"Religious Freedom" Bill

Comments about your favorite candidate, the newest PROPOSED law, and the FEMA camp near your hometown should go here.
Post Reply
User avatar
notmartha
Posts: 673
Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2013 1:16 pm

"Religious Freedom" Bill

Post by notmartha » Tue Mar 24, 2015 12:56 pm

Editor was correct when he said in this post:
The reason for my concern with this issue is that any time the government wants to pass a law supposedly for the purpose of correcting a perceived wrong, the law usually accomplishes the exact opposite. Just look at the name of the law, envision what would be the antithesis, and you will usually be pretty close to the mark.
Take for instance the Religious Freedom Bill being passed in Indiana, which says in part:
Religious freedom restoration. Prohibits a governmental entity from substantially burdening a person's exercise of religion, even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, unless the governmental entity can demonstrate that the burden: (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering the compelling governmental interest. Provides a procedure for remedying a violation. Specifies that the religious freedom law applies to the implementation or application of a law regardless of whether the state or any other governmental entity or official is a party to a proceeding implementing or applying the law. Prohibits an applicant, employee, or former employee from pursuing certain causes of action against a private employer.
From HERE:
INDIANAPOLIS, Ind. (March 23, 2015) – The Indiana House voted 63-31 to pass the controversial religious freedom bill Monday, a bill that brought hundreds of supporters and opponents to rally at the statehouse last week.

The bill passed the state Senate last month 40-10 and passed the House Judiciary committee 9-4 earlier this month.

Opponents claim the bill would allow Indiana business owners to refuse service to customers based on their religious beliefs.

Supporters of the bill argue the measure is needed to protect Indiana business owners from too much government control. Opponents decry the measure as legalized discrimination.

Freedom Indiana, the same organization that rallied in support of same-sex marriage last year, took to the state house Monday and delivered 10,000 letters of opposition to House Speaker Brian Bosma’s office staff.

“We have around 10,000 letters here, so state-wide, our grassroots have just boiled up to the top and we’ve been working hard and we’ve had major businesses around the state like Cummins Engine, Lilly, Alcoa, and Sales Force all come to the table,” said Katie Blair, a Campaign Director for Freedom Indiana.

“The bill also pretends that there’s a problem here in Indiana, that some are imposing their beliefs on others already. That people who have a different sexual orientation are what? By their mere existence are imposing their belief? Is that the concern?” said State Rep. Ed DeLaney, D-Indianapolis, during floor debate on the bill Monday.

A co-author of the legislation, State Rep. Jud McMillan, R-Brookville, defended the legislation.

“Those things aren’t happening in other states, they aren’t happening at the federal government. So the fears that we continue to hear, we will realize that when we pass this bill have not manifested themselves elsewhere,” he said.

Supporters say the bill simply puts Indiana law in step with a federal law passed back in the 90’s that creates a stronger judicial standard for the courts to use when settling religious freedom cases.

But after the Supreme Court ruled that parts of that federal law did not apply to the states, some 19 states passed their own religious freedom laws, but Indiana never did.

“This is necessary because of a lack of clarity in Indiana law since this decision came down,” said McMillin.

Still some opponents feel they’re only doing it now as a response to losing the battle on same sex marriage last year.

“We know that this is simply about sending a message to a few folks here in Indiana and that’s wrong,” said House minority leader Scott Pelath, D-Michigan City.

The bill needs another vote of approval from the senate and then it will head to Governor Pence, who released this statement following Monday’s vote:

“The legislation, SB 101, is about respecting and reassuring Hoosiers that their religious freedoms are intact. I strongly support the legislation and applaud the members of the General Assembly for their work on this important issue. I look forward to signing the bill when it reaches my desk.”
The federal "law" referred to above is this:
religious freedom.pdf
(32.85 KiB) Downloaded 750 times
Basically, you will have the freedom to exercise your religion, whatever that may be, as long as it benefits "this State". It has been this way for quite a while. Now, however, "this State" is telling their creations, i.e. corporations, that it is ok to refuse services, jobs, etc. based on religious beliefs. So while it is sold to the public as "Ok Mr. Baker, you don't have to put two dudes on the top of that wedding cake," it is going to work against anything but the statist religion. Everyone have your mark in place? <sarcasm>
Teach me thy way, O LORD, and lead me in a plain path, because of mine enemies. Psalm 27:11
User avatar
editor
Site Admin
Posts: 670
Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2013 9:24 am
Contact:

