[Boards: 3 / a / aco / adv / an / asp / b / bant / biz / c / can / cgl / ck / cm / co / cock / d / diy / e / fa / fap / fit / fitlit / g / gd / gif / h / hc / his / hm / hr / i / ic / int / jp / k / lgbt / lit / m / mlp / mlpol / mo / mtv / mu / n / news / o / out / outsoc / p / po / pol / qa / qst / r / r9k / s / s4s / sci / soc / sp / spa / t / tg / toy / trash / trv / tv / u / v / vg / vint / vip / vp / vr / w / wg / wsg / wsr / x / y ] [Search | Extra juicy! | Home]

Why are you not capitalizing on our freedom of religion? It's

This is a blue board which means that it's for everybody (Safe For Work content only). If you see any adult content, please report it.

Thread replies: 101
Thread images: 4

File: islamiphobesbtfo.jpg (113KB, 646x549px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
islamiphobesbtfo.jpg
113KB, 646x549px
Why are you not capitalizing on our freedom of religion? It's the easiest money to be made.
>>
>>1508170
Man this annoys me so fucking much. Freedom of religion was meant to be about protecting the people from the government enforcing a religion on you; it wasn't meant to protect lazy fucks who won't do what their boss wants them to do. If you cannot or will not complete your work duties for any reason at all your boss has grounds to fire you, period.
>>
>>1508170
yeah, that employer fucked up.

if their sole business was delivering beer, bacon, gay men and dogs then it'd be a different story. But if you CAN accommodate someone's stupid religion and refuse you're just asking for it.

this is why rednecks can't business. Conservatives will soon be sued out of existence and that's not a bad thing.
>>
>>1508321
>But if you CAN accommodate someone's stupid religion and refuse you're just asking for it.
But that's retarded anon.
>>
>>1508321
>But if you CAN accommodate someone's stupid religion and refuse you're just asking for it.
But the law doesn't say 'you have to be accommodating toward your employee's religious beliefs' it is 'you're not allowed to discriminate based on your employee's religious beliefs'.
Firing someone for refusing to do their fucking job isn't discrimination.
>>
>>1508170
>allowing Muslims in your country
>have to deal with this kind of shit

>want to take in more Muslims?
>get more shit, until you get completely Islamized (because you have to accommodate for them, but they will never accommodate for you)

It's only the beginning guys. You have been warned.

t. person living in an Islamized European shithole
>>
We should create our own religion, /biz/.

>get a high-paying job
>immediately after, create a cult where working is a major sin
>"sorry, I cannot show up to work since this violates my religious beliefs"
>"you can't fire me either: that would be discrimination on the basis of religion"

Sounds like a good plan, isn't it?
>>
Had no idea hicks browsed 4chan.
>>
unethical.

it's legal sure, but i'd rather die poor and a good person, than rich and capitalizing on peoples religion.

im down for a ponzi scheme though.
>>
>>1508357
I had no idea refusing to do your job wasn't legitimate grounds for termination.
>>
>>1508362
Next time they'll do like a lot of employers do, here in Europe:

>see a Muslim name applying for a job
>immediately trash the resume and never call back

$240k was the price of that lesson.
>>
>>1508370
You hire them because the chances of this happening are tiny and far less important than finding someone with the right skills or who will accept low pay.

If they do try to pull shit like this, you play along with it but fire them later for other reasons. Stealing is like breathing to these people when they believe there are no consequences to their actions, make sure you film them doing it several times and it amounts to grand larceny in your state so the legal process goes like clockwork.
>>
>>1508360
Ponzi schemes are definitely worse than starting a cult.
>>
>>1508418
>the chances of this happening are tiny

Tiny chances for this particular thing... but big chances there will be some problem at some point.

Muslims are discriminated on the job market, because it is widely believed that their behavior create problems. The best way to avoid these problems is to refrain from hiring them in the first place.
>>
>Make new religion
>Establish church
>Religion goes against hard labor and demands you stay in A.C. conditions because said god demands

Profit
>>
>>1508479
Is that Potato?
I heard she stopped posting pics a while back.
>>
>>1508170
I already am.
I figured out that the imam at my local mosque takes a shit at the same time every day.
That's the perfect time to slip off my shoes and steal his Modanfil.
>>
Wow.
That's one rageworthy image.
Muslims are fucking scum.
>>
>>1508334
>Firing someone for refusing to do their fucking job isn't discrimination
it is if they don't have to do that job and you tried to make them do it anyways just to be a prick.
>>
>>1509114
>it is if they don't have to do that job and you tried to make them do it anyways just to be a prick.
What do you mean don't have to do it?
If their job is delivering things then they have to deliver the things you've got for them to deliver.
That you could, in principle, make sure your warehouse people go through a list of things that offend each person's religious sensibilities and make sure they don't get assigned any of those things is irrelevant. You shouldn't have to consult your delivery drivers on which packages they find offensive to their beliefs, especially if it comes at the cost of extra time spent organising your logistics for the day, or inefficient delivery runs, or worst, packages not being delivered on time because some faggot decided he wasn't doing it.

Again, freedom of religion was designed to stop the government forcing you to subscribe to a particular religion, not to protect lazy fucks from being fired for refusing to do their job, or portions thereof.
>>
>>1508170
Do I have to be brown and speak Arabic to pretend to be muslim to do this?

I'm white as hell, can I still try this?
>>
>>1508349
Except you are an aspie and have a hard time talking to anyone, much less in a way that would actually convince anyone you aren't just a retard. Think of real ideas that aren't fucking memes, you would break in court anon. Then the company goes after you for it, or at the very least fires you and youll have to explain this autism to every future employer.
>>
>>1508170
>government decides who you have to have work for you
Welcome to gommunism, murricans.
>>
>>1508170
I own a church. Granted it's my house and the only attendees are people I invite over to "sell" Cutco to, but I still don't pay taxes.
>>
>>1509394
>If their job is delivering things then they have to deliver the things you've got for them to deliver.
>That you could, in principle, make sure your warehouse people go through a list of things that offend each person's religious sensibilities and make sure they don't get assigned any of those things is irrelevant. You shouldn't have to consult your delivery drivers on which packages they find offensive to their beliefs, especially if it comes at the cost of extra time spent organising your logistics for the day, or inefficient delivery runs, or worst, packages not being delivered on time because some faggot decided he wasn't doing it.
Remember, it was specifically pointed out it wouldn't have been at all difficult to re-assign them.

>>1508314
>>1508334
>>1508341
>>1508349
>>1508362
>>1508838
>>1509398
>I don't know how to read
>>
>>1509429
>Remember, it was specifically pointed out it wouldn't have been at all difficult to re-assign them.
Difficult by whose definition?
>>
>>1509432
Not yours as you dont leave your moms basement, difficult as they just have to give the task to another driver than the others do something else, that difficult. Its a good sized co.>>1509432
>>
File: wow.jpg (70KB, 248x252px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
wow.jpg
70KB, 248x252px
>>1509429
If a worker had whatever non-religious personal issue with delivering beer no judge would award him money, regardless of how much beer he was made to deliver.

What reason is there for the state to consider religious people's belief's and principles more important than those of atheists/agnostics? None, it's pure entitlement and prejudice.
>>
>>1509816
>If a worker had whatever non-religious personal issue with delivering beer no judge would award him money,
yes, that's because freedom to practice your religion is literally in the first amendment to our constitution.

for some weird reason judges take that shit seriously.
>>
>>1509824
So there's this 'freedom of religion' for personal beliefs of the religious, but no equivalent freedom for the personal beliefs of non-religious folk? I'd say that's a fairly retarded and bigot constitution you got there going pal, but your founding fathers seemed smart, so I'd bet you're just misinterpreting and misrepresenting it. In fact, a quick glance at wikipedia tells me you're full of shit, like a true magic fag.
>>
>>1509824
There are a lot of things in the first amendment, anon. "Beer is evil" could be covered by more than just freedom of religion, but only making it a religious issue can get you free money for refusing to do your job.
>>
>>1509843
>but no equivalent freedom for the personal beliefs of non-religious folk? I'd say that's a fairly retarded and bigot constitution
You are aware of what religion is, right?
>>
>>1509824
>because freedom to practice your religion is literally in the first amendment to our constitution.
You misunderstand freedom of religion.
The text reads:
>Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
Which means congress isn't allowed to ban religions it doesn't like. It has nothing to do with forcing employers to make allowances for their employee's religious practices.
>>
>>1509854
A set of personal beliefs.
>>
>>1509859
>It has nothing to do with forcing employers to make allowances for their employee's religious practices.
so you're saying the Feds don't have a legal right to enforce the law of the land?

