Is the US doomed to authoritarianism?

Icewolf

Est. Contributor
Messages
335
Age
34
Role
Babyfur, Carer
This is true, but those two aren’t equivalent scenarios.
Agreed, once you get down to the details. However, both cited religious/moral principles as their reason for refusing. It just comes down to how much one wants to ignore to try and make their point or disprove the argument of another. Sorry for nitpicking, but far too many just see the larger picture, in this case refusing based on views, which leads to laws that are too broad and can be exploited by either side.
The first is entirely about the product, but the second one has to do in part because of the customer.
Which is why some, like me, would still make the product. The part we have issues with might not be "obscene" to everyone but should we be forced to do that step ourselves if it, or we feel it, violates our beliefs/morals/views?

Thank you Caterpiller for providing a better way to discuss the issue without getting bogged down in some things.
 
Last edited:

CaterpillarSick

Est. Contributor
Messages
330
Age
23
Role
Adult Baby, Diaper Lover, Little
( the US is not a democracy - it's a republic
The US is a democratic republic. A democracy just means we vote for our leaders. A republic means we select representatives to make our laws. It’s not incorrect to refer to the US as a democracy.

From Wikipedia: The United States is a federal republic and a representative democracy.
 
Last edited:

Icewolf

Est. Contributor
Messages
335
Age
34
Role
Babyfur, Carer
The US is a democratic republic. A democracy just means we vote for our leaders. A republic means we select representatives to make our laws. It’s not incorrect to refer to the US as a democracy.

From Wikipedia: The United States is a federal republic and a representative democracy.
And it is from both those words, republic and democracy, we get the party names of Republican and Democrat.
 

CutePrincess

Est. Contributor
Messages
1,877
Role
Adult Baby, Diaper Lover, Little
reading all your arguments sorry but it's like the blind leading the blind. How about wondering why the dem party hasn't done anything for anyone they claim to represent and got voted in by because all their energy has gone into trump hate. For the country as a whole you can't argue with the stats as to how things have improved for most people, the military, business opportunity not to mention deregulation. A for the cake business, it is a private business and as a lot of the places I'm sure you have been to 'reserve the right not to serve' if they lose or gain customers by that then that's their gamble. It all sounds a little hysterical ( not in the funny way) to me
Oh i can explain why easily, go see Mitch blockade. Now who is "blind leading the blind"? sounds like you are part of that problem
 

CutePrincess

Est. Contributor
Messages
1,877
Role
Adult Baby, Diaper Lover, Little
Thank you, this is my attitude, times change, those that refuse to change will be swept away by public opinion and history, those that try to change might make it or they might not. But it should be their choice.
Like it or not, our laws in place in a long time says otherwise. That statment is a very slipperly slope as you can use that logic to ague you do not have to serve someone being black and what not.

For the rest, no, with the quotes I shown you, a true christan is not supposed to deny service like that. I went to a private school, and those quotes along with other stories really explain you are not supposed to do it. So you are basically being hypocritical, volating your faith saying you are not doing something else because that something else violates your faith. EVERY "Chirstan" baker and other arguments like it are violating "Christian faith" in acting like that, and this leaves out the legal argument outside religion. This is why these stories really annoy me in general. You can't make up your own rules because you personally do not like something, because some extreme view of the bible. (the bible does contradict itself, making this messy in general so =/ this is why interpretation arguments happen over it.)

That article i linked is only part of the story. THEY really abused and harassed that couple, and the damages they sued for from it threw them rightfully out of business. A religion argument has no bases for a defense in acting like that. That was just something quick I found on it to show yo, the full story is a HUGE mess.

I still think you try too hard for a center, this is one instance it simply does not exist. One hand you have to follow laws that where in place for a long time. The only reason this problem is recent is because people feel enabled from extreme right wing and want to challenge the institution. I am sure they are WELL aware it will not go well in their favor, but do so for drama purposes.

as for the anti gay cake, i am sure there is hate speech regulations protecting denial of that.
 

Icewolf

Est. Contributor
Messages
335
Age
34
Role
Babyfur, Carer
I still think you try too hard for a center, this is one instance it simply does not exist.
If not the center, I at least side with the courts, and everything I have seen regarding cases like this pretty much say the same thing: One can't deny a service to others based on race, orientation, gender, etc, You are right though, it is a big mess, but let me ask you this: If one makes the cake, and sells what is needed to the customer so they can decorate it as they like, would you say they were discriminating?

Maybe the center exists for some, like me, because we see the issue as between 3 results:
1) the baker is forced to make the cake, decorations and all, even if it does not sit well with them
2) The baker does not deny the service to the customer, but makes it about the product (the what, not the who) but only to the point the customer might not get a product the way they want it without some work themselves
3) the baker denies the service based on who it is for, I.E. the gay couple pretty much enters the business and gets told "we don't serve your kind here"
 
Last edited:

cantthinkofaname

Contributor
Messages
68
Role
Adult Baby, Diaper Lover, Little
That article i linked is only part of the story. THEY really abused and harassed that couple, and the damages they sued for from it threw them rightfully out of business. A religion argument has no bases for a defense in acting like that. That was just something quick I found on it to show yo, the full story is a HUGE mess.
There are serious religious objections there, gay marriage is viewed as a sin, and people who object do so because they feel they are taking part in that sin, thereby putting their souls in peril, it's not about judging someone else, it's about yourself. It's not the governments job to clamp down on people who you disagree with, or "throw them out of business". I'm pretty libertarian on this kinda thing. If you don't want to serve somebody for some reason, dumb or reasonable, you should be able to because nobody is entitled to the product of your labor. If you do, there are consequences, and in some instances there should be, but they come from fellow citizens who choose not to shop at your business, it shouldn't come from the government. That business will not be as profitable as they could be, they are accepting that, that's on them. At the end of the day, the constitution was never meant to restrain the citizens, it's there to restrain the government. And look, if I owned a bakery, I'd bake the cake, but others wouldn't, that's their decision, not yours, not mine, and it definitely should not be the governments.

as for the anti gay cake, i am sure there is hate speech regulations protecting denial of that.
And as for hate speech regulations/laws, literally no such thing, if there were, there would be no first amendment
 
Last edited:

Icewolf

Est. Contributor
Messages
335
Age
34
Role
Babyfur, Carer
And look, if I owned a bakery, I'd bake the cake, but others wouldn't, that's their decision, not yours, not mine, and it definitely should not be the governments.
Actually, if the one asking a baker to bake the cake is a "protected class" they would have to bake the cake. but there is no law, yet, that says they have to decorate the cake the way the customer wants it, especially if they are still willing to sell what is needed for said decoration to the customer. If the base service, baking the cake, is still being provided then it meets the current regulations.
 

cantthinkofaname

Contributor
Messages
68
Role
Adult Baby, Diaper Lover, Little
Actually, if the one asking a baker to bake the cake is a "protected class" they would have to bake the cake. but there is no law, yet, that says they have to decorate the cake the way the customer wants it, especially if they are still willing to sell what is needed for said decoration to the customer. If the base service, baking the cake, is still being provided then it meets the current regulations.
I was merely saying if it would me, I'd have no problem, I wouldn't refuse. And I'd have no problem if someone refused, it's their choice, they are under no obligation legally to provide services to anyone.
 
Last edited:

CutePrincess

Est. Contributor
Messages
1,877
Role
Adult Baby, Diaper Lover, Little
If not the center, I at least side with the courts, and everything I have seen regarding cases like this pretty much say the same thing: One can't deny a service to others based on race, orientation, gender, etc, You are right though, it is a big mess, but let me ask you this: If one makes the cake, and sells what is needed to the customer so they can decorate it as they like, would you say they were discriminating?
That, as far as laws are concerned, I do not know. For my personal view, I do not know either I need think about it. This sounds like it sounds good on the surface, but missing the bigger part under the water like only viewing the tip of the iceberg.

When I say it was a mess, I am not talking about the cases in general. That specific one I linked is worse then most of them. They sent letters and flat out harassment to the couple (I forgot all the "smaller" stuff [note the quotes please]) the big one however was that cake couple causing interference of the kid they where trying to adopt. When I say they where rightfully sued out of business, there is a set of extreme circumstances for there to exist for me say something like that. On that specific case I got ZERO sympathy for those 2 particular business owners. I would go even further and say jail them over it. It was not funny at all.

1. As i was proving, it is more of a personal issue, not religion. So with this view, we need to take what is allowed a business owner to do. You are forced to serve clean food, you are forced to follow sanitation regulations, you are forced to follow nondiscriminatory regulations and so on. with this one you have here, I can ague I do not feel conformable serving blacks, or x race, etc and when we go that route people tend to see ok this was wrong to think along these lines.
2. This has to be done in the way the business is not made to make xxx, i/e like trying to order a computer from a bakery. its .... depends on case with this and depends how they advertise the business to begin with. For example, I can see an argument if the business strictly said christian theme baked cakes and privatized weddings along those lines. But a generic bakery has no grounds for such things. What the business owner's religion is should not be refecting the bisness itself, just like separation of church and state, personal =/= business.
3. violates our current laws.
 

CaterpillarSick

Est. Contributor
Messages
330
Age
23
Role
Adult Baby, Diaper Lover, Little
There are serious religious objections there, gay marriage is viewed as a sin, and people who object do so because they feel they are taking part in that sin, thereby putting their souls in peril, it's not about judging someone else, it's about yourself.
This is a rather weak argument. The act involved is the baking of a cake which wouldn’t be a sin. Regardless, those same arguments have been used to justify racism, miscegenation, and slavery.
And as for hate speech regulations/laws, literally no such thing, if there were, there would be no first amendment
This is categorically false. The Supreme Court has continuously ruled that not all speech is protected by the First Amendment. One of the most well detailed exemptions to the first amendment is commercial speech.

Note: Let’s try not to get into discussions about corporate personhood. That’s a diversion that needs to be it’s own thread.
 

Icewolf

Est. Contributor
Messages
335
Age
34
Role
Babyfur, Carer
For my personal view, I do not know either I need think about it.
This is all I ask, I am just trying to reach a consensus with you as usual Princess. I thank you for being honest, and stating that you do not know even from a personal view.
 

CutePrincess

Est. Contributor
Messages
1,877
Role
Adult Baby, Diaper Lover, Little
There are serious religious objections there, gay marriage is viewed as a sin, and people who object do so because they feel they are taking part in that sin, thereby putting their souls in peril, it's not about judging someone else, it's about yourself. It's not the governments job to clamp down on people who you disagree with, or "throw them out of business". I'm pretty libertarian on this kinda thing. If you don't want to serve somebody for some reason, dumb or reasonable, you should be able to because nobody is entitled to the product of your labor. If you do, there are consequences, and in some instances there should be, but they come from fellow citizens who choose not to shop at your business, it shouldn't come from the government. That business will not be as profitable as they could be, they are accepting that, that's on them. At the end of the day, the constitution was never meant to restrain the citizens, it's there to restrain the government. And look, if I owned a bakery, I'd bake the cake, but others wouldn't, that's their decision, not yours, not mine, and it definitely should not be the governments.



And as for hate speech regulations/laws, literally no such thing, if there were, there would be no first amendment
First, I explained why this is not true, as I said, I went to a private school that strongly would argue otherwise. This line of thinking is from extreme brainwashing. This is why I said before it is to stir up drama. When you have an extreme view of something, you tend to speak loudly to get a point across. That is how I see this situation. Because how I was taught, not serving them does put their soul in jeopardy, as you are not supposed to be acting like that.

As for the second.. OHhhhhhhhh nononono you are greatly misinformed. The first amendment is not unlimited, you can very well go to jail for stepping too far. You can be sued for damages for stepping too far.
In light of some research though, the theoretical volition I thought might exist does not under current law, so i retract that specific claim. But again I need to remind you, the first amendment is not completely unlimited and does have regulations, just not "hate speech" in specific. If it crosses the line of slander and deformation and causes harm because of it, then it does become legally prosecuted. logically a simple anti-gay cake does not cross this but there is a potential area where someone can ask for some extreme message that most likely can be legally refused.

I was only saying the hate speech thing in specific since first amendment is not a defense when you get fired over it and overall drama around areas like it.
 
Last edited:

cantthinkofaname

Contributor
Messages
68
Role
Adult Baby, Diaper Lover, Little
This is a rather weak argument. The act involved is the baking of a cake which wouldn’t be a sin. Regardless, those same arguments have been used to justify racism, miscegenation, and slavery.
Some view it that way, I don't agree, but I'm not for forcing them to bake the cake, and neither should the government force them, it's a personal decision for them to make. Again, no one is entitled to the product of someone else's labor, because to say you are is basically slavery and it doesn't suddenly become ok because you pointed a gun to their head and gave them some money when they complied... as for that second sentence, this is in no way comparable to slavery or miscegentation, which was government discriminating and using religion to justify it, I'm talking about individuals, not the government. As I said, the constitution is there to restrain the government, no one else. In some cases, the refusal may be racist, but being a racist isn't illegal nor is saying racist things. I don't agree with those things, I won't say them and I certainly won't defend them, but I will defend someones right to say them.


