to marry some 18 year old drug addicted whore or what have you? I don't give a shit and the government shouldn't either, nevermind if that whore has a penis or a vagina. And don't expect a response, because I've already wasted enough time on intellectual midgets. What happened in Massachusetts after all these years? Oh that's right: nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...halfhearted applause, as this came so late.  Dayton is not a leader in acceptance of the GLBTs

 

Dayton commission passes anti-discrimination law

 

By Joanne Huist Smith

 

Staff Writer

 

Wednesday, November 21, 2007

 

DAYTON — The gay and lesbian community got long-sought protection under the city's anti-discrimination law Wednesday night.

 

"Justice delayed is justice denied. It's time to do the right thing," Mayor Rhine McLin said Wednesday.

The City Commission voted 3-1 to add sexual orientation and gender identity to a list of protected groups. Commissioner Dean Lovelace was the sole "no" vote. McLin and Commissioners Matt Joseph and Nan Whaley voted for the measure. Joey Williams requested additional dialogue and did not vote.

 

"The (City Commission) is keeping Dayton on the cutting edge," Roger McKay, president and founder of Diversity Dayton said. "This shows the city wants to be inclusive."

 

source

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...