DUH. AS if we didn't know that.

@kumar777: A Catholic priest who is accused of molesting three boys had a large collection of gay porn, a court has heard. Father Anthony McSweeney, 68, denies molesting three teenage boys between 1979 and 1981 at Grafton Close Children’s Home. According to the BBC, the priest admitted to Southwark Crown Court that he bought gay porn in Amsterdam’s Red Light District alongside care home manager John Stingemore. He kept the porn collection secret until he was discovered by his parish’s cleaner at St Peter’s in Leigh-on-Sea, Essex. McSweeney said he was “ashamed” of his habit, and became emotional during his testimony. The priest also admitted that Mr Stingemore – who died weeks before the trial – had shown him a clip of child porn, but says it did not raise “alarm bells”. He said: He replied: “It didn’t occur to me, I can’t answer why. I suppose I was a bit surprised, a bit shocked and I just got rid of it. “I just blanked it out, I guess. I didn’t give it any more thought. I’m desperately ashamed.” Father McSweeney denies all charges. The trial continues. http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2015/02/23/catholic-priest-had-huge-gay-sm-porn-collection-court-hears/ my first was a priest too but i loved him very much

a similar thing was done in shanghai few years ago, ironically it was organized in a closed restaurant

He refers to himself as a "comedian" and an "occasional writer".  Other than that, I have no idea who he is.

@MrMazda: I kind of get where you're coming from coming from on that point, but I'm not sure that I can completely agree with that. Whether you're in Canada or the USA, you're protected by law from any form of discrimination. Granted, businesses have the right to refuse service to any given customer at their discretion, but when it comes down to refusing service to someone simply because they're gay, black, asian, etc is just not something that I can support. Now that being said, if a business owner, minister, etc refuses service to someone because they're a downright asshole and they're really hard to deal with, then I say by all means, deny service. In my opinion it shouldn't be based on any physical attribute that the person may or may not have, but rather should be based individually on how the person you are offering said product or service to handles the situation, rather than race, colour, sexual orientation, or any other physical attribute they may or may not have. Well that is just not true, at least in the United States you're not protected by law from any form of discrimination. And I bet the same holds true in Canada. You are only protected against certain forms of discrimination and only if you fall into certain categories. Unless a law specifically forbids discrimination then that discrimination is legal. Plus many people will read the laws to their advantage and not on how the law was written. For example age discrimination is illegal is tossed around when in fact it is not illegal. When hiring you cannot discriminate against some one 40 or older but you can discriminate against some one younger. Judges have ruled and said that the laws were written to protect the older workers and not the younger ones. As for the gay marriage issue. Should, let's call them businesses, be allowed to refuse service based on religious beliefs. They should be allowed and it is protected under the Constitution. I don't see a issue being raised that Jews can't get married in a Catholic church. And really what is the difference. Now that is only for businesses, people that work for businesses should not be allowed to discriminate based on religious beliefs. In other words in the business doesn't have a policy against the service then the employees cannot refuse service. For example of something that was tossed around a Wal-mart employee refusing to make a same sex wedding cake. If Wal-mart doesn't have a policy against it then the employee cannot refuse to make a cake. In Idaho they allowed county clerks to not issue marriage certificates to same sex couples if it went against their religious views. No, they should have no religious views at work unless it is a part of their job.

@kumar777: Douches like him who do drug dealing deserve no pity. Hope he has a nice time in prison as the new fag. Haha… You're assuming that he will go to a federal facility. In the lower state/provincial facilities (depending on if you're in Canada or the USA), that kind of thing is relatively uncommon... If however you're in a federal facility where generally sentences run no less than 2 years, then you're probably correct with that assessment hehe

Shit, I'm more interested in the end of the last episode WTF!

@kumar777: MOBILE, Ala. (AP) — A federal judge in Alabama has ordered Mobile County to start issuing gay marriage licenses. U.S. District Judge Callie Granade made the ruling after a brief hearing Thursday. Granade overturned the state's ban on gay marriage last month and the U.S. Supreme Court refused to stop gay marriages from beginning Monday Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore issued an 11th hour order telling probate judges in the state they didn't have to hand out licenses, causing confusion. Many probate judges, including the one in Mobile County, refused to issue marriage licenses to gay couples. Some judges wouldn't give out licenses to anyone, including heterosexual couples. Hundreds of gay couples have wed in Alabama this week, the 37th state to allow same-sex marriages. Will be interesting to see how it plays out. Whether the Judges will fold or not. I think Moore just wanted to get his name back into the spot light as the Judge that defiles federal orders as he did once before, then he was removed from the bench. Every State Judge knows that they have to follow a Federal Judges rulings and there should be sanctions placed on the Judges that still would not issue marriage license to same sex applicants. You can tell that some knew it was wrong that is why they stopped issuing licenses altogether.

he's gorgeous

[image: 1781653700882-e2fbfa2b793b.jpg] Sexy androgynous look!

@nordicblue: @LEVI: What is interesting is the could rule that the states have the right to restrict granting marriage license to same sex couples, however, they don't have the right to not recognize a same sex marriage performed in another state. The court  asked the parties to brief these two questions: Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex? Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state? Other states do not have recognize anything from another state.  California does not even recognize the fact you have paid state tax in another state thanks to the multistate compact.  California requires you pay California state tax in addition to the other state in even if you are incorporated in another state.  California does not recognize driver's licenses from other states either.  Washington now allows recreational use of marijuana, but that does not mean you will not get in trouble if you are a Washington resident smoking pot in another state.  The main point here is marble cake federalism.  http://www.apstudynotes.org/us-government/vocabulary/chapter-3-american-federalism/ The States were given sovereignty over many things to prevent the federal government from becoming too powerful.  The states can in fact refuse to recognize other states laws. At the present, however, that could all change with the ruling. The ramifications of this ruling can be very widespread. What California does is tax you on your total income for the year even if that income was made out of state if you are a resident of California. California does recognize driver's licenses for other states, however, if you become a legal resident of the state you do have to obtain a California license and that is true in all states. The time frame is usually thirty days. If you are just visiting the state you do not have to obtain a California license, your license from your home state is valid. Your comparing one state legalizing the recreational use of marijuana to another state not legalizing it to gay marriage is absurd. With the passage of time when have devolved/evolved from a union of 50 country states to a country of 50 states.

@bluehue: americans and their confederate flags… i could only imagine how germany would handle a student who would wear a swastika to his or her class  ::) The swastika and anything related to the Nazi party is illegal in Germany.

OMG :cheesy2:

Beautiful couple