Re: "Religious Freedom" Bill

Post by editor » Wed Mar 25, 2015 5:19 am

Very astute, notmartha. I knew I could count on you to see this for what it is.
--
Editor
Lawfulpath.com
User avatar
editor
Site Admin
Posts: 670
Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2013 9:24 am
Contact:

Re: "Religious Freedom" Bill

Post by editor » Thu Apr 02, 2015 7:26 pm

Arkansas is now either considering, or has already passed a Religious Freedom Bill similar to the one recently passed in Indiana.

These bills purport to be intended to restore to individuals and businesses the right to refuse to do business with people, or for purposes, which would conflict with the proprietor's religious beliefs. All of this is styled as a "restore the First Amendment right of religious freedom" movement.

I think people are missing the point. By limiting this argument to religious freedom, even if they win this battle they will ultimately lose the war.

Most everyone, at some time or another, has walked into a business such as a bar, restaurant, or convenience store, and seen a sign prominently displayed, reading "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone".

By what right can a proprietor refuse service to anyone?

Let's say you own a restaurant, and every day just before the height of your lunch rush a homeless man comes in, sits down front and center at the counter, and orders coffee. His clothes are dirty and torn, and he stinks because he hasn't bathed and he spends his days diving in dumpsters. Your regular customers start leaving, because his stench spoils their meals. You offer to give this man a free cup of coffee if he'll drink it out back on a picnic table you've even provided for him, but he refuses. So you ask him to leave. You deny him service. Is this your right?

Let's take it a step further. You own a mechanic shop, and there's a judge in town who you believe treated your nephew unfairly over a traffic stop. The judge comes in and asks you to put brakes on his car. You tell him he is not welcome in your place of business, and deny him service. Is this your right?

In both of the above hypothetical cases, the proprietor is exercising discrimination. This word has been given a bad rap over the years. Discrimination simply means you have made a choice. It doesn't mean your choice is necessarily bad, or good, it's just a choice. Whether the choice is good or bad may have to be determined by time, and other factors, and the responsibility for that choice will be borne by the person who makes it.

We all discriminate. After the first time you touched a hot stove as a child, you learned to discriminate against touching hot objects (as a child I touched the hot stove a second time, just to be sure). It's part of our built-in survival mechanism.

As a business owner, if a guy walks in who used to pick on you in gradeschool, you should have the right to ask him to leave, if that's your choice. How about if you just don't like his face? Or the way he's dressed (No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service). How about the way he talks. The color of his skin?

Aha! You say, I knew you were a racist!

No, I'm not. But if I were, would it be my right?

That's how all this started. Civil Rights laws which forced businesses to do business with people of a different race, whether their owners wanted to or not. Although most people generally view the Civil Rights laws as having been a good thing, the truth is they were unnecessary. Blacks in the 1960s were already making inroads into the mainstream economy. The Civil Rights laws, along with the welfare programs designed mainly to target... ahem, I mean "help" blacks, were really designed to limit and slow their progress, rather than empower them.

It also set a dangerous precedent for giving government control over everyone's private property.

Yes, this is not a religious freedom issue, it is a private property issue.

Your body is your private property. Your labor, and the fruits of your labor, are yours. If you own a business, then that business is your private property. The choices you make will determine whether your business succeeds or fails. If you make bad choices, you will soon be out of business.

As with everything government dips its fingers into, the Gay Rights issue is just another cog on a gradual one-way rachet called "Government Power Grab". This issue is no different than prohibiting smoking in "public places". Once we allowed the government to define your private business as a public place, all the rest was up for grabs.

I just read an article in The Blaze in which a Christian pastor was quoted as saying that businesses which cater to weddings should sign exclusive contracts with certain churches, to offer wedding services only to church members. By no longer offering these services to the general public, the pastor reasons, the business owner could not be forced to provide those services to gays if doing so would violate the owner's religious conscience. The pastor believes the Constitutional prohibition against interfering with private contract will be enough to protect these business owners.