The Supremacy Clause would like a word with you.
>>
>>1509859
>or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
It says it right there.

>>1509864
It's much more than that actually, but since you seem to think "I don't like cheese" is equivalent to "the person that created this world told me never to touch cheese and if I touch cheese the person that created me and the world as we know it will assume I hate him despite all he's done for me, and will have me in hell for all eternity" there's no point in bothering with you.
>>
>>1509843
I'm an atheist.

I don't have any personal beliefs that need accommodating. Even our atheist founders knew that persecuting religious people is bad policy.
>>
>>1509876
The actual text of the First Amendment says that Congress can't restrict the practice of or belief in any religion, or declare a state religion.
It doesn't say anything about private citizens.
>>
>>1509880
>>or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
>It says it right there.
Last I checked firing someone doesn't prevent them practicing their religion
>>
>>1509884
>It doesn't say anything about private citizens
if Congress allows others to repress a religion it is repressing that religion by neglect.
>>
>>1509888
>if Congress allows others to repress a religion it is repressing that religion by neglect.
No, it isn't.
>>
>>1509888
The Constitution doesn't say Congress has to protect religions from repression.
It says that Congress can't pass any law establishing a state religion or restricting the practice of any religion.
In fact, it doesn't even forbid individual states from establishing an official religion.
>>
>>1509886
>firing someone doesn't prevent them practicing their religion
it's also illegal under our equal opportunity law.

I suppose you could go read that if you like, but ultimately it's the judge's job to decide what that means, not you.

and in this case the judge ruled the redneck shipping company willfully violated the law and owed some dirty employees a lot of money.
>>
>>1509886
Firing someone because of their religion is discrimination in a case like this where they aren't asking for anything unreasonable.

>>1509890
>>1509891
>>
>>1509891
You're right.
that's why we have judges to decide what it MEANS.

so far none have allowed stupid fuckers to repress other people's religions or allowed states to establish religions.

you: 0
Constitution: 9000
>>
>>1509897
>Firing someone because of their religion is discrimination in a case like this where they aren't asking for anything unreasonable.
>anything unreasonable
L-like not having to do their job?
Firing someone because their religion prevents them from being able to complete their role != firing someone because of their religion.

>>1509894
>it's also illegal under our equal opportunity law.
Is that the law that says that you can't fire people for refusing to do their job because firing slackers is discrimination?
>>
>>1509902
>L-like not having to do their job?
>Firing someone because their religion prevents them from being able to complete their role != firing someone because of their religion.
They could've easily and without any more hassle than telling someone else "Hey, this is your run now" re-assigned them. They were more than willing to do any other run but those with beer.
>>
>>1509902
>Is that the law that says that you can't fire people for refusing to do their job because firing slackers is discrimination?
The judge and jury decided that's NOT why they were fired.

I agree.

They were fired for refusing to do certain work on religious grounds and that work wasn't the only work available to them.

I don't know how it works in your 3rd world country but in the US you don't get to fire people for their religion.
>>
What if the objection had been to delivering a cake to a gay wedding?
>>
>>1509880
>It's much more than that actually
>my particular set of beliefs is more important than others because it's old, involves magic and lot's of people believe too

That too is a personal belief of yours.

>>1509881
>I don't have any personal beliefs that need accommodating.

Everyone has. You're either lying or are just used to not have your beliefs pampered. Why is a muslim's belief handling pig meat is wrong any more important than, say, the belief of a hardcore vegetarian?
>>
>>1509912
Legal. There's a difference between a business refusing to serve some one, and an employee asking to be put somewhere else.
>>
>>1509910
>I know I'm a janitor, but it's against my religion to clean toilets, so you'll have to get another janitor to do that.
>But you still have to pay me the same as all the other janitors, even though they do more work than I do.
>>
>>1509914
>religion is stupid
That's not the point.
>>
>>1509915
No, the business took the job.
But the Muslim deliverymen said they would not perform it, because god hates fags.
>>
>>1509907
>They could've easily and without any more hassle than telling someone else "Hey, this is your run now" re-assigned them.
Checking every single truckload for potentially offending items is going to prove at least some hassle in the long run. Not that whether or not it's a hassle should matter to whether it's discrimination desu.
>>
>>1509919
It wasn't the point.

