# Judge orders Colorado baker to serve gay couples **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 8, 2013, 1:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792 "2013-12-08T01:57:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 9
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2013, 7:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/161 "2013-12-10T07:45:33Z")
> [@bldysabba](#): > > Because it doesn’t involve force, and it leaves out an instrument that is blunt, slow to change and distortionary. Why is “not involving force” necessarily a good thing? Doesn’t the recent history of the gay rights movement disprove the idea that the law is slow to change? And exactly what do you mean by “distortionary,” and why is that a bad thing? > [@](#): > > And Legal pressure is actually effective and social pressure is not? How did you bring the legal pressure into place at all? If my boss fires me because he doesn’t like me being gay, “social pressure” is not going to get me my job back. It might, maybe, at some eventual remove, result in my former employer deciding not to be a gigantic cock. Or not - as pointed out repeatedly in this thread, taking a public stance against gay rights is often quite profitable. > [@](#): > > My contention, which you agree with, is that increased acceptance of gay people will have to come first anyway. The actual problem - acceptance of gay people - is being solved without legislation, or the legislation wouldn’t happen, and you say legal pressure is the one that is actually effective? We cannot be good and moral and non bigoted people without laws to force us into it? I differ. If there is no legal protection for sexuality, then there is no recourse if I happen to have a homophobic boss who fires me because I’m gay. His position may represent a political minority, but if he’s my boss, him being in a minority doesn’t stop me from being out on the street with no income. Without legal protections, I’m fucked in that situation. A whole bunch of other people thinking I got a raw deal doesn’t give me my job back. > [@](#): > > I did. Information is scarce on the LGBT rights legislation page. It talks mostly about DOMA and on protection it mentions that 140 cities or counties have protections but does not speak about dates. Well, look harder. I’m not your research assistant. > [@](#): > > It’s the worst because it is discrimination being practised by the government. There may be worse discrimination in degree, but discrimination practised by the government leaves you with no recourse. Yeah, that was the part that made me laugh so hard I almost shit myself. Although like most humor, it loses something on being repeated. ---
**Author:** ![bldysabba](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ecccb3/32.png) [@bldysabba](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bldysabba)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2013, 8:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/162 "2013-12-10T08:57:48Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > Why is “not involving force” necessarily a good thing? Doesn’t the recent history of the gay rights movement disprove the idea that the law is slow to change? And exactly what do you mean by “distortionary,” and why is that a bad thing? Because I consider forcing people to do something to be bad. It can be justified, as in my response to Trinopus, but achieving something without force is always better than achieving it with. And the law _has_ been slow to change. A majority of American people already support gay marriage. Hasn’t happened yet though. Distortionary is how it affects the markets. Distorted markets tend to result in sub-optimal outcomes for all involved. > [@](#): > > If my boss fires me because he doesn’t like me being gay, “social pressure” is not going to get me my job back. It might, maybe, at some eventual remove, result in my former employer deciding not to be a gigantic cock. Or not - as pointed out repeatedly in this thread, taking a public stance against gay rights is often quite profitable. Social pressure has gotten gay/transgender community acceptance to where it has. My stance is that it is the better tool to get them the rest of the way. May be longer and tougher, as the struggle till now has been, but better for society. > [@](#): > > Well, look harder. I’m not your research assistant. I feel you’re being a jerk here, and I’m not sure why. I want to establish the validity of your position on the interaction of social acceptance and gay rights legislation, so I’m searching for dates that may back up your point. You seem to be knowledgeable on the issue, so I asked for a source when I wasn’t able to find one, I thought quite nicely. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2013, 9:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/163 "2013-12-10T09:18:20Z")
> [@bldysabba](#): > > Because I consider forcing people to do something to be bad. It can be justified, as in my response to Trinopus, but achieving something without force is always better than achieving it with. If my goal is that I do not have to worry about being fired simply because I’m gay, how is that goal ever going to be achieved without legislation? Keep in mind, corporate discrimination doesn’t have to come from the top. If I work for Company X, the company itself might not have discriminatory policies, but if my manager doesn’t like gays, and fires me for being gay, what recourse do I have if the government doesn’t have my back? > [@](#): > > And the law _has_ been slow to change. I don’t see how this statement remotely fits with objective reality. > [@](#): > > A majority of American people already support gay marriage. Hasn’t happened yet though. Distortionary is how it affects the markets. Distorted markets tend to result in sub-optimal outcomes for all involved. How does forcing bakers to sell cakes to gay people negatively impact the market for cakes? > [@](#): > > Social pressure has gotten gay/transgender community acceptance to where it has. My stance is that it is the better tool to get them the rest of the way. May be longer and tougher, as the struggle till now has been, but better for society. I’m glad you’re willing to volunteer us for the longer and tougher fight. It’s particularly stirring, given that it cost you, personally, absolutely nothing. > [@](#): > > I feel you’re being a jerk here, and I’m not sure why. You’re arguing that there’s some social benefit to people being allowed to throw me out of my home because I’m gay, and you can’t figure out why that doesn’t make you and me BFFs forever? > [@](#): > > I want to establish the validity of your position on the interaction of social acceptance and gay rights legislation, so I’m searching for dates that may back up your point. You seem to be knowledgeable on the issue, so I asked for a source when I wasn’t able to find one, I thought quite nicely. Look harder. ---
**Author:** ![bldysabba](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ecccb3/32.png) [@bldysabba](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bldysabba)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2013, 9:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/164 "2013-12-10T09:19:06Z")
To your point earlier Miller, on likelihood of coming out, further data to suggest that gay men coming out has to do with tolerance Link - [http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/08/opinion/sunday/how-many-american-men-are-gay.html?\_r=0](http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/08/opinion/sunday/how-many-american-men-are-gay.html?_r=0) > [@](#): > > While these data sources all measure different degrees of openness, one result is strikingly similar: All three suggest that the openly gay population is dramatically higher in more tolerant states, defined using an estimate by Nate Silver of support for same-sex marriage. ---
**Author:** ![bldysabba](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ecccb3/32.png) [@bldysabba](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bldysabba)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2013, 9:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/165 "2013-12-10T09:39:24Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > If my goal is that I do not have to worry about being fired simply because I’m gay, how is that goal ever going to be achieved without legislation? Keep in mind, corporate discrimination doesn’t have to come from the top. If I work for Company X, the company itself might not have discriminatory policies, but if my manager doesn’t like gays, and fires me for being gay, what recourse do I have if the government doesn’t have my back? > > I don’t see how this statement remotely fits with objective reality. > > How does forcing bakers to sell cakes to gay people negatively impact the market for cakes? > > I’m glad you’re willing to volunteer us for the longer and tougher fight. It’s particularly stirring, given that it cost you, personally, absolutely nothing. > > You’re arguing that there’s some social benefit to people being allowed to throw me out of my home because I’m gay, and you can’t figure out why that doesn’t make you and me BFFs forever? > > Look harder. I think the shorter and supposedly easier fight is tougher for everyone involved in the long run. Politicising the issue by taking it to the realm of government enforcing affirmative discrimination just creates and deepens fault lines in society which would be easier to get past if neither side was forcing the other to do things they don’t want to. I have personally campaigned for gay rights in India, where I’m from. We won a significant victory against legal discrimination there, and to be a homosexual is no longer a crime in India. Small steps, but right ones. Steps we wouldn’t have needed if the government wasn’t so used to legislating what wasn’t its business in the first place. Just like the matter of who someone can rent their house to or who they cannot. So yes, if someone doesn’t want to rent their house to you, I think that is their decision. I think both you and the landlord would be better off not being forced to carry out a contract that one party doesn’t want. I’m doing my best to argue this in good faith. I find it disappointing that you find it so easy to be rude while debating the issue. It’s true that it is a far more personal matter to you, so I apologise if anything I say comes across as a direct attack. It certainly isn’t meant to be. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2013, 10:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/166 "2013-12-10T10:47:09Z")
> [@bldysabba](#): > > I think the shorter and supposedly easier fight is tougher for everyone involved in the long run. Politicising the issue by taking it to the realm of government enforcing affirmative discrimination just creates and deepens fault lines in society which would be easier to get past if neither side was forcing the other to do things they don’t want to. History demonstrates that to be false. The “long fight” isn’t a fight at all, it’s surrender. Without the force of government to keep the bigots from doing as they please there will be no progress of significance, ever. It’s the passage of civil rights _laws,_ backed by government _force_ that leads to progress. > [@bldysabba](#): > > Just like the matter of who someone can rent their house to or who they cannot. So yes, if someone doesn’t want to rent their house to you, I think that is their decision. I think both you and the landlord would be better off not being forced to carry out a contract that one party doesn’t want. So you want bigots to be able to drive people into homelessness under the theory that it’s _good_ for them? :rolleyes: And why should we care if the bigots are “better off”? That’s a negative, not a positive. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2013, 10:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/167 "2013-12-10T10:57:24Z")
