A post at Lawyers Guns & Money goes a long way, I think, toward explaining why the recent proposed and passed laws like Indiana’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act have received greater backlash than they might have just a few years ago. While the author acknowledges that “liberals” (and others, in my view) may not support religious freedom laws like they did back in the 1990s, he points to the “weaponization” of religious exemption laws as a driver in that shift.

To summarize, previously the primary purpose of religious exemption laws has been “to protect a practice or tradition or community, and little more. These exemptions are political but not in the sense that their exercise is directed toward the larger community in any concrete, meaningful sense. In these cases, the end sought in pursuing the exemption is, more or less, the exemption itself.”

Later, these laws began to be used as “license for religious groups to evade general laws when inconvenient.” An example is an exemption that was sought to modify a church in a Historical District where such modifications were not permitted. In other words, there was no religious issue at play; the church simply wanted to bypass local laws and attempted to do so by invoking a religious exemption.

Now, though, we see religious exemption laws being used as overt political weapons, the quintessential example being the Hobby Lobby case. “Obamacare was to be the subject of a blitzkrieg, to be hit with any and every weapon imaginable, and that’s what the RFRA provided.” The upshot is:

The backlash against the Indiana bill–a bill that, private torts provision aside, isn’t that different from something that once passed the house unanimously and the senate with 97 votes–not to mention even conservative Republicans vetoing similar legislation in Arizona and Arkansas–suggests something very real has changed. The assumption on the right is that it’s liberals who’ve changed; we don’t support religious freedom like we did back in the 90’s. They’re not entirely wrong about that, but it’s an incomplete view about what has changed. Insofar as liberals changed their minds about the proper scope of religious exemptions, they didn’t do so in a vacuum, they changed their mind about it because the context we’re now in—facing an utterly shameless political movement that treats any conceivable political tool as fair game to achieve its political ends—is just simply not the kind of environment that fits well with an expansive approach to religious exemptions. The personal, faith-based nature of religious conviction makes it clearly inappropriate for the state to question the sincerity of the professed belief, even when that insincerity is obvious and barely concealed; which in turn makes exemptions easier to support in an environment where there’s some degree of trust that this process won’t be routinely abused. As noted earlier, which approach to exemptions best serves the interests of justice and freedom depends to a significant degree on the details of the society in question. We may have been something closer to that kind of society suited for expansive religious exemptions in the past, and we may someday be that kind of society at some point in the future, but it’s becoming difficult to deny we’re not such a society now.

I’ve just paraphrased the article and quoted the conclusion. It’s worth reading the whole thing.

  1. rustybrown2012 says:

    Spook misses the point:

    “I pray for those who have hate in their hearts for people whose only fault is disagreement.”

    Talk about putting the cart before the horse. Perhaps he should direct his prayers to those who have hate in their hearts for people whose only fault is whom they choose to sleep with. And while he’s at it, remind them that it’s none of their damn business.

    • Most of all, he says, that’s what he prays for. I don’t know. I would think for Christians Easter might be a day of reflection, perhaps introspection, and thanks. It’s just weird that his thoughts immediately go to other people who he thinks hate him. Those people are in his head, that’s for sure.

  2. 02casper says:

    Great article. I’m all for religious freedom until it involves the freedom to discriminate against others and that’s what this law was about.

  3. meursault1942 says:

    Indeed an excellent post–it gets right to the heart of the matter. Isn’t it amazing, though, that so many wingnut Christians have gone out of their way to claim that their religion is one that demands bigotry and hate, and that the government should therefore inflict that bigotry and hate on the population at large? It’s as though they’ve never actually read the Bible and have no idea how our government works. Hmmm….

    Also, I thought this comment to the LGM post was dead on:

    But its the peculiar nature of modern American evangelical life that modernity itself is seen as destroying the religious purity of the faith. That public schools, TV, music, gay people, feminists, sex, and abortion are all themselves enemies of the faithful. So the liberal perspective “if you don’t like abortion, don’t have one!” Just isn’t good enough for these people. Because they believe pretty firmly that this world’s temptations are probably strong enough to tear their children and their wives away from the true path. Its not enough to suggest to the flock that if you do X or Y you will go to hell. You actually pretty much need some level of isolation or communal or governmental support to prevent your membership from wandering off in search of something different from what you are promising them.