Say I'm an ex-alcoholic hardcore AA member and boss makes me deliver beer when I don't want to. Could I sue and also get thousands? Probably not, even though it's a much more serious and potentially personally damaging issue than >muh religion/culture
>>
>>1509912
>What if the objection had been to delivering a cake to a gay wedding?
then you've got a case where one protected group is oppressing another, and the courts get to decide.

in general they have decided that protected religions don't get to oppress protected homosexuals. Probably because religion has always held the power in this relationship and the public is sick of it being abused.

>>1509914
>Why is a muslim's belief handling pig meat is wrong any more important than, say, the belief of a hardcore vegetarian?
simply because the courts say it is.

we grant religions certain freedoms, there are rules in place regarding how a person claims those freedoms by pretending to be a religion.

If vegetarians want to be a religion they know how to go about it.

However in the US it's perfectly legal to ask a job applicant if there's any reason they can't do their job, and not hire them if there is. So if your sole business is butchering hogs you can probably legally avoid hiring muslims, jews and vegetarians anyways.
>>
>>1509916
>being so desperate to find things that conform to your world view you can't even read a paragraph
They were willing to do any other run but the ones with beer.

>>1509920
That's exactly what I said.

>>1509921
It's a delivery company, they know what's in every shipment already.

>>1509924
>muh religion/culture
But, it sure isn't the point, huh.
>>
>>1509924
AA has gone out of its way to pretend it isn't a religion. Mostly because it takes money from the government which will end if it becomes a religion.

it is essentially a religion pretending really hard not to be though.
>>
>>1509926
>So if your sole business is butchering hogs you can probably legally avoid hiring muslims, jews and vegetarians anyways.
But why does it have to be your sole business? What if you just like the flexibility of assigning any of your butchers to butcher any meat?
>>
>>1509926
>protected group
Nigger go back to Tumblr.

There is no difference between "I will not deliver beer because I believe drinking beer is sinful" and "I will not deliver a gay wedding cake because I believe homosexuality is sinful."
>>
>>1509927
>They were willing to do any other run but the ones with beer.
Yes, and the hypothetical janitor is willing to clean anything but a toilet. His religion forbids the cleaning of human waste.
He will still empty trash cans, wipe off tables, scrub sinks, etc. but he cannot touch a toilet.
Why can't I fire him, or at least pay him less since he does less work than all my other janitors?

>That's exactly what I said.
You just said "legal." Did you mean it's legal for the Muslims to refuse to deliver (of course it is, the only question is if they can be fired) or that it's legal for the business to fire them?
>>
>>1509929
>But why does it have to be your sole business?
because by law you have to accommodate retards and races and religious people that apply for work if you can.

it's part of the deal. You run a business in this country you don't get to decide that a certain class of people isn't allowed to work. Because in the past business owners were allowed to decide and fucked it up for everyone.
>>
>>1509936
>the hypothetical janitor is willing to clean anything but a toilet
this is why an employer is allowed to ask a potential hire if there's any reason they can't do the job.

you're not allowed to ask if they have a religious reason, or a handicap like you have, or what the reason is.

you can only ask if they can NOT do the job. Or if they need special help.
>>
>>1509937
>You run a business in this country you don't get to decide that a certain class of people isn't allowed to work. Because in the past business owners were allowed to decide
But they're not deciding a class of people isn't allowed to work. They're exercising their free speech right not to employ whomever they like.
>>
>>1509941
>But they're not deciding a class of people isn't allowed to work. They're exercising their free speech right not to employ whomever they like.
what would you say is the difference?

your free speech is not more important than other people's right to survive.
>>
>>1509937
>you don't get to decide that a certain class of people isn't allowed to work.
The problem is that they don't want to work, not that I don't want them to.
I'll hire a Muslim at my slaughterhouse, but he has to be okay with butchering hogs. Otherwise he is less qualified than any candidate who will butcher all the animals we handle.

>>1509940
>this is why an employer is allowed to ask a potential hire if there's any reason they can't do the job.
So if the employer had simply asked "Is there any reason you can't deliver beer?" and the Muslims had said yes, the employer could have trashed their resumes?
But once they're hired he has to keep them?
>>
>>1509926
>simply because the courts say it is.

Yes, that's the OP. We're arguing it's a retarded decision.