> [@bldysabba](#): > > I think the shorter and supposedly easier fight is tougher for everyone involved in the long run. Politicising the issue by taking it to the realm of government enforcing affirmative discrimination just creates and deepens fault lines in society which would be easier to get past if neither side was forcing the other to do things they don’t want to. Just to be clear, you’re arguing that race relations in America would currently be better if the Civil Rights Act had never been passed? > [@](#): > > I have personally campaigned for gay rights in India, where I’m from. We won a significant victory against legal discrimination there, and to be a homosexual is no longer a crime in India. Small steps, but right ones. Steps we wouldn’t have needed if the government wasn’t so used to legislating what wasn’t its business in the first place. Yeah, that’s pretty much nonsense. Forty years ago, the US overturned it’s own laws against homosexuality. Turns out, that wasn’t enough to end discrimination against homosexuals in the US. It’s taken four decades of hard, bitter, fighting just to carve out enough protections in the US for gay people to live openly (in some states) without having to live in fear. The idea that these protections are actually worse than just allowing people to discriminate freely is both fundamentally offensive, and directly contrary to the history of civil rights movements in this country. > [@](#): > > Just like the matter of who someone can rent their house to or who they cannot. So yes, if someone doesn’t want to rent their house to you, I think that is their decision. I think both you and the landlord would be better off not being forced to carry out a contract that one party doesn’t want. How, exactly, am I better off in that situation? Or, more generally, how am I hurt by the concept that people cannot discriminate in public accommodations? I mean, when it comes to the First Amendment, I can very easily see why I wouldn’t want to be able to shut down homophobic speech, because by that same principle, they could just as easily shut down pro-gay rights speech. But on this issue, I don’t see the double edge. If homophobes are prohibited from refusing to serve me because I’m gay, that means… what, exactly? That I’m prohibited from refusing them service because they’re homophobes? I’m actually pretty much okay with that. > [@](#): > > I’m doing my best to argue this in good faith. I find it disappointing that you find it so easy to be rude while debating the issue. It’s true that it is a far more personal matter to you, so I apologise if anything I say comes across as a direct attack. It certainly isn’t meant to be. I recognize that you weren’t intending to attack me directly. At the same time, the idea that I should simply submit to being discriminated against because it’s “better for the country” in some obscure and ill-defined fashion, is inherently offensive. I’m not going to apologize for expressing that offense. At the same time, I should be aware that this is an international board, and that I should not reply to every poster as if they’re responding from an American context. I appreciate that you’ve worked towards legal equality for gays in your home country, and on some level, it is unfair for me to judge your responses in this thread by the same criteria by which I’d judge someone who had lived through the subsequent half century of progress on this issue in the US. Certainly, I would laud someone in 1960’s America who took your position on gay rights. At the same time, you should, perhaps, recognize that you’ve inserted yourself into a discussion of a very specifically _American_ legal question, and should not be surprised if you find your opinions judged from an American context, in which the subject of gay rights is about thirty years farther down the road than where you are in India. In particular, in the US, the idea that the government should simply be neutral on the subject of gay rights, is generally held by people who, ten years ago, would have been arguing vociferously against any kind of recognition of gay rights at all. Which, I suppose, is a bit of a round-about way of me saying, “Don’t be surprised if you find yourself arguing precisely my position around about 2030 or so.” The Overton Window is a harsh mistress. You may find, as the idea of “Don’t be a dick to gay people,” gains more popular support in your own country, the concept of affirmative legal protections for gay people makes a lot more sense to you. (I’m also about half-way through a bottle of pretty decent whiskey right now, and violating my personal rule against posting when I’m this drunk, so if I come back tomorrow and repudiate everything I’ve just said, don’t hold it against me.) ---
**Author:** ![JKellyMap](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jkellymap/32/15880_2.png) [@JKellyMap](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JKellyMap)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2013, 11:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/168 "2013-12-10T11:42:24Z")
Fantastic post, Miller. You’ll find no reason to repudiate a word. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2013, 12:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/169 "2013-12-10T12:14:27Z")
> [@JKellyMap](#): > > Fantastic post, Miller. You’ll find no reason to repudiate a word. Agreed. That post was freaking awesome! ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2013, 1:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/170 "2013-12-10T13:57:53Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > Agreed. That post was freaking awesome! At the same time, it felt like a lot of things were happening simultaneously at the same time in it at the same time. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2013, 2:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/171 "2013-12-10T14:18:22Z")
[QUOTE=bldysabba] But of course it is the worst form of discrimination because the government is doing it. How can that even be in doubt? There is no recourse there, no option. [/quote] > [@bldysabba](#): > > I have personally campaigned for gay rights in India, where I’m from. We won a significant victory against legal discrimination there, and to be a homosexual is no longer a crime in India. Your posts are contradictory. You say that there is no recourse against government discrimination, and you state that by lobbying efforts, you have helped to end government discrimination. ---
**Author:** ![Lamia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Lamia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lamia)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2013, 2:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/172 "2013-12-10T14:54:07Z")
> [@bldysabba](#): > > Support for gay marriage is at greater than 50% among the American populace and it still hasn’t come to pass. What hasn’t come to pass? Same-sex marriage is recognized by the US federal government. Most US states still do not allow or recognize same-sex marriage, but these laws are made at the state level and supporters of same-sex marriage are not evenly distributed throughout every state. I suspect that in states that do not recognize same-sex marriage, support for same-sex marriage tends to be at less than 50%. FWIW I’m all in favor of getting rid of same-sex marriage bans now rather than waiting for the general public to come around, but I think it’s misleading to claim that the law is lagging far behind public opinion here. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2013, 3:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/173 "2013-12-10T15:12:26Z")