Maybe so, maybe no. What about the private clubs across the country such as the Elks and Moose lodges, which have been forced to ban smoking? By what definition can the social quarters in an Elks lodge be deemed a public place? A member of a private club enters into a private contract, and pays a yearly fee, in exchange for access to a place which is by its very definition, not public. Does that protect them from the smoking bans? No.

In the interest of full disclosure, these clubs are afforded slightly different rules over public places. Depending on the State, some clubs can have smoking if no access whatsoever is afforded to minors, or if the club installs expensive smoke filters. This does not avoid the obvious conclusion that government has pierced the private property veil. But this is nothing new. The same clubs are required to have liquor licenses of the same grade as regular businesses which serve liquor to the public. By what legitimate authority?

We are on a slippery slope. How long before government comes into your home and says, No Smoking? Don't laugh, it's already been proposed. How long before neglecting to invite the gay guy who works with you to a small party with a few other co-workers, held at your home, will be grounds for a civil suit?

It's time we all recognize this as a private property issue, and deal with it on those grounds. To force a man to bake a cake for another man against his will, no matter what his reasons, is to subject that man to involuntary slavery. Period.
--
Editor
Lawfulpath.com
User avatar
notmartha
Posts: 673
Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2013 1:16 pm

Re: "Religious Freedom" Bill

Post by notmartha » Fri Apr 03, 2015 2:05 pm

There are so many dialectics going on here (with the bill, not your post, Editor :lol: ) that I don't know where to start.

Last night I listened to a preacher on shortwave ranting about so-called Christians who won't call their "leaders" to convince them to pass the bill (which, as I understand, has been returned in Indiana). The surest way to make people scream for something is to tell them they can't have it. So Christians, especially, are all in a frenzy to force through something that is not good for them. :roll:

While I agree that a big part of the grab is in regards to private property, it goes so much deeper than that...

The property, at least an interest in it, was already grabbed back in 33. Unless you have land that you paid for with lawful money, removed from the state register, and don't pay the annual state rent on, you don't completely own your land.

Fictions can't own real things, only equitable things. Persons, corporations, etc. do not have complete ownership of anything. The creators of these fictions (This State) will always have claim of interest. So persons and corporations have this not so silent partner that can tell them what they can and can't do. Until persons break the nexus and become people of standing, they will only have the "rights" their creator (This State) decides they should have.

The "Religious Freedom" Bills are to extend States' right to protect their interests:
Religious freedom restoration. Prohibits a governmental entity from substantially burdening a person's exercise of religion, even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, unless the governmental entity can demonstrate that the burden: (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering the compelling governmental interest.
To have complete ownership of anything, you must have all interest. This State has a right and obligation (contractually and otherwise) to protect and promote its interests. For years, when people lived the best of fascism, they didn't mind this silent partner. Now that the partner is not so silent, they do mind, but not enough to break the ties and become fully liable for their own actions.
editor wrote:To force a man to bake a cake for another man against his will, no matter what his reasons, is to subject that man to involuntary slavery. Period.


Yes, but forcing a person/corporation to bake a cake for another person/corporation is to subject that person/corporation to compelled performance, which is "legal". Persons can't eat their cake and have it too.

Qualifier: When I speak of complete ownership, I only mean among men. Obviously Yahweh owns it all and can do as He sees fit.
Teach me thy way, O LORD, and lead me in a plain path, because of mine enemies. Psalm 27:11
User avatar
notmartha
Posts: 673
Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2013 1:16 pm

Re: "Religious Freedom" Bill

Post by notmartha » Tue Apr 28, 2015 2:19 pm

editor wrote:Let's take it a step further. You own a mechanic shop, and there's a judge in town who you believe treated your nephew unfairly over a traffic stop. The judge comes in and asks you to put brakes on his car. You tell him he is not welcome in your place of business, and deny him service. Is this your right?
Dieseltec is, according to Manta, light to medium duty diesel headquarters in Grand Rapids, MI. The owner, Brian Klawiter, is making headlines with his refusal to do business for sodomites.

American Mechanic Gets So Tired Of People Hating Christianity, That He Declares: Homosexuality And Immoral Behavior Will Not Be Allowed In My Shop

From: http://shoebat.com/2015/04/16/american- ... n-my-shop/
An American mechanic in Michigan is getting so tired of all of the anti-Christian sentiments that we are seeing, that he has emphatically declared that all immoral behavior will not be allowed in his shop, and that all gun owners will be given a discount if they come to the shop with their weapons. This is what all American Christians need to start doing; if we did, the sodomites would shut their mouths and the whole homo agenda would die out. Here are the righteously angry words of this man:

Enough is enough.

Our rights as conservative Americans are being squashed more and more everyday. Apparently if you are white (or close to it), you have a job, go to church, and own a gun… That translates into racists, privileged, bigot, conspiracy theorist. Too many of us say nothing. Well, freedom of speech isn’t just for Liberals, THEY are the ones that need to learn to “co-exist”, THEY are the ones who need to WORK to be “equal”

Therefore, in the spirit of freedom (whats left of it) and MY right to operate MY business as I see fit:

Guns ARE allowed at DIESELTEC, so much so in fact that we will offer a discount if you bring in your gun. (“On duty” cops are excluded because thats not their gun, thats my gun bought with my money, off duty absolutely!)

I am a Christian. My company will be run in a way that reflects that. Dishonesty, thievery, immoral behavior, etc. will not be welcomed at MY place of business. (I would not hesitate to refuse service to an openly gay person or persons. Homosexuality is wrong, period. If you want to argue this fact with me then I will put your vehicle together with all bolts and no nuts and you can see how that works.)

We, as a team, work hard for whats ours. We are not protected by unions or contracts. We absolutely MUST provide our customers with a service level that would make them come back or tell their friends about us. We don’t have a “right”, and we are not “entitled” to our pay. We must EARN it.

I am not racists, you are for assuming I am, however, I am really quick to judge… if it acts like a duck, and quacks like a duck…

It IS a free country and I support your right to your opinion, that being said, if you don’t like what I have to say I reserve that same right to tell you to go cry to your momma (cause your daddy would probably smack ya’, better yet, yes, go tell your dad.)


This is how Christians in America need to start acting. Show strength to these reprobates, and they will flee like the rats they are.


I'm glad this guy is taking a stand. Problem is, his silent partner is not so silent...

State of Michigan License #F164813
Dieseltec Inc
Issue date: 07/12/2013 Expiration date: 07/12/2015

His nexus with STATE will compel him to performance.

He is also applying for local license:

Dieseltec seeks Grandville business license, with caveat, after anti-gay stance brings attention

From: http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/ ... _busi.html
GRANDVILLE, MI -- Dieseltec has filed paperwork and paid an associated $100 fee for a city business license, though its owner maintains that a related city ordinance violates the U.S. Constitution.

Dieseltec owner Brian Klawiter has applied for a Grandville business license, agreeing to abide by city ordinances with one exception.

Brian Klawiter, owner of the auto shop, submitted forms Monday, April 20, to come into compliance with local licensing rules. Following a pre-printed statement on the application form about agreeing to conduct business in compliance with city ordinances, Klawiter added this handwritten addendum:

"With the exception of Sec. 12-14 due to its wording. An inspection of my business can be achieved with a warrant in accordance with constitutional law."

The ordinance section states that the city has "authority to enter (licensed businesses), with or without search warrant, at all reasonable times."

The city earlier this year notified Dieseltec that it needed to get a local business license, prompting Klawiter to tell Grandville City Council that he views the licensing process as a violation of his constitutional rights.

City Clerk Mary Meines said the city sent Dieseltec another notice last week, after Klawiter posted to the business' Facebook page that he would not serve openly gay customers. The latest notice gave the business until May 15 to get a city license, she said.

"We sent him a letter last week and he was in today," Meines said Monday afternoon.

Dieseltec will not be assessed a $50 fine for non-compliance with the earlier notice, she said.

