Is the US doomed to authoritarianism?

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
I see I may misunderstood, but mind i chime in with an extreme view here on why your view is not correct in the eyes of the law? consider:
Exceptions to the Right to Refuse Treatment

In instances of an emergency situation, informed consent may be bypassed if immediate treatment is necessary for the patient's life or safety.1

In addition, there are some patients who do not have the legal ability to say no to treatment. Most of these patients cannot refuse medical treatment, even if it is a non-life-threatening illness or injury.

  • Altered mental status: Patients may not have the right to refuse treatment if they have an altered mental status due to alcohol and drugs, brain injury, or psychiatric illness.2
  • Children: A parent or guardian cannot refuse life-sustaining treatment or deny medical care from a child. This includes those with religious beliefs that discourage certain medical treatments. Parents cannot invoke their right to religious freedom to refuse treatment for a child.3
  • A threat to the community: A patient's refusal of medical treatment cannot pose a threat to the community. Communicable diseases, for instance, would require treatment or isolation to prevent the spread to the general public. A mentally ill patient is another example of a patient that cannot refuse treatment if the person poses a physical threat to himself or others.
interesting how Michigan law allows it though ....
Interesting I thought discriminatory practices was basically against the law of everything, no wonder extreme right wing are pushing boundaries, cuz holes like this exists.

Wolf I spend a lot of time on my posts, I need to sleep, I will get back on that anti cake thing, as you may of seen I retracted something in this area though.
 

cantthinkofaname

Contributor
Messages
68
Role
Adult Baby, Diaper Lover, Little
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".
Yes, she was willing to bake the cake, I probably should have been more specific as this case had to do with decorating the cake. I was using bake the cake in a general provide the service sense. I'll amend my statement to say it's a good example of why it is bad to force the religious person to provide services. It can be used against you as well.
 

cantthinkofaname

Contributor
Messages
68
Role
Adult Baby, Diaper Lover, Little
Wolf I spend a lot of time on my posts, I need to sleep, I will get back on that anti cake thing, as you may of seen I retracted something in this area though.
Ya, I should get some sleep too lol. I'll read up on those articles sometime tomorrow, maybe during lunch or something, I'll get back to ya, promise.
 

CutePrincess

Est. Contributor
Messages
1,877
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 but was uneasy about writing what the customer wanted on the cake.
after researching and now that I think about other "Christian baker" cases. This is my conclusion. You can reject service if for some reason the request of the product itself is the issue. (like I said earlier on the lines of, if the business flat out says if cakes are supposed to be Christian themed, then the complainer does not have much room to stand on) The rejection has to be about the product itself. So this idea of half way seems sound because of this (like making it but rejecting putting the message on it)

The problem with a lot of Christian baker cases, like the one I was referencing, was refusing service on the bases making a cake for a gay couple. With mine, originally they where going to take the order till it was found out it was a lesbian couple, and from there the harassment started with the letters, not baking the cake, and impeding in the adoption.

So to an extent there is this idea, let businesses chose what they serve, unless it is discriminatory to the person making the request. (like bad idea for me say I will not make a cake for you because you are a gay couple, black, etc) A lot of "Christian baker" cases fall under this.
 
Last edited:

cantthinkofaname

Contributor
Messages
68
Role
Adult Baby, Diaper Lover, Little
I see I may misunderstood, but mind i chime in with an extreme view here on why your view is not correct in the eyes of the law? consider:

interesting how Michigan law allows it though ....
Interesting I thought discriminatory practices was basically against the law of everything, no wonder extreme right wing are pushing boundaries, cuz holes like this exists.

Wolf I spend a lot of time on my posts, I need to sleep, I will get back on that anti cake thing, as you may of seen I retracted something in this area though.
Ok, so I get the reason you include the second article, but with the first one, right to refuse medical treatment, I'm a bit confused on that one. What is the argument you are making there? Just not sure why you picked a person can't refuse treatment under certain conditions, strikes me as the opposite of refusing someone service.
 

CutePrincess

Est. Contributor
Messages
1,877
Role
Adult Baby, Diaper Lover, Little
Ok, so I get the reason you include the second article, but with the first one, right to refuse medical treatment, I'm a bit confused on that one. What is the argument you are making there? Just not sure why you picked a person can't refuse treatment under certain conditions, strikes me as the opposite of refusing someone service.
Because people try reject treatment on religious grounds be it for themselves or a child they are parenting and this shows you are not allowed? against the law? to do that. You also may want to look at my past post as the answer to this was leading up to a conclusion I shifted a bit on. Regardless the point there was to refelct on the limitations of "religious freedom" as some people act it is unlimited and think they can use it as an excuse to refuse service to people.
 
Last edited:

cantthinkofaname

Contributor
Messages
68
Role
Adult Baby, Diaper Lover, Little
Because people try reject treatment on relgious grounds be it for themselvs or a child they are parenting and this shows you are not allowed? against the law? to do that. You also may want to look at my past post as the answer to this was leading up to a conclusion I shifted a bit on.
oh ok, so you are talking specifically about the religious liberty issue here then and the fact that it factors in?
 
Last edited:

Icewolf

Est. Contributor
Messages
335
Age
34
Role
Babyfur, Carer
This is my conclusion. You can reject service if for some reason the request of the product itself is the issue.
Then it seems we are on the same page, or at least close enough. Thank you CutePrincess for at least thinking about the issue and seeing where some might come from when we take it on a case by case basis. Truthfully I'd rather just see the "let businesses choose what they serve, unless it is discriminatory to the one making the request" made into law.
 

cantthinkofaname

Contributor
Messages
68
Role
Adult Baby, Diaper Lover, Little
ok, just wanted to be clear on that. So, the right to refuse medical treatment, it's actually a REALLY complicated thing. I don't want to get into details or anything, don't like that, but I have a family member who is mentally ill and the circumstances under which they can still refuse medical treatment are absolutely incredible, so this may not be the best example for me.

I think I'll talk about this with regards to perhaps anti vax? Cases where there is a split second decision and refusal of treatment are so complex it's basically by a case by case basis, and many of them boil down to judgement calls at the time it occurs. So what that will really boil down to is we are talking about actual health and safety of a kid or other incapacitated person. So, legally you can't just create a religion and say, "My religion requires I sacrifice a blond every full moon.". It's you doing something at someone else's expense that is so drastic it of course it arises to an actual public health issue and you can't legally do it, and shouldn't be able to do it obviously. So let's take it to another point, one of the anti-vaxxers, which can also rise to a public health issue. When you think about the whole anti vax movement and everything, I'm ok with parents deciding not to vaccinate their kids actually under the right circumstances, whether it be for religious grounds or because they think it could cause cancer later. HOWEVER... and this is the but, that exposes an actual health issue when it comes to those kids going to public schools because there are ramifications for those who have been vaccinated being in contact with kids who haven't. So, I realize this is something that is starting to pop up, laws are starting to get enacted, so you know where I stand now on what the standard should be, because these are cases that will be litigated and who knows how they will turn out. There have been laws passed to say kids without vaccines can't attend schools, which I think is correct and it should be like that, you have the ability to choose how to raise your child and it's not the governments place to tell you how to raise your kid. (That right there could be a whole other topic, with lots of examples so probably best to stick to this for now maybe) I do however think laws that require you to vaccinate your kid, or get them yourself really, are an overreach, and there is alot of debate about that and good legal arguments about that right now for both sides, definitely something I'll be paying attention to. All that being said, when it comes to me, I think the antivax movement is incredibly dumb, there's a lot of misinformation about it and I would tell anyone, VACCINATE YOUR CHILD OR POLIO WILL BECOME A THING AGAIN! I just think the thing that actually works best when getting people to change their minds is actually giving them what they want, as opposed to the government coming in and trying to fix the problem, it tends to be counter productive and produce most resistance.

As for that case where the doctor refused to treat the kid... That is something that sounded truly awful. So, looking at what the doctor actually gave for a reason, I do think doctors should be able to refuse to be the one to treat just because of what it can lead to. For example, there have been cases where doctors or nurses are told they HAVE to participate in an abortion. For me, that is murder, I would never take part in an abortion at all, ever, and I will fiercely defend someone refusing to do so. The whole reason I am ok with the doctor not wanting to treat the kid, is because of where it leads to, because that standard will be used to justify forcing people to do an abortion. I think the doctor should have treated the kid, I would have, even though I believe gay marriage is a sin. For me, I don't see it as someone imposing that lifestyle on me or me being a part of the marriage. I didn't see the doctor giving any reason at first, just a refusal, which I think you have the right to do, (in my view to many people confuse the what you can do with what you should do) I find it interesting that months later the couple actually got a note or letter explaining, it obviously seems to have been for religious reasons, due to the "After much prayer" bit. I do find that reason she gave a little compelling, perhaps she really thought she wouldn't be able to give the best care because of it, and if a doctor doesn't think the care they will provide will be the best they should have someone else step in. Overall, I don't like personally how the doctor handled it, it should have been handled much better.
 

CaterpillarSick

Est. Contributor
Messages
330
Age
23
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 but was uneasy about writing what the customer wanted on the cake.
This was the outcome: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/04/04/colorado-bakery-that-refused-to-bake-anti-gay-cakes-did-not-discriminate-state-agency-says/
 

CutePrincess

Est. Contributor
Messages
1,877
Role
Adult Baby, Diaper Lover, Little
yeah i shown that too explaining a refined view of mine, speaking of...
ok, just wanted to be clear on that. So, the right to refuse medical treatment, it's actually a REALLY complicated thing. I don't want to get into details or anything, don't like that, but I have a family member who is mentally ill and the circumstances under which they can still refuse medical treatment are absolutely incredible, so this may not be the best example for me.

I think I'll talk about this with regards to perhaps anti vax? Cases where there is a split second decision and refusal of treatment are so complex it's basically by a case by case basis, and many of them boil down to judgement calls at the time it occurs. So what that will really boil down to is we are talking about actual health and safety of a kid or other incapacitated person. So, legally you can't just create a religion and say, "My religion requires I sacrifice a blond every full moon.". It's you doing something at someone else's expense that is so drastic it of course it arises to an actual public health issue and you can't legally do it, and shouldn't be able to do it obviously. So let's take it to another point, one of the anti-vaxxers, which can also rise to a public health issue. When you think about the whole anti vax movement and everything, I'm ok with parents deciding not to vaccinate their kids actually under the right circumstances, whether it be for religious grounds or because they think it could cause cancer later. HOWEVER... and this is the but, that exposes an actual health issue when it comes to those kids going to public schools because there are ramifications for those who have been vaccinated being in contact with kids who haven't. So, I realize this is something that is starting to pop up, laws are starting to get enacted, so you know where I stand now on what the standard should be, because these are cases that will be litigated and who knows how they will turn out. There have been laws passed to say kids without vaccines can't attend schools, which I think is correct and it should be like that, you have the ability to choose how to raise your child and it's not the governments place to tell you how to raise your kid. (That right there could be a whole other topic, with lots of examples so probably best to stick to this for now maybe) I do however think laws that require you to vaccinate your kid, or get them yourself really, are an overreach, and there is alot of debate about that and good legal arguments about that right now for both sides, definitely something I'll be paying attention to. All that being said, when it comes to me, I think the antivax movement is incredibly dumb, there's a lot of misinformation about it and I would tell anyone, VACCINATE YOUR CHILD OR POLIO WILL BECOME A THING AGAIN! I just think the thing that actually works best when getting people to change their minds is actually giving them what they want, as opposed to the government coming in and trying to fix the problem, it tends to be counter productive and produce most resistance.

As for that case where the doctor refused to treat the kid... That is something that sounded truly awful. So, looking at what the doctor actually gave for a reason, I do think doctors should be able to refuse to be the one to treat just because of what it can lead to. For example, there have been cases where doctors or nurses are told they HAVE to participate in an abortion. For me, that is murder, I would never take part in an abortion at all, ever, and I will fiercely defend someone refusing to do so. The whole reason I am ok with the doctor not wanting to treat the kid, is because of where it leads to, because that standard will be used to justify forcing people to do an abortion. I think the doctor should have treated the kid, I would have, even though I believe gay marriage is a sin. For me, I don't see it as someone imposing that lifestyle on me or me being a part of the marriage. I didn't see the doctor giving any reason at first, just a refusal, which I think you have the right to do, (in my view to many people confuse the what you can do with what you should do) I find it interesting that months later the couple actually got a note or letter explaining, it obviously seems to have been for religious reasons, due to the "After much prayer" bit. I do find that reason she gave a little compelling, perhaps she really thought she wouldn't be able to give the best care because of it, and if a doctor doesn't think the care they will provide will be the best they should have someone else step in. Overall, I don't like personally how the doctor handled it, it should have been handled much better.
You are not truely understanding I shifted a bit and your refuting the older view point.. regardless fearing vax or assuming it does this or that is just disinformation conspiracies. Also as I was making reference earlier, such views comes from an extreme view of religion it seems. I honestly see it as an excuse to simply "hate everything democrat" so you have such policies in place so people are less inclined to start drama based on disinformation.

 

TeddyBearCowboy

A real-life, genuine teddy bear cowboy...
Est. Contributor
Messages
822
Role
Adult Baby, Diaper Lover, Babyfur, Diaperfur, Little
No, its called an oligarchy. I do not believe all these motives are trump alone, but rather a collective of extreme right wing ideas. So basically where I sit, around 1/3 of the people of the US is trying to run things, and the people that exclusively represent those 1/3, hence, oligarchy.
CutePrincess,

I respect your perspective. Howver, as you know from my previous posts, I usually share similar views as you, but in this case, I have to politely disagree.

Yes there certainly are those in the current dictator’s party that are of the same extreme ideas, but I think most others in the party are sheep with the wool pulled over their eyes, or follow out of fear.

There are many of us who are of conservative nature and typically may follow that party, but are in shock and disgust with the man who thinks he is king.

I think many of the leaders of that party may likewise feel the same, but are too chicken poop to stand up to it, afraid they will be like Senator Flake. This is a senator who stood up to him some time ago and received nothing but negative tweets and dirty deeds from the most powerful person in the world. This ultimately caused him to lose his position. Or like Joe Welsh who was running against the king in the primaries and had so much hate expressed from the president and the pressure against him from his followers that he decided the party no longer represented the conservative values he believed in. He dropped out of the primary race.

Look at what the supreme commmander is trying to denounce (and my God, what about his son and the other royal heirs in the king’s court!) in regards to Senator Romney! Instead of respectfully disagreeing with him for his vote against acquittal, he continues to persecute him, even as he continues to persecute the late Senator McCain! The king hath no respect even for the honorable dead! The king, who dodged the draft himself, has the nerve to disrespect an individual who fought for his country and was a prisoner of war, saying ”he tends to like those who didn’t get captured!” The audacity of someone who never set foot in the hell of actual war!

So, if you were a leader in the same party, being led by a man who doesn’t even show respect for a dead war veteran, POW, and member of his own party, simply because he stood up to him, I think there certainly is some reason to believe he will go after you. Not just you, but your family, and those around you. He certainly will try (and likely be successful) to have you removed and maybe even imprisioned in so called disgrace.

I wasn’t there obviously, but I’m most certain Hitler, Stalin, Napoleon, and other such dictators did the same and used similar tactics of bullying, threats, and outright lies to influence others. I mean how did these INDIVIDUALS rise to their power? Do you think all of their citizens and fellow leaders had the same radical beliefs?

So, rather than speak up, they are so engrossed in tribalism that no matter how terrible the king may be, they have to stay with him, for if not, they fear for their own well-being, and heavens, their party might even lose to the “other side”!

So, yes, while I agree it is not just the current dictator that may be so extreme in views and disrespect for other EQUAL branches of government, and the majority of people in the U.S. (again, he didn’t win the popular vote and I’m most certain there are more now who may have voted not for him, but against the other party, that now regret this, and no longer suooort him). I think many of the cowardly sheep leaders do not have such extreme views. If there was not the current level of dictatorship going on, they would not be of such disgraceful and unconstitutional views.

So, oligarchy? Well, I’m not quite sure that fits. You could argue that The regime of Hitler, or Stalin, or Napoleon were oligarchies as they certainly didn’t rise to power alone, but the term dictator seems to fit them more appropriately, as does it for the current God complex leader of this country.

I apologize to others who may not share my views for my somewhat strong remarks. But as one who has conservative views myself (and please don’t stereotype conservatism into believing there is only one stance on every topic. For I am most certainly a moderate conservative and respect the views and rights of those who don’t have the same beliefs as my own)... anyhow, as one who associates with this, I am ashamed of the things that are being done in the name of conservatism and “on the right”.

This isn’t on the right, it is polar opposite from either right or left. Call it for what it is. It is an ego driven leader who no longer respects Congress, the Courts and Justice System or religion. (Don’t believe me, why don’t you carefully look what he did at the prayer breakfast after his acquittal, and how he cannot respect a senator that voted against him because of his personal religious convictions).

Even if you are of his party, his own selected staff, decorated military members, and career federal employees of his own party, if you disagree with him, he will not listen and likely will denounce you and have you removed from position.

So if that isn’t a dictator, what is? The word of dictator is about the only title that fits.
 
Last edited:

CutePrincess

Est. Contributor
Messages
1,877
Role
Adult Baby, Diaper Lover, Little
What I do not understand is how it can be a dictator, i/e trump on his own if it was not for the exteme collective view of the extreme, me right wing views (lets call it alt right for generally speaking it is what it is anyway) This is enabled by sources like the daily wire, breitbart, lifesite news and so on. I even seen a few posters of this board give references to such sources and even sent a PM referencing charlie kirk, someone who was thrown under the bus in a thread i made about him because disinformation from him and others, and having people believe this BS depresses me, by someone that stated they were right leaning.

So i call it an oligarchy because those others you listed, the people that supported them, did not have the information age of the internet. This is one thing I cannot understand. Trump would not have the power he has if he was not enabled by this disinformation these extremists of the alt right make up. HOW and WHY is propaganda working in this day and age? it blows my mind.
 

CutePrincess

Est. Contributor
Messages
1,877
Role
Adult Baby, Diaper Lover, Little
I'm no US citizen and have no idea, but Karlyn Borysenko has some insights that seem worth a read to me.

With the Democrats, it was doom and gloom. With Trump, there was a genuine feeling of pride of being an American. With the Democrats, they emphasized that the country was a racist place from top to bottom.
These things drive me nuts, its blind following effect on both ends. Sure democrats lie and fear monger... but why does it suddenly get ignored when the republicans do it? Why is it democrat lies = evil, republican lies =lets ignore it and call democrats will lose because the democrat politicians are out of touch?

that article linked or some video auto play to this (ya auto played) and the thing was bought up was the debunking of the trump mockery thing. My argument on that is he shouldn't be acting like that at all no matter the context. (also it never explained what that reporter lied about or the reference for such contexts)

Trump doesn't have the personality of a professional leader and doesn't respect anyone that has a different opinion of his.. (oh wait that was the main context people use for the walk away thing shocker) So how can someone sit there saying democrats are out of touch when republicans do the same thing? I guess the only difference is, the republicans know how to lie and persuade the people in the states where the vote counts. My vote does not count. No matter what I am voting for because of the BS EC. My voice is not heard because somewhere else uses more extreme gerrymandering to make a minatory section of people matter and I don't.
 
Last edited:

w0lfpack91

Est. Contributor
Messages
1,906
Role
Diaper Lover, Babyfur, Diaperfur, Little
Truth be Told, Both Democrats and Republicans are no better than Gutter trash and i would sooner lobby for Cockroach Rights before Recognizing politicians from either party as "Human" whatever that term implies. However given the current Political Climate I’m more apt to Vote for Republicans Over Democrats due to their policies being far Less Radical.

Democrats have Taken a very sharp, mostly unwanted, Steep turn left into the realm of extreme Radical Leftism. Its become mainstream that, if you don’t mirror the Echo Chamber then you are a racist deplorable and are considered less than sentient. The Modern Democrat Party has changed from the idealists that wanted a better future to a borderline Totalitarian regime that praises a hive mind mentality and tends to lean on enforcement of the Police State by extreme show of force, demonstrated by Congressman Donald Mceachin who is a Democrat for Virginia’s 4th District who responded to the states 99% opposition to democrat gun reform by suggesting Activating the National Guard to carryout gun confiscation by use of extreme force which will likely end in a state wide civil war if not spread nationally.

A Democratic Victory in 2020 is Extremely unlikely due to a number of Reasons ranging from Governor Northam's push for Draconian gun Reform, Nancy Pelosi’s Failed Impeachment and overall unfavorable Public behavior, the current Dumpster fire that is the Primaries, the infamous Beto O'Rourke quote "Hell, yes, we're going to take your AR-15, your AK-47”, and the overall fact that more people are leaving the Party than are coming in due to the above mentioned Echo Chamber and Hive mind mentality which Alienates moderates and independents. Fact is the party is Broken and dis-jointed as well as still reeling and finger pointing from the 2016 election which anyone with a brain could see was a lost cause when Hillary started Ignoring the “Rust belