Pence signed it: Add Indiana to the list of states with "religious freedom" laws
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 03:05:15 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  Pence signed it: Add Indiana to the list of states with "religious freedom" laws
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9
Author Topic: Pence signed it: Add Indiana to the list of states with "religious freedom" laws  (Read 20950 times)
Brittain33
brittain33
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,933


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #50 on: March 27, 2015, 07:37:43 AM »

It is my sincere religious belief that I need to go around poking strangers in the eye.
Logged
SUSAN CRUSHBONE
a Person
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,735
Antarctica


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #51 on: March 27, 2015, 08:25:28 AM »

It is my sincere religious belief that I need to go around poking strangers in the eye.

^^
especially if the strangers are members of the indiana legislature
Logged
Cassius
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,591


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #52 on: March 27, 2015, 08:29:53 AM »

^^^I agree.

Goddamn, I mean I knew Indiana was mediocre, middle-tier, and tolerable at best, but if this asshole gets relected in 2016 and/or the law still stands, I'm done with this state. Not even Lake County or Indianapolis would be tolerable.


My own damn representative (Bill Fine) voted for it. Can't wait to vote against him and Pence next year.

Why are you surprised? 
I'm not surprised. Nothing is surprising here. We were warned about this guy in 2012. He had a record of being a SoCon when he was just a representative. The gay marriage ban originates from 2011, before he got elected, so it's not like this came out of nowhere.

It's still disappointing that he, like other social conservatives, can't see that they're losing badly, and instead of just letting it happen, they have to lash out like this.

Because you of course, would obviously do that were you and your people in the same position as the opponents of gay marriage are today, wouldn't you?
No, we would not attempt to pass a law creating a legal protection for gay people to discriminate.

Nice try though.

That wasn't exactly what I meant, although now you mention it that might not be a bad idea on your part given your clear distaste for the supporters of this bill. But no, I meant in a more general context. I mean, back when opposition to gay marriage was at something like 70 percent, and when majorities of those polled still said that gay relationships were sinful, would you have gone 'well, looks like society's against us, there's nothing we can do about it, let's slink off back into the shadows'? Would you have allowed yourself to be rolled over so easily?
Logged
Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck
HockeyDude
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,376
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #53 on: March 27, 2015, 08:50:08 AM »

Love that shua, Sanchez, and co. are trying desperately to defend this.  Stop pretending this is anything than what it is, the anti-LGBT agenda in it's death throes.  No more no less... and you are ******* babies.  Whining, bitchy, bigoted babies.  "Ewwwwww... gay people are gross!" <== in a nutshell this is all this is. 

You lost.  Move on. 
Logged
Clarko95 📚💰📈
Clarko95
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,590
Sweden


Political Matrix
E: -5.61, S: -1.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #54 on: March 27, 2015, 12:05:00 PM »

That wasn't exactly what I meant, although now you mention it that might not be a bad idea on your part given your clear distaste for the supporters of this bill. But no, I meant in a more general context. I mean, back when opposition to gay marriage was at something like 70 percent, and when majorities of those polled still said that gay relationships were sinful, would you have gone 'well, looks like society's against us, there's nothing we can do about it, let's slink off back into the shadows'? Would you have allowed yourself to be rolled over so easily?
No, again this is false equivalency.

The gay rights movement was about securing their rights that did not violate anyone else's rights, no matter how people try and spin this (Christians are not persecuted in the U.S., white people are not the minority, etc.). This "religious freedom" movement is about giving legal sanction to discrimination, violating others' rights in a country that places secular rights above religious whims. It isn't just about not giving gay people wedding cake, but that's the primary motivation for the supporters of this.

One movement was about securing rights that did not harm anyone. The other is about hiding behind religion and your business to discriminate, and deny services and protections that could have severe real-life consequences for those discriminated against, violating others' rights as people.

That's it. And that's why this law is wrong.
Logged
Comrade Funk
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,136
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.16, S: -5.91

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #55 on: March 27, 2015, 01:13:12 PM »

I hope Jesus comes back soon so we can live in a fair, hippy communist society. Everything Republicans hate.
Logged
Atlas Has Shrugged
ChairmanSanchez
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 38,096
United States


Political Matrix
E: 5.29, S: -5.04


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #56 on: March 27, 2015, 01:26:17 PM »

Love that shua, Sanchez, and co. are trying desperately to defend this.  Stop pretending this is anything than what it is, the anti-LGBT agenda in it's death throes.  No more no less... and you are ******* babies.  Whining, bitchy, bigoted babies.  "Ewwwwww... gay people are gross!" <== in a nutshell this is all this is. 

You lost.  Move on. 
Assuming I was bigoted against gay people (which I am not, and never was, even when I was a douche), I'd say we won. The law was signed. The right to discriminate is freedom of association. The right to be a douche is protected. Get over it.

You sound like a mentally disturbed 9th grader in this post, but then again, maybe you are just being yourself.
Logged
anvi
anvikshiki
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,400
Netherlands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #57 on: March 27, 2015, 01:47:54 PM »

Quite the society we're building here.  Let's protect by law the severing of all commercial, social and civil ties between us whenever one of us has religious objections to what another group is doing.  Just don't be surprised when you find that, as time passes, building national unity around anything becomes more and more impossible.

If I was thinking about opening a business that designed t-shirts, posters and signs, and then realized I might have profound moral objections with the social and political uses to which customers would put my products, then I'd think about running a different business, not ask the state to allow me to discriminate against my customers. 

The big cause of "religious freedom" now is allowing people to discriminate against others outside church, mosque and temple?  Seems pretty sad, and not particularly morally effective, to me.
Logged
bedstuy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,526


Political Matrix
E: -1.16, S: -4.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #58 on: March 27, 2015, 02:02:58 PM »

"Religious freedom" means the freedom to practice your religion, things like building a church, attending religious services, observing certain holy days and such. 

"Religious freedom" does not mean this freestanding right to divest yourself of any contact with people you dislike.  I would hope we all agree for example: A religious person could not create a taxi service or an airline that banned Jews or Catholics.  Religious people who are really serious can simply choose not to start businesses that cater to the general public.  And, people who only want evangelical Christian customers can easily find a way to attract those customers anyway.  Gay people don't want to hire homophobic people and besides, there are more gay weddings in San Francisco than Wichita.
Logged
Frozen Sky Ever Why
ShadowOfTheWave
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,610
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #59 on: March 27, 2015, 04:42:14 PM »
« Edited: March 27, 2015, 04:54:11 PM by ShadowOfTheWave »

I think anyone should be able to refuse service to anyone, for any reason, when it comes to a business they own. The Libertarians have that one right.
Logged
Gass3268
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,478
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #60 on: March 27, 2015, 05:04:09 PM »

I think anyone should be able to refuse service to anyone, for any reason, when it comes to a business they own. The Libertarians have that one right.

So you're saying you support this:



Good to know.
Logged
Small Business Owner of Any Repute
Mr. Moderate
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,431
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #61 on: March 27, 2015, 05:05:52 PM »

What a wonderful fantasy world some posters live in where anti-discrimination laws are no longer needed! If only the real world were so perfect!
Logged
Cassius
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,591


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #62 on: March 27, 2015, 05:09:47 PM »

That wasn't exactly what I meant, although now you mention it that might not be a bad idea on your part given your clear distaste for the supporters of this bill. But no, I meant in a more general context. I mean, back when opposition to gay marriage was at something like 70 percent, and when majorities of those polled still said that gay relationships were sinful, would you have gone 'well, looks like society's against us, there's nothing we can do about it, let's slink off back into the shadows'? Would you have allowed yourself to be rolled over so easily?
No, again this is false equivalency.

The gay rights movement was about securing their rights that did not violate anyone else's rights, no matter how people try and spin this (Christians are not persecuted in the U.S., white people are not the minority, etc.). This "religious freedom" movement is about giving legal sanction to discrimination, violating others' rights in a country that places secular rights above religious whims. It isn't just about not giving gay people wedding cake, but that's the primary motivation for the supporters of this.

One movement was about securing rights that did not harm anyone. The other is about hiding behind religion and your business to discriminate, and deny services and protections that could have severe real-life consequences for those discriminated against, violating others' rights as people.

That's it. And that's why this law is wrong.

Well, the question of whether simply being a person entitles you to anything is a whole different debate, but again, that was not my question. My question did not petain to the veracity of the arguments of the pro and anti-bill sides on this matter. Instead, it pertained to your original point, which appeared simply to be; because they are losing, and because society as a whole is no longer favourable to them, they should just give up. Now, again, I put it to you, if you and your people were losing on whatever issue, would you just give up in order to avoid 'lashing out'?
Logged
publicunofficial
angryGreatness
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,010
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #63 on: March 27, 2015, 05:18:27 PM »

What a wonderful fantasy world some posters live in where anti-discrimination laws are no longer needed! If only the real world were so perfect!

"Discrimination is over, therefore it's fine for me to support these discriminatory laws" is my favorite Republican explanation.