    So a religious freedom law that assumes that religious acts are 1) individual and 2) freely chosen is going to run afoul of the need of these religious communities to basically impress their own membership and keep them from freely choosing their own way.

  4. meursault1942 says:

    O/T: Earlier, we were discussing the ongoing calamitous failure of conservative governance (where conservatism goes, failure follows). And the hits just keep rolling in for Kansas, which went full metal wingnut under Brownback and is now a complete shitshow. The latest: Kansas school districts close early after tax cut experiment. Why look, supply-side economics maintains its amazing streak of failure! It doesn’t work at all–which, according to conservatives, is why we have to stick with it!

    Now, the cynical reading of this is that in fact, the tax cuts have worked perfectly: Kansas is absolutely starved of revenue now (just as those damn LIEbrul people with their “facts” and “knowledge” said would happen!), and that’s the goal of conservatism. Starve the beast and all that. Plus, a closed school is good for conservatism, as the more education you have, the less likely you are to be conservative, given that conservatism is all about low-effort “thinking” and placing beliefs far above facts. But on the flip side, conservatives keep reassuring us that tax cuts will lead to prosperity. Never mind the fact that tax cuts have, in fact, never lead to prosperity and in fact have always led to economic ruin; they “stimulate growth” for a “bigger pie” and yadda yadda yadda, just ignore the facts, and it’ll all make sense.

    A few months ago, a friend suggested that there is good comedy to be mined from reading wingnut blogs from September through December of 2012. You can see them already doing their victory strut in September, so positive that Romney’s going to win big. Then Romney gets his ass thoroughly kicked. Then conservatives struggle to process this reality in light of the lies and talking points that placed so much faith in. This is funny in general, but it also has particular comedic value for this topic, as in December of 2012, one Mark Noonan had this to say:

    While the deep blue States of California, New York and Illinois go bankrupt trying to keep the “blue model” alive, Kansas (as well as other States) are showing the way out of the morass…it will be doubly interesting as over the next four years the whole country will be able to compare and contrast: as the most blue States fall to bankruptcy and demand bail outs and the reddest States show surpluses and job growth, the argument in favor of our side will become unanswerable.

    It’s like he predicted the exact opposite of what would happen! The reddest states are failing–perhaps none more than Kansas, which Noonan predicted would “show the way out of the morass.” Yeah…not so much. Noonan was right about one thing, though: There is an unanswerable argument here. But it’s not the one he hoped. Rather, the unanswerable argument is that conservatism is an utter failure. Ouch. I’d say someone should ask him to square his prediction with reality, but we all know he can’t withstand that sort of questioning.

  5. meursault1942 says:

    Conservatives Are Wrong about Everything–Minimum Wage Edition:

    Conservatives have long portrayed minimum-wage increases as a harbingers of economic doom, but their fears simply haven’t played out. San Francisco, Santa Fe, and Washington, DC, were among the first major cities to raise their minimum wages to substantially above state and national averages. The Center for Economic and Policy Research found that the increases had little effect on employment rates in traditionally low-wage sectors of their economies.

    Economists with the Institute for Research on Labor and Employment at the University of California-Berkeley have found similar results in studies of the six other cities that have raised their minimum wages in the past decade, and in the 21 states with higher base pay than the federal minimum. Businesses, they found, absorbed the costs through lower job turnover, small price increases, and higher productivity.

    Have conservatives been right about anything in the past 10 years? The past 15 years? The past 20 years, even? Just as it’s nigh impossible to find a conservative position that isn’t based on lies, it’s nigh impossible to find a conservative prediction that has come true. No wonder they keep diving deeper into derangement, paranoia, and dementia: The real world just keeps refusing to play along with their little stories.

  6. rustybrown2012 says:

    In typical right wing persecution mode, Cluster is wetting his pants over some small organization nobody’s ever heard of calling for a boycott over a couple gay guys hosting Ted Cruz. He links to a silly article that’s laughable in its paranoia:

    “Our Editor Erick said over two years ago that “You Will Be Made To Care” and most people thought he was speaking just to evangelical Christians. Who would have guessed such a short time ago that the leftist thought police had much bigger plans in store. Everyone, and I mean everyone, will be brought to heel…

    The gay left is now so intolerant that it turns itself on members of its own community, cannibalizing those who dare respect differences in belief and embrace independent thought. They have become the Mongol hordes.”

    How do liberals typically react to the many right wing groups exercising their free speech by calling for boycotts of progressive concerns? Yawns, eye rolls, perhaps a counter boycott–you know, how grown ups act.

    How did the right wing become such hysterical reactionary babies?

  7. 02casper says:

    Right now, the BFV crowd are all convinced that it’s Christians who are being prosecuted. They aren’t. I’m a Christian and no one is picking on me because of my religion. What they don’t like is that they are being called out for their bigotry. They try to hide behind their faith, but their are millions o f Christians in the world who are okay with Gays having the same rights as everyone else.

  8. rustybrown2012 says:

    At bfv, it’s like full out cement bunker mode in reaction to the mundane experience of people (those people) acting on their civil rights. How did they miss out on 8th grade social studies? Aren’t they supposed to be the constitutional scholars?

    • A more paranoid group of people you won’t find. Good grief.

      I also like Cluster complaining about entitlements. Does he not realize that the bulk of those entitlements go to supporting old people? He himself will be an old person not too long from now–just like Spook, And of course he will be counting on–no, demanding–his benefits. Just be honest for once, Cluster. I know it’s a tall order, but you can do it.

  9. 02casper says:

    I have to respond to clusters latest rant and since my last post at B4V was deleted I’ll respond here.

    “If Warren was elected, would she be our first Native American President? Anymore these days it requires a “willing suspension of disbelief” to be a liberal Democrat:”

    “– they must believe that Hillary and her lawyer did hand over all appropriate emails and that destroying the server is standard protocol.
    – they must believe that Bill’s half million dollar speeches were not tied to any government favors or business arrangements despite the overwhelming circumstantial evidence.
    – they must believe that the Clinton’s extraordinary wealth gained over the last ten years was well deserved and does not make them “rich” or “out of touch”
    – they must believe that Hillary’s reset button with Putin was a success and that Assad really is a reformer”

    Actually, all I have to believe is that, assuming she ends up as the Democrat nominee, she would be better than who the Republicans are running and considering the field that’s not a hard choice to make. Yo complain about people voting for Obama, yet your side keeps running clowns.

    “– they must believe that “hands up don’t shoot” really did happen”

    As opposed to believing that everyone shot by a cop deserved it?

    “– they must believe that rapes happen all the time on college campuses”

    They do and there are numerous studies done over the last 30 years to support that position. What do you have that refutes them?

    “– they must believe that life begins sometime in the first grade”

    Since no one has said that I guess you are just being silly.

    “– they must believe that global warming is a much bigger threat than a radical ideology that burns people alive:

    Which is a greater threat to Americans: The drought in California and snowstorms back East or some nut jobs thousands of miles away.

    “– they must believe that ridiculing Christians and trying to shut down their business is being tolerant.”

    I don’t believe in ridiculing Christians. I am one. I do believe in calling out bigots for their intolerance.
    There are a lot of other Christians who agree with me.

    “– they must believe that the economy is much improved despite an historical low participation rate and anemic GDP growth”

    Compare the overall economy now with where it was at when Obama took office. It’s doing better in just about every area. Think of how much better it would be if Republicans weren’t trying to sabotage it.

  10. rustybrown2012 says:

    Jebus, Spook is on his last neuron of sanity. He’s extremely disoriented and hostile to life in 21st century America. As a service to those suffering from onset dementia everywhere, I’ll answer a few of his burning questions:

    Q. “Will (the left) continue to use the power of government to force people to acquiesce?”

    A. If by “force people to acquiesce” you mean hold people responsible for respecting our nations laws and every citizens right to equal protection under the United States Constitution then yes, we will.

    Q. “What happens when their targets simple tell them to piss off?”

    A. They will be subject to penalties under our existing laws.

    Q. “What happens if you get sued by a gay couple and you just ignore the lawsuit?”

    A. You will be subject to penalties under our existing laws.

    Q. “Do you get fined?”

    A. I think that’s part of it, yes.

    Q. “What happens if you ignore the fine?”

    A. You will be subject to further penalties under our existing laws and could quite possibly lose your business.

    Q. “Do you get thrown in jail? “

    A. Unlikely

    Q. “What happens if you use lethal force to resist being thrown in jail?”

    A. I already said you won’t be thrown in jail, barring extenuating circumstances. However, if you act on your paranoid fantasies of nonexistent persecution and use lethal force against law enforcement, you will be thrown on jail, the Funny Factory, or killed.