Dieseltec is licensed by the state as an auto repair facility.
Just something to keep a watch on...
Teach me thy way, O LORD, and lead me in a plain path, because of mine enemies. Psalm 27:11
User avatar
notmartha
Posts: 673
Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2013 1:16 pm

Re: "Religious Freedom" Bill

Post by notmartha » Wed May 27, 2015 6:31 am

Louisiana's Jindal's "Executive Order" to pacify creations of STATE who hold one hand up saying "Stay away from my rights" while the other hand reaches out for the benefits. :roll:
Executive Order bj15-8.pdf
(173.72 KiB) Downloaded 675 times
federal government is prohibited from requiring a “person” to act in contravention of a sincerely held religious belief, and that the definition of “person” includes individuals, non-profit, or for-profit corporations.
If a fiction does not exist as a matter of law, how can its religious beliefs exist?
Teach me thy way, O LORD, and lead me in a plain path, because of mine enemies. Psalm 27:11
User avatar
notmartha
Posts: 673
Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2013 1:16 pm

Re: "Religious Freedom" Bill

Post by notmartha » Mon Aug 17, 2015 1:40 pm

Colorado baker and owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, Inc., Jack Phillips, is compelled to bake cakes for same sex couples, Colorado Court of Appeals announces on August 13, 2015.

Court established a compelling STATE interest - when “Masterpiece and Phillips admitted that the bakery is a place of public accommodation”, and the same sex couple were in a "protected class".

“A ‘place of public accommodation’ is ‘any place of business engaged in any sales to the public and any place offering services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations to the public, including but not limited to any business offering wholesale or retail sales to the public.’”

The remedy offered to limit Phillips' liability (in front of God and fellow man) in doing what he is compelled by STATE to do...

"Masterpiece could also post or otherwise disseminate a message indicating that CADA [Colorado Anti-Discrimination
Act] requires it not to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation and other protected characteristics. Such a message would likely have the effect of disassociating Masterpiece from its customers’ conduct."

:lol: "I was only doing my job...didn't you see the sign I posted?"
Last edited by notmartha on Sun Jun 24, 2018 12:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Teach me thy way, O LORD, and lead me in a plain path, because of mine enemies. Psalm 27:11
User avatar
notmartha
Posts: 673
Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2013 1:16 pm

Re: "Religious Freedom" Bill

Post by notmartha » Tue Jun 12, 2018 1:42 pm

Update on post above…

Masterpiece Cakeshop, LTD. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission [CCRC] was a case involving a Christian baker who, in 2012 when it was still illegal for sodomites in Colorado to marry, refused to bake and decorate a wedding cake for a sodomite couple. The “commission” told the baker that it was “discriminatory” to a “protected class” under the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act [CADA] to refuse to bake the cake, and also instituted other punishments such as:

(1) take remedial measures, such as making adjustments to company policies and staff trainings, to ensure compliance with CADA
(2) file compliance reports for the next two years documenting the remedial measures taken and describing any patrons denied service.

After losing his argument in an administrative court, the baker appealed to the “Supreme Court”, claiming his religious freedom and his cake decorating as an expression of his free speech, were violated by CCRC. The case was argued December 5, 2017 and decided June 4, 2018. Seven of the “judges” held that the CCRC’s actions in this case violated the Free Exercise Clause, while two (Ginsburg and Sotomayor... surprise, surprise) dissented. The opinions can be read HERE.

Before the “right wing” evangelicals dust off their pompoms and starting cheering for this awesome victory, they should really read the opinions.

The baker did not win. The CCRC lost. The CCRC lost because they were not “religiously neutral”, as required by State. In fact, they were so vehemently not neutral that they compared the baker’s refusal to the Holocaust and to slavery, completely ignoring his sincerely held religious beliefs.

But the “court” did not in any way confirm the baker’s right to refuse service based on religious belief. They even gave themselves plenty of wiggle room for any future case -

“Given all these considerations, it is proper to hold that whatever the outcome of some future controversy involving facts similar to these, the Commission’s actions here violated the Free Exercise Clause; and its order must be set aside.”