Racism no longer exists, therefore it's fine for me dismantle the VRA.
Women are now equal to men, so I don't see the point in this bill that equalizes pay.
Homophobia is a thing of the past, therefore it's time to empower homophobes.
Logged
MaxQue
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,600
Canada


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #64 on: March 27, 2015, 05:41:25 PM »

Love that shua, Sanchez, and co. are trying desperately to defend this.  Stop pretending this is anything than what it is, the anti-LGBT agenda in it's death throes.  No more no less... and you are ******* babies.  Whining, bitchy, bigoted babies.  "Ewwwwww... gay people are gross!" <== in a nutshell this is all this is. 

You lost.  Move on. 
The right to discriminate is freedom of association.

No. The fact than someone my make that link is making shudder about the quality of education in Florida, since I don't even see how someone sane can reach that conclusion.

The relationship between a service provider and a customer has nothing to do with freedom of association. Freedom of association is about being free creating organisations, not freedom in customer service. You have to respect customers, you have to give them what they paid for, etc...

If I follow your logic, it would be legal for a service provider to bill people but not give the service, because the service provider is using it's freedom to choose not do it. It's a basic failure of understanding what freedom of association is.
Logged
Atlas Has Shrugged
ChairmanSanchez
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 38,096
United States


Political Matrix
E: 5.29, S: -5.04


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #65 on: March 27, 2015, 05:54:43 PM »

Love that shua, Sanchez, and co. are trying desperately to defend this.  Stop pretending this is anything than what it is, the anti-LGBT agenda in it's death throes.  No more no less... and you are ******* babies.  Whining, bitchy, bigoted babies.  "Ewwwwww... gay people are gross!" <== in a nutshell this is all this is. 

You lost.  Move on. 
The right to discriminate is freedom of association.

No. The fact than someone my make that link is making shudder about the quality of education in Florida, since I don't even see how someone sane can reach that conclusion.

The relationship between a service provider and a customer has nothing to do with freedom of association. Freedom of association is about being free creating organisations, not freedom in customer service. You have to respect customers, you have to give them what they paid for, etc...

If I follow your logic, it would be legal for a service provider to bill people but not give the service, because the service provider is using it's freedom to choose not do it. It's a basic failure of understanding what freedom of association is.
Strawman. Lots of strawman arguments being used against me today.

Have you ever seen the "we reserve the right to refuse service" signs? Those signs allow the owner to turn away clients he/she doesn't want to serve; take, for example, a bar with a customer with a history of starting fights. Does this bar not have the right to refuse service to this man? Why should a florist who happens to be an Evangelical Christian have to serve a gay wedding if it goes against her (wrongly held) religious beliefs? Should this woman I am using as an example have to service the couple just because they approached her first?

Now, let us say that money was transferred. Than the company that you used in your example is obligated to give the service that the customer has paid for. That is called a contract, and contracts must be followed. Contracts must also be entered into voluntarily. Should I not have the right to refuse every contract that somebody offers me?

By the way, I am totally for gay rights and never have been bigoted in any way towards gay people. I think a gay bar has every right to discriminate against straight people, if they wanted to. I don't think discrimination is good for business, but the basic right to freedom of association-and yes, this IS freedom of association-is just as important as the right for any human being to be able to get married regardless of their sexual orientation.
Logged
Frozen Sky Ever Why
ShadowOfTheWave
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,610
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #66 on: March 27, 2015, 06:10:18 PM »

I think anyone should be able to refuse service to anyone, for any reason, when it comes to a business they own. The Libertarians have that one right.

So you're saying you support this:



Good to know.

I don't support it, I just don't think it should be criminalized.
Logged
Atlas Has Shrugged
ChairmanSanchez
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 38,096
United States


Political Matrix
E: 5.29, S: -5.04


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #67 on: March 27, 2015, 06:17:02 PM »

I think anyone should be able to refuse service to anyone, for any reason, when it comes to a business they own. The Libertarians have that one right.

So you're saying you support this:



Good to know.

I don't support it, I just don't think it should be criminalized.
See, here is where I diverge from this type of thinking. I think a company has the right to refuse service to anyone, but if they accept customers, they shouldn't than relegate them to a second class status. So segregated drinking fountains are wrong, if you allow the person in the door and accept their business. Does this make sense to everybody? I feel my logic here is a tad bit zig-zaggy.
Logged
Frozen Sky Ever Why
ShadowOfTheWave
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,610
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #68 on: March 27, 2015, 06:29:00 PM »

I think anyone should be able to refuse service to anyone, for any reason, when it comes to a business they own. The Libertarians have that one right.