    Q. “If the Left doesn’t back off, we may be finding out the answers to all those questions?”

    A. That’s not even a question.

    “Sooner or later someone is going to decide that they don’t want to live in a country where an aberrant minority can force people of faith to violate that faith, and they’re going to decide that it’s worth laying down their life to make a statement. Once it happens, the floodgate is going to open. Just my 2 cents worth.”

    First of all, YOU’RE the aberrant minority, Spook. Get used to it. Second, since just about every post from you for the last 19 months involves slavering over some variation of violent confrontation with enemies real or imagined, maybe you should stop playing with your balls and fire the first shot. Or better yet, get help. Really man…get help.

    • rustybrown2012 says:

      On a related note, it’s hilarious how the bfv crowd CONSTANTLY bleats about how tough they are/will be in the face of their leftist boogymen. Cluster and Spook in particular INCESSANTLY puff their greying, flabby chests to childish masturbatory fantasies of standing up to and taking down the evil bad guys. The punch line? They can’t even handle us from behind their keyboards in a simple online debate of ideas! Rather than defend their idiotic world view, they’ve retreated to a dreary backwater echo chamber where all scary ideas can be safely deleted. Behold–The Brave Warriors of the Right!

  11. rustybrown2012 says:

    Regarding the mocking of religion, Jeffrey Tayler absolutely nails it at Salon:

    “No matter what anyone says, religion is a deeply, if darkly, hilarious topic, and the sundry tomes of the sacred canon read more like joke books than anything else, albeit sick joke books. How can we, in the 21st century, having mapped (and even edited) the human genome, engineered pluripotent stem cells, and discovered the Higgs Boson, be expected to revere the dusty old Bible, for example, with its quarreling goatherds and idolatrous tribesmen, and its golden calves and talking snakes, to say nothing of its revenge-porn (against unbelievers) finale? How can we not laugh aloud when Genesis declares that Almighty God made the world in six days and rested on the seventh, yet had to pilfer a rib from Adam to produce Eve? What are we to make of Numbers 22:28-30, wherein the Lord intervenes, not to part the sea or still the sun, but to set Balaam’s donkey a-jabbering? How are we supposed to accept Jesus as an up-to-snuff savior when, in Matthew 21:19 and Mark 11:13-14, he loses his temper and cusses out a fig tree, condemning it to death, for not bearing fruit out of season? Any second-grade science-class student would have known better, and possibly even exercised more self-control.”

    “It should go without saying that in the constitutionally secular United States, neither Maher nor anyone else should feel obliged to show deference to Islam — or any other faith. The First Amendment inseparably links the right to free speech with the right to practice the religion of one’s choosing, or not to practice any religion at all. Since faith has historically caused so much strife and led to so much repression, unfettered discourse about it is precisely what must be allowed, no matter what people feel, if they are to be free. Put another way, in a truly civil society the right to free expression trumps the desire of religious folks not to have their feelings hurt. The “offense” argument is, therefore, no argument at all; it is tantamount to a selfish, adolescent insistence on conformity, nothing more. The “offended” just have to grin and bear it. We left high school long ago. It’s time to grow up.

    It should be obvious to the observant that demands that Maher respect faith, whether issued from Muslims or the Catholic League’s president, Bill Donohue, all stem from a single, flagrant insecurity – that once people begin mocking religion, begin meeting its gaga assertions and goofy proclamations with guffaws instead of genuflection, with ridicule instead of reverence, then religion stands naked, puny and shriveled before its peering “flock,” the members of which will soon start wondering, “maybe my whole life as a Muslim or Catholic (or whatever) is built on a lie? Maybe I’m a fool to believe all these crazy scriptures? Now that I think about it, I really have so many doubts about them. Maybe I should dump my holy book and read something for grown-ups? Maybe I should check out Bertrand Russell’s “Skeptical Essays” or Philip Larkin’s poem “Aubade”? Maybe, after all, as Larkin wrote, religion is just a “vast, moth-eaten musical brocade/Created to pretend we never die?” Maybe I should just start thinking for myself? After all, I’m no child!”