>>1509927
Are you playing thick on purpose? The point is that there are a million of other beliefs at least as respectable as religious beliefs, and they don't get the same pampering. The only sensible answer is to either pamper them all or pamper none. Any other option is incoherent and unfair.
>>
>>1509943
>>But they're not deciding a class of people isn't allowed to work. They're exercising their free speech right not to employ whomever they like.
>what would you say is the difference?
The difference is I'm not forcing other people not to hire them, I'm just not hiring them.
>your free speech is not more important than other people's right to survive.
Other peoples' right to survive doesn't extend to them forcing me to employ them against my preference/taste/judgment
>>
>>1509946
>So if the employer had simply asked "Is there any reason you can't deliver beer?" and the Muslims had said yes, the employer could have trashed their resumes?
yes, if beer was all they deliver.
>>
>>1509946
>So if the employer had simply asked "Is there any reason you can't deliver beer?" and the Muslims had said yes, the employer could have trashed their resumes?

Probably they'd sue him anyway for discrimination. Also we're getting baited.
>>
>>1509952
Well, toilets aren't all the janitor cleans.
So he has to be hired and paid the same as all the other janitors even though he does less work and is less qualified.
Is that right?
>>
>>1509936
That analogy is different as you don't get assigned with janitorial duties. When you report in the morning your boss doesn't say "Jim, you're on toilets today". But that's what happens in a trucking company.

And I was saying it was legal for them to refuse to deliver.

>>1509941
>They're exercising their free speech right not to employ whomever they like.
what

>>1509950
>The point is that there are a million of other beliefs at least as respectable as religious beliefs
I know it's difficult for irreligious people to understand, but religion is different for a reason.
>>
>>1509951
>The difference is I'm not forcing other people not to hire them, I'm just not hiring them.
the problem was that everyone decides not to hire (or house, or sell to) the same people at the same time so they need protection to survive.

the government recognizes that, e.g., racism exists even without anyone organizing it. And it works to get rid of it by suing out of existence racist businesses.

>Other peoples' right to survive doesn't extend to them forcing me to employ them against my preference/taste/judgment

the people of the United States have decided that it does. Live with it or move elsewhere. Or just never get a job where you might have to hire people. Which seems most likely since no business is going to hire you to break the law for them.
>>
>>1509960
>I know it's difficult for irreligious people to understand, but religion is different for a reason.
The reason is that people tend to get more emotional about it because they've constructed their entire worldview around it.
But you see the same thing with vegetarians and anti-vaxxers so I don't see the difference.
>>
>>1509958
if his inability is due to religious, racial or physical limitations he has to be given equal consideration for hiring.

and if you don't hire him you have to be ready to show why not in court.
>>
>>1509953
>we're getting baited.
>racists faggots think the rest of the world thinks like them
the law of the US is baiting you, moron.
>>
>>1509964
>Live with it or move elsewhere
Eh fuck it guess I'll take my business somewhere I can hire who I want then.
Maybe China.
>>
>>1509960
>That analogy is different as you don't get assigned with janitorial duties. When you report in the morning your boss doesn't say "Jim, you're on toilets today". But that's what happens in a trucking company.
Let's say I have a LOT of toilets and all my employees eat Taco Bell every day, so I need one dedicated janitor to clean the toilets each day.
I have 5 janitors and one says it's against his religion to clean toilets.
How is it fair that he gets paid the same as the other 4 even though he never has to take toilet duty?

>>1509970
>if his inability is due to religious, racial or physical limitations he has to be given equal consideration for hiring.
He is being given equal consideration.
It turns out his refusal to do all the work required of his position makes him less qualified.
>>
>>1509978
Driving a truck filled with beer isn't any less desirable than driving a truck not filled with beer.
>>
>>1509978
>It turns out his refusal to do all the work required of his position makes him less qualified.
yes, you could argue that in court.
it's been done before, and the person arguing it lost, but hey- maybe juries have changed their mind since then?
>>
File: fuck.jpg (87KB, 400x260px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
fuck.jpg
87KB, 400x260px
>>1509960
>I know it's difficult for irreligious people to understand, but religion is different for a reason.

>our beliefs are more important because we believe so
>you wouldn't understand because you don't believe

Confirmed for bait.
>>
>>1509989
a lot of that will change when the US becomes less religious, but by that time we won't be having this argument. And we'll be France.
>>
>>1509981
Let's say his religious objection is to something more minor then, like vacuuming.
The point is that he is less valuable as an employee because he does less work. Why do I have to pay him the same? Why do I even have to hire him, when there are plenty of other candidates who will gladly do all the work required of them?
>>
>>1509992
>Why do I have to pay him the same? Why do I even have to hire him, when there are plenty of other candidates who will gladly do all the work required of them?
because the government realized 150 years ago that if everyone agrees a class of people is less useful and refuses to do business with them those people suffer.

and the government decided to protect them.

that's really all there is to it. If you don't agree, feel free to stick to your beliefs and get steamrollered by the government. It will happen, as OP demonstrates.
>>
>>1509997
>150 years ago
Pretty sure the legislation cited was like 50 years ago you dumb nigger.
Law in the west has only gone downhill since we let women vote in lawmakers based on their precious fee-fees :(
>>
>>1509997
>Why do I have to hire someone who won't do all the work required of their position?
>Because if you refuse to hire somebody because of their race you're a bigot!!!!!
Yes, that's a true statement but it's completely irrelevant.
I don't have to hire a quadriplegic to be my personal driver even though his inability to drive is completely out of his control.
Similarly, I shouldn't have to hire a Muslim butcher if he's going to CHOOSE not to cut up hogs.

also
>anti-discrimination laws in the 1860s
L-O-L
>>
>>1510000
The Federal government has been forcing people to do business with groups they don't like since at least the end of the Civil War.

I'm not saying I agree or don't agree with you, I'm saying-
1. It's the law whether you like it or not
2. You're stupid.

I think both points are self-evident.
>>
>>1510004
Clearly the wrong side won that war then.
>>
>>1510002
>I shouldn't have to
what you want is irrelevant.
the law says you should.
if you don't like it change the law.
you're not going to find any support for the change though because the vast majority of voters disagree with you strongly.

you are a teeny tiny minority and it's just a matter of time before we're required by law to hire you.
>>
>>1510010
>It's moral because it's the law!
L-M-A-O
>>
>>1510013
I'm an atheist, remember?
I don't have morals. Nor do I believe you do.

the majority will force you.
that's all the morality that's required.
>>
>>1508170
you know I actually looked into the specifics of this case once, the reason why they were awarded is because it would have been easy for the dispatcher to have switched the beer deliveries to another driver but didn't.

But none of it mattered anyway because the company had gone out of business by the time the case was over anyway so there was no one to pay.
>>
>>1510042
going out of business doesn't cancel your debts, but you should consider the possibility that putting them out of business was the goal all along.
>>
>>1510051
sure it does, you can't just pierce the veil on something like this, they sued the company not any specific people running it

besides, there were probably other creditors in front of them anyway
>>
>>1510042
>>1510055
Are you sure they went out of business?
Star Transport, LLC still exists
>>
>>1510055
>you can't just pierce the veil on something like this,
true, but that's not what I meant.

the business has assets that can be taken pretty easily.
>>
>>1510060
going by this washington post piece from october of last year that says they went under
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/10/23/240000-jury-award-to-muslim-truck-drivers-who-were-fired-for-refusing-to-transport-alcohol/?utm_term=.ab06e107aa97

>>1510066
well yeah, and I don't know the specifics but from my experience of seeing companies go under there's usually nothing left for things like unpaid wages after everything is taken by creditors who have first dibs
>>
>>1510067
the drivers had a court order in hand, so they were undoubtedly first in line.
>>
>>1510072
>the drivers had a court order in hand, so they were undoubtedly first in line.
That's not necessarily how it works.
>>
>>1508479
why is that picture flipped horizontally?
Thread posts: 101
Thread images: 4


[Boards: 3 / a / aco / adv / an / asp / b / bant / biz / c / can / cgl / ck / cm / co / cock / d / diy / e / fa / fap / fit / fitlit / g / gd / gif / h / hc / his / hm / hr / i / ic / int / jp / k / lgbt / lit / m / mlp / mlpol / mo / mtv / mu / n / news / o / out / outsoc / p / po / pol / qa / qst / r / r9k / s / s4s / sci / soc / sp / spa / t / tg / toy / trash / trv / tv / u / v / vg / vint / vip / vp / vr / w / wg / wsg / wsr / x / y] [Search | Top | Home]
Please support this website by donating Bitcoins to 16mKtbZiwW52BLkibtCr8jUg2KVUMTxVQ5
If a post contains copyrighted or illegal content, please click on that post's [Report] button and fill out a post removal request
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows an archive of their content. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.