This is categorically false. The Supreme Court has continuously ruled that not all speech is protected by the First Amendment. One of the most well detailed exemptions to the first amendment is commercial speech.
Yes but commercial speech isn't comparable to hate speech laws, and I think the courts have gotten it wrong when it comes to restrictions on commercial speech. I think the point you were trying to make is there are some restrictions on the first amendment currently? I don't agree with that, again, I think the courts have that wrong. As I said earlier, the constitution is meant to reign in the government, not you or a company.
 

CutePrincess

Est. Contributor
Messages
1,877
Role
Adult Baby, Diaper Lover, Little
Some view it that way, I don't agree, but I'm not for forcing them to bake the cake, and neither should the government force them, it's a personal decision for them to make. Again, no one is entitled to the product of someone else's labor, because to say you are is basically slavery and it doesn't suddenly become ok because you pointed a gun to their head and gave them some money when they complied... as for that second sentence, this is in no way comparable to slavery or miscegentation, which was government discriminating and using religion to justify it, I'm talking about individuals, not the government. As I said, the constitution is there to restrain the government, no one else. In some cases, the refusal may be racist, but being a racist isn't illegal nor is saying racist things. I don't agree with those things, I won't say them and I certainly won't defend them, but I will defend someones right to say them.




Yes but commercial speech isn't comparable to hate speech laws, and I think the courts have gotten it wrong when it comes to restrictions on commercial speech. I think the point you were trying to make is there are some restrictions on the first amendment currently? I don't agree with that, again, I think the courts have that wrong. As I said earlier, the constitution is meant to reign in the government, not you or a company.
So you are saying you disagree with how the government enforced the constitution for the last 50 years or so? yeah I don't think are we going to see eye to eye here. There is lots of lawsuits that suggest you should look deeper on this issue.

Do you truely understand what it is like to be a business owner and how many regulations you need to follow? more so if you deal with food. Sorry but a statment like that sounds like it comes from not knowing how things work in the resterant businsses. I have first hands on experience with such things.
 

Icewolf

Est. Contributor
Messages
335
Age
34
Role
Babyfur, Carer
a simple anti-gay cake does not cross this but there is a potential area where someone can ask for some extreme message that most likely can be legally refused.
Just for reference, here is a story on a particular anti-gay cake that was refused:https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2015/01/22/this-colorado-baker-refused-to-put-an-anti-gay-message-on-cakes-now-she-is-facing-a-civil-rights-complaint/ this is the same case I have been referencing in previous posts, when I brought up a baker that tried to accommodate her customer but was uneasy about writing what the customer wanted on the cake.
 
Last edited:

cantthinkofaname

Contributor
Messages
68
Role
Adult Baby, Diaper Lover, Little
So you are saying you disagree with how the government enforced the constitution for the last 50 years or so? yeah I don't think are we going to see eye to eye here. There is lots of lawsuits that suggest you should look deeper on this issue.
Without getting into specifics, and not being overly broad about this answer, but ya, on a fair amount.

Do you truely understand what it is like to be a business owner and how many regulations you need to follow? more so if you deal with food. Sorry but a statment like that sounds like it comes from not knowing how things work in the resterant businsses. I have first hands on experience with such things.
I did too, I'm well aware. But I think you are mostly talking about building codes, safety regulations, health code reasons, none of which is really governed by free speech or religious liberty areas.
 

cantthinkofaname

Contributor
Messages
68
Role
Adult Baby, Diaper Lover, Little
Just for reference, here is a story on a particular anti-gay cake that was refused:https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2015/01/22/this-colorado-baker-refused-to-put-an-anti-gay-message-on-cakes-now-she-is-facing-a-civil-rights-complaint/ this is the same case I have been referencing in previous posts, when I brought up a baker that tried to accommodate her customer nut was uneasy about writing what the customer wanted on the cake.
This is a good example of why it is bad to force the religious person to bake the cake. It can be used against you as well.
 

Icewolf

Est. Contributor
Messages
335
Age
34
Role
Babyfur, Carer
This is a good example of why it is bad to force the religious person to bake the cake. It can be used against you as well.
However, the one that had the case brought against her this time would have still baked the cake, I'd say it is a good reason why the question of "where do rights for people, including business owners, begin and end".
 
Top