    …Brilliant! Read the whole thing:


  12. 02casper says:

    I respect everyone’s belief systems unless they use that system as an excuse for their own intolerance. I have a friend whose husband believes that alcoholism and homosexuality are choices in spite of the evidence to the contrary.

    • rustybrown2012 says:

      I believe that people have the right to believe and preach whatever they want; others should not be required to respect them.

  13. meursault1942 says:

    Let’s shift for a moment from the ongoing abject failure of conservative governance (way to follow the Brownback example, Piyush Jindal!) to a look at the workings of that conservative bubble–the same one that convinces conservatives that failure is success, success is failure, racism isn’t racism, being aware of racism is racism, and on and on.

    So there was that story making the rounds that Harry Reid got that black eye from his brother. Funny thing about that: it was total bullshit, invented by a guy whose whole purpose was to show that the wingnutosphere will believe–and promote–pretty much anything without even so much as a cursory glance at facts:

    Larry Pfeifer, a 50-year-old former consultant in the nightclub and entertainment industry, said he fabricated the story after becoming appalled that right-wing political blogger John Hinderaker published a rumor that Reid’s injuries stemmed from an assault by a Mafia enforcer. Pfeifer said he pitched his fake story about the Reid brothers’ supposed fight to Hinderaker, author of the Power Line blog, to test whether the blogger would publish it, as well. When Hinderaker reported it and the rumor was subsequently spread by others in conservative media, Pfeifer says he began plotting to self-report it as a lie to show the lack of credibility and journalistic standards among partisan media figures.

    “It was just so outrageous,” he said. “The fact that someone can say something completely false that can destroy somebody’s life, it’s just wrong. Where’s the moral compass?”

    If you’re looking for a moral compass among conservatives, you’re going to be looking for a long, long time, Mr. Pfeifer. These are people who are angrily divorced from reality, angry at that very same reality, and absolutely credulous. They’ll believe anything you tell them, so long as it comports with the basic dynamics they want to think of as true (despite lack of factual support).

    You can’t find a conservative belief that isn’t based on a lie, you can’t find a conservative prediction that has come true, and you can’t find a reality-based conservative anymore. It’s pretty sad.

  14. 02casper says:

    It’s pretty obvious to anyone with more than half a brain that conservatism doesn’t work. Mississippi, Alabama, etc, are the poorest states in the country. Now Kansas and Wisconsin have joined the race to the bottom. It’s also obvious that conservatives will believe anything they are told to believe. If someone reported Obama working with men from outer space, they would believe it.

  15. rustybrown2012 says:


    “…if the police aren’t trying to stop (looters) and the honest citizens are disarmed (as most are in the blue cities), then there’s really nothing to fight about. Burn and steal all you want, as it were.

    Of course, there aren’t riots in red cities – and likely never will be. Because even if the police were ordered off the job, the people are armed and not likely to supinely take it.”

    How in fuck’s sake are citizens in blue cities disarmed? Did I miss an edict from Obama the Dictator? It’s still legal to purchase and own a lethal panoply of firearms in every municipality in the US. Noonan was hawking this bogus talking point after the Boston bombing when he lamented the lack of well-armed Charles Bronsons to take to the streets to get the bad guys; he’s just phoning in the lies at this point. I also love the added fantasy of the gun toting’ tough guy red states. Them bfv crowd shore is an intimidation’ bunch! They’re too chickenshit and impotent to confront somebody from their computer keyboard, much less face to face.

  16. rustybrown2012 says:

    Hey Spook, Lock and load! Here’s your big chance–all your dreams come true:


  17. rustybrown2012 says:

    I see Cluster has graduated from tough guy with a keyboard to psychopath with a keyboard:

    “When battling bullies, you must be prepared to out bully the bully. Our response to their heinous acts must be swift, more heinous and much much more devastating. That would include killing their women and children, burning them alive, beheading them, and obliterating their cities, towns and way of life.”

    Yeah, that’s just how civilized people should respond to barbarians–immolation and beheadings of innocent women and children. On the plus side, that platform would lock in the genocidal maniac vote.

  18. meursault1942 says:

    Oh, wait, one more study for Republicans to hate: Health Affairs’ “Trends In Health Insurance Enrollment, 2013–15” study. It directly takes on GOP talking point (aka lie) that the ACA is costing people their insurance:

    One concern frequently cited by public officials and the media was that people may have lost individual market coverage as a result of plan cancellations. We found that the vast majority of those with individual market insurance in 2013 remained insured in 2015, which suggests that even among those who had their individual market policies canceled, most found coverage through an alternative source. Others who had their policies canceled may have become eligible for the ACA’s tax credits, potentially making Marketplace plans more affordable than their previous nongroup policies.

    Yeah, OK, but surely some people lost coverage since the ACA was implemented? Right? Well, see, about that…

    While the vast majority of those previously insured experienced no change in their source of coverage, 5.9 million people lost coverage over the period studied, and 24.6 million moved from one source of coverage to another. Transitions in health insurance coverage are common in the United States and occur for a variety of reasons, including job changes and family transitions. Recent estimates suggest that the share of people losing coverage between 2013 and 2014 was no higher than the share of people who lost coverage in prior years.

    Poor, poor conservatives. They just can’t seem to be right about anything, can they?

    • meursault1942 says:

      Just realized my first comment is stuck in moderation for having too may links. Here’s part 1:

      Republicans Are Wrong About Everything All The Time, ACA Edition

      There are two big new studies about the effects of the ACA since its implementation. Are conservatives right? Has the ACA led to increased costs, decreased care, and the abortioning of your freedumz? Ha ha ha! Of course not!

      First up, we have The Commonwealth Fund’s study, whose title, “The Rise in Health Care Coverage and Affordability Since Health Reform Took Effect,” pretty much says it all. But there are some key numbers in the overview, not just on overall insurance numbers, but on how much more accessible proper medical care is as a result:

      for the first time since it began in 2001, the survey finds declines in the number of people who report cost-related access problems and medical-related financial difficulties. The number of adults who did not get needed health care because of cost declined from 80 million people, or 43 percent, in 2012 to 66 million, or 36 percent, in 2014. The number of adults who reported problems paying their medical bills declined from an estimated 75 million people in 2012 to 64 million people in 2014.

      Would you look at that? When costs drop and availability increases, people are more able to get the medical care they need–including proper preventative care instead of just waiting for things to get terrible, then going to the ER at great cost (aka the Republican Health Care Plan).

    • meursault1942 says:

      And part 2:

      And if that weren’t enough, those godless commie America-haters at the RAND Corporation found that the ACA has helped uninsured people and had pretty much no negative effect on already-insured people:

      “The Affordable Care Act has greatly expanded health insurance coverage, but it has caused little change in the way most previously-covered Americans are getting health insurance coverage,” said Katherine Carman, the study’s lead author and an economist at RAND, a nonprofit research organization. “The law has expanded coverage to more Americans using all parts of the health insurance system.”

      So, a law that set out to help more people get health care coverage and to lower overall health care costs has helped more people get health care coverage and lowered overall health care costs (in fact, it’s beat expectations on the cost front). That is great new

      Unless, of course, you are a Republican. Then, you are bound by rhetoric and hysteria to conclude that a law that set out to help more people get health care coverage and to lower overall health care costs leading to more people getting health care coverage and lowering overall health care costs is a failure. This is what they all believe: No matter what the facts say, it’s a failure! And their big promise for 2016 is to undo all that progress. Bad enough that Republican governance is a proven failure; now Republicans want to eradicate success. Conservatism!

  19. 02casper says:

    Another great article about how conservative policies are failing out country.

  20. Because it will not be posted and this is absolutely ridiculous i am typing it here. Is there any democrat that would say yes i would have invaded Iraq? No way in hell any democrat would say that and i would not vote for a democrat that wanted to invade Iraq knowing what we know now. Now the conservatives can’t trust Megan kelly from fox news. What dumbasses but this is what i wrote

    Oh give me a break. There is no way Hillary or any democrat would not say no to that answer. If you want fan fiction than believe what you want to believe. It was a gotcha question by Megan kelly on fox news? come on- he only reason it was a gotcha question was because he did not answer the question and the answer is always no we would not have invaded Iraq which the polls and most people who are logical agree on. I guess you cannot trust fox news either than if that is a gotcha question

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s