> [@bldysabba](#): > > Because it doesn’t involve force, and it leaves out an instrument that is blunt, slow to change and distortionary. _So what_ if it’s distortionary? This argument is only tangientially related to economics. Having a standing army distorts the market for tanks, too. Does that mean we should get rid of the army? No - we have an army for non-economic reasons. ---
**Author:** ![bldysabba](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ecccb3/32.png) [@bldysabba](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bldysabba)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2013, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/174 "2013-12-10T15:34:15Z")
> [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > Your posts are contradictory. You say that there is no recourse against government discrimination, and you state that by lobbying efforts, you have helped to end government discrimination. 200 years after discrimination was enshrined in law, yes a recourse showed up. ---
**Author:** ![bldysabba](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ecccb3/32.png) [@bldysabba](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bldysabba)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2013, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/175 "2013-12-10T15:48:38Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > _So what_ if it’s distortionary? This argument is only tangientially related to economics. Having a standing army distorts the market for tanks, too. Does that mean we should get rid of the army? No - we have an army for non-economic reasons. An army is perfectly compatible with economics, and in fact fits very well within the ‘public goods’ framework. These are precisely defined as goods the effect of which nobody can reasonably be excluded from and where use does not diminish availability. If you’ve heard of the ‘tragedy of the commons’, then public goods are the ‘commons’ that is being referred to. National defence, law and order, vaccination, sanitation, pollution are great examples of public goods and great examples of areas where government MUST be involved to ensure optimal outcomes. Voluntary transactions between private parties that do not have externalities? (buying and selling cake, wedding photographs). Not public goods. Once again, I’m extremely sympathetic to the equal treatment of everyone by law and government. I’m also extremely sympathetic to the idea that everyone in society too should treat people with due respect as individuals, regardless of the ‘category’ they belong to. But I do not agree that we must force people to do this. (ETA: Nor do I say that we should leave well enough alone, and let bigots be bigots. Those of us that care should actively work to reduce bigotry. I just think that the lever of law is not a good one to use) Too much of forcing some people to do things that some other people agree is right and proper at the time has been wrong for most of history. I would rather keep the forcing to a minimum. The minimum is very easily defined too. Wherever actions have an externality, the use of force is justified. I see no externality in the situation outlined here. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2013, 3:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/176 "2013-12-10T15:52:58Z")
Limiting the access of certain groups of consumers to the market _is_ an externality. ---
**Author:** ![Karrius](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/71c47a/32.png) [@Karrius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Karrius)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2013, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/177 "2013-12-10T16:03:12Z")
bldysabba, is there a reason why you’re ignoring my posts which basically point out how denying someone services is a use of force in some situations? Making it so somebody doesn’t have a home to live in, a job to work at, or food to eat just because you don’t like the color of their skin or their sexuality seems to be a pretty strong oppression, in my mind. ---
**Author:** ![bldysabba](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ecccb3/32.png) [@bldysabba](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bldysabba)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2013, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/178 "2013-12-10T16:35:19Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Limiting the access of certain groups of consumers to the market _is_ an externality. If someone were institutionally denying a certain group of consumers access to the market, I would perhaps agree with you. ---
**Author:** ![bldysabba](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ecccb3/32.png) [@bldysabba](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bldysabba)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2013, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/179 "2013-12-10T16:36:32Z")
> [@Karrius](#): > > bldysabba, is there a reason why you’re ignoring my posts which basically point out how denying someone services is a use of force in some situations? Making it so somebody doesn’t have a home to live in, a job to work at, or food to eat just because you don’t like the color of their skin or their sexuality seems to be a pretty strong oppression, in my mind. No I’m not ignoring your posts, and even Miller deserves more of a response, I have a huge flood of work, I promise to consider your posts and respond. ---
**Author:** ![Karrius](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/71c47a/32.png) [@Karrius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Karrius)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2013, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/180 "2013-12-10T16:43:06Z")
Fair enough, my apologies. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792.md?page=10)