The only precedent set here was that Civil Rights Commissions should be more polite when deciding who can and can’t exercise their religious beliefs or speak freely. That’s it.
Last edited by notmartha on Sun Jun 24, 2018 12:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Teach me thy way, O LORD, and lead me in a plain path, because of mine enemies. Psalm 27:11
User avatar
Firestarter
Posts: 871
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2016 3:02 pm

Re: "Religious Freedom" Bill

Post by Firestarter » Tue Jun 12, 2018 4:26 pm

notmartha wrote:
Tue Jun 12, 2018 1:42 pm
After losing his argument in an administrative court, the baker appealed to the “Supreme Court”, claiming his religious freedom and his cake decorating as an expression of his free speech, were violated by CCRC. The case was argued December 5, 2017 and decided June 4, 2018. Seven of the “judges” held that the CCRC’s actions in this case violated the Free Exercise Clause, while two (Ginsburg and Sotomayor... surprise, surprise) dissented. The opinions can be read HERE.

Before the “right wing” evangelicals dust off their pompoms and starting cheering for this awesome victory, they should really read the opinions.

The baker did not win. The CCRC lost. The CCRC lost because they were not “religiously neutral”, as required by State. In fact, they were so vehemently not neutral that they compared the baker’s refusal to the Holocaust and to slavery, completely ignoring his sincerely held religious beliefs.
I'm afraid that I haven't read the full judgement.
Based on your post, it looks to me like the baker did "win". Of course this won't make the court case any less stressing.

It's an interesting problem: religious freedom against prohibiting discrimination.
In the Netherlands, there are sometimes stories on government officials refusing to marry same sex couples, based on their religious beliefs.
There are also sometimes stories on Muslims that, "based" on their religion, refuse to shake the hands of women.

There are also regularly prohibitions against women wearing a face-covering burka (mostly under the guise of "security" reasons).

Then there’s the DSM manual that until 1973 declared “homosexuality” a mental disease (only in 1987 this view was abolished). The inclusion of homosexuality as a “mental disorder” and then getting rid of it (as a mental disease) was mostly politically motivated.
Very scientific this was decided by a vote of the DSM-panel.
According to today’s (political) standards saying that somebody is mentally ill for no other reason than being “gay” is discrimination: https://www.lawfulpath.com/forum/viewto ... t=10#p3084
User avatar
notmartha
Posts: 673
Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2013 1:16 pm

Re: "Religious Freedom" Bill

Post by notmartha » Thu Jun 14, 2018 8:27 am

Firestarter wrote:
Tue Jun 12, 2018 4:26 pm
Based on your post, it looks to me like the baker did "win". Of course this won't make the court case any less stressing.
What did he win? I guess the CCRC will have to get off his back for now, but as soon as he refuses to bake a wedding cake for another same sex couple, he's right back in the same position. The court did not say that he could refuse to bake a cake for a "protected class". And as long as his business is a creation of STATE, its creator will make its laws, regardless of baker's sincerely held religious beliefs.

No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon. Matthew 6:24 (KJV)
Firestarter wrote:
Tue Jun 12, 2018 4:26 pm
It's an interesting problem: religious freedom against prohibiting discrimination.
Yep, interesting dialectics indeed. This is all part of STATE's Great Plan - one religion, one creed, one race. The ones discriminated against are those who buck the plan. Did you know that the same CCRC found that bakers were allowed to refuse to bake cakes for a Christian who wanted a cake with an anti-sodomite message? How is that for "religious neutrality"?

Firestarter wrote:
Tue Jun 12, 2018 4:26 pm
Then there’s the DSM manual that until 1973 declared “homosexuality” a mental disease (only in 1987 this view was abolished). The inclusion of homosexuality as a “mental disorder” and then getting rid of it (as a mental disease) was mostly politically motivated.
Very scientific this was decided by a vote of the DSM-panel.
There is a movement here within the medical establishment to classify pedophiles as "mentally ill" which would lead to them being designated as a "protected class" as mental illness is a disability. Would bakers then be forced to bake a cake depicting an abused child? Will schools, churches, daycare centers be forced to hire pedophiles? I know, it sounds ludicrous, but 30, 40 years ago it would have been thought ludicrous that sodomites, who were considered criminals, would be an accepted and protected class today.
Teach me thy way, O LORD, and lead me in a plain path, because of mine enemies. Psalm 27:11
Post Reply