So you're saying you support this:



Good to know.

I don't support it, I just don't think it should be criminalized.
See, here is where I diverge from this type of thinking. I think a company has the right to refuse service to anyone, but if they accept customers, they shouldn't than relegate them to a second class status. So segregated drinking fountains are wrong, if you allow the person in the door and accept their business. Does this make sense to everybody? I feel my logic here is a tad bit zig-zaggy.

I agree with this. I didn't pay enough attention to the picture to see that it was a drinking fountain, I glanced at it and thought it was a sign on a door.
Logged
publicunofficial
angryGreatness
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,010
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #69 on: March 27, 2015, 06:43:04 PM »

I think anyone should be able to refuse service to anyone, for any reason, when it comes to a business they own. The Libertarians have that one right.

So you're saying you support this:



Good to know.

I don't support it, I just don't think it should be criminalized.
See, here is where I diverge from this type of thinking. I think a company has the right to refuse service to anyone, but if they accept customers, they shouldn't than relegate them to a second class status. So segregated drinking fountains are wrong, if you allow the person in the door and accept their business. Does this make sense to everybody? I feel my logic here is a tad bit zig-zaggy.


So you're saying a business that refuses to serve black people would in theory be better than a business that served black people, but treated them worse than white customers?
Logged
MaxQue
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,600
Canada


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #70 on: March 27, 2015, 06:44:59 PM »

Love that shua, Sanchez, and co. are trying desperately to defend this.  Stop pretending this is anything than what it is, the anti-LGBT agenda in it's death throes.  No more no less... and you are ******* babies.  Whining, bitchy, bigoted babies.  "Ewwwwww... gay people are gross!" <== in a nutshell this is all this is. 

You lost.  Move on. 
The right to discriminate is freedom of association.

No. The fact than someone my make that link is making shudder about the quality of education in Florida, since I don't even see how someone sane can reach that conclusion.

The relationship between a service provider and a customer has nothing to do with freedom of association. Freedom of association is about being free creating organisations, not freedom in customer service. You have to respect customers, you have to give them what they paid for, etc...

If I follow your logic, it would be legal for a service provider to bill people but not give the service, because the service provider is using it's freedom to choose not do it. It's a basic failure of understanding what freedom of association is.
Strawman. Lots of strawman arguments being used against me today.

Have you ever seen the "we reserve the right to refuse service" signs? Those signs allow the owner to turn away clients he/she doesn't want to serve; take, for example, a bar with a customer with a history of starting fights. Does this bar not have the right to refuse service to this man? Why should a florist who happens to be an Evangelical Christian have to serve a gay wedding if it goes against her (wrongly held) religious beliefs? Should this woman I am using as an example have to service the couple just because they approached her first?

Yes, the bar has the right to turn away a customer with an history of starting fights, since it's most likely a violation of the contract between the business and the customer. But, I can't accept the legality of putting "don't be an homosexual" in a contract.
Logged
anvi
anvikshiki
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,400
Netherlands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #71 on: March 27, 2015, 06:46:26 PM »

Have you ever seen the "we reserve the right to refuse service" signs? Those signs allow the owner to turn away clients he/she doesn't want to serve; take, for example, a bar with a customer with a history of starting fights. Does this bar not have the right to refuse service to this man? Why should a florist who happens to be an Evangelical Christian have to serve a gay wedding if it goes against her (wrongly held) religious beliefs? Should this woman I am using as an example have to service the couple just because they approached her first?

These cases aren't comparable.  In the case of the bar owner above, he is refusing to serve prospective customers because the latter may represent a threat to his other patrons or his property.  The couple in the second case represents no such threats to the owner.  The couple are willing to pay the price the business owner sets for services the owner otherwise provides equitably to the public.  
Logged
🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸
shua
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,664
Nepal


Political Matrix
E: 1.29, S: -0.70

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #72 on: March 27, 2015, 07:32:11 PM »
« Edited: March 27, 2015, 07:40:36 PM by shua »

Do you understand that people of the same religion or denomination can have different religious convictions? 

Yes. I also understand that such convictions, while sincerely held for periods of time are fluid. People can change their understanding of one religion, move into a new one or drop it all together and in doing so adjust their 'conscience' or re-prioritise what is important to them. As a result of that, under the guise of religious freedom of conscience they can conscientiously object to anything and then cease to object to it the next day.

Which we can all do, but we don't all have access to legal 'rights' to discriminate in our views against subsets of people. One would surely expect that if other people had access to the same rights as religious people do over matters of conscience, then if one had a deep and personal objection on the basis of conscience to miscegenation for example that such laws would reflect this. If such laws were fair. Indeed, one of the issues I have with laws like this, is that it gives religious people disproportionate legal protection over matters of conscience.

It seems rational to protect people who have an essential innate trait such as the colour of their skin their gender, their sexual orientation and so on from disproportionate and irrational 'ire' at them being who they are from a powerful majority. Instead we offer protection to a particular religious subset of personal conscience which is subject to alteration, change and complete reversal in order to allow them to disregard civility when dealing with an outsider. Furthermore it cheapens religious faith and traditional religious exemptions by equating the refusal to house, serve, assist and hire people you consider objectionable to the act of worship.

Freedom of worship is a poor substitute for freedom of religion, circumscribing it within a narrow sphere to try to manage it and keep it devoid of social power. The USSR conspicuously kept the former in their Constitution but not the latter.

What bearing should the fluidity of belief systems have on whether people should be allowed to live according to those beliefs?  Just because these views can change does not mean the state should be in the business of reeducating people whose beliefs it does not like.  Nor can they so easily control these beliefs.  Religion has often not rendered unto Caesar when Caesar has demanded more than a coin, and it has its venerated martyrs because of it.  If you want to reason with religious people about their faith you can do it, but not if you try to force them to act against it, for then you have ruined all credibility because you have shown just how much you truly despise and hate those trying to live faithfully according to their religion as they understand it.

I really have no idea what point you are trying to make at this stage, other than using flowery language to essentially suggest that somehow there’s something ‘anti-religious’ in opposing exclusively religiously motivated opt outs in how people can treat an out group with respect to law. Indeed if anything it is a case of special pleading; that religious personal motivation is worthy of a greater protection in law than non-religious personal motivation. It is suggesting that conscience is only important if it dovetails with the divine and therefore offers religious beliefs greater protection than non-religious beliefs. Indeed it gives a personal religious belief system which you admit can be fluid and entirely arbitrary a greater protection than a person. It protects how a person treats another person more how the other person is treated. And it will always do that if it’s an exclusive privilege given to one particular group. There is no corresponding law that allows an LGBT person to say to a person of faith ‘you think x, you act x and you undermine my safety so I want nothing to do with you based on my conscience and I want legal protection to that effect’. I wouldn’t actually want a corresponding law of course, but these religious opt out laws weaponise one group over another.

I support conscience rights for those who act on religious grounds. I support conscience rights for those who act on nonreligious grounds. The fact that the latter do not have a stronger legal tradition behind them is no reason to me that I should not support conscience rights where I can. If you do not support the either anyway, then why is it so particularly vexing to you that these cases might be handled differently?

It is very strange that you say religious freedom laws give greater protection to religious belief than to a person. Who do you think these laws are for the benefit of if not for people?

What weaponizes one group over another is when disagreements over belief are taken to the realm of force, when the state says "you offended this person with your belief, now pay us a huge sum and/or go out of business."  You think that is a recipe for peace and cooperation between different groups of people?

By the way, Religious Freedom Restoration Acts are the law in 19 states now, with some of these laws being 2 decades old, in addition to the Federal version of the statute. Can anyone point to a single case where any of these laws have been successfully used to uphold people throwing gay people, or anyone, out of an establishment? 
Logged
Holmes
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,719
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -6.45, S: -5.74

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #73 on: March 27, 2015, 08:00:04 PM »

By the way, Religious Freedom Restoration Acts are the law in 19 states now, with some of these laws being 2 decades old, in addition to the Federal version of the statute. Can anyone point to a single case where any of these laws have been successfully used to uphold people throwing gay people, or anyone, out of an establishment? 

This isn't really an valid argument that deserves any consideration. You're basically saying that any law is fine as long as it's not put in practice.
Logged
🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸
shua
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,664
Nepal


Political Matrix
E: 1.29, S: -0.70

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #74 on: March 27, 2015, 08:05:17 PM »

By the way, Religious Freedom Restoration Acts are the law in 19 states now, with some of these laws being 2 decades old, in addition to the Federal version of the statute. Can anyone point to a single case where any of these laws have been successfully used to uphold people throwing gay people, or anyone, out of an establishment? 

This isn't really an valid argument that deserves any consideration. You're basically saying that any law is fine as long as it's not put in practice.

No, these laws have been put in practice as they are the basis for numerous court cases against state and federal government, some of them successful.  I'm saying that those who claim that what these laws are really about is allowing discrimination against homosexuals need to put forward some actual legal evidence. 
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.065 seconds with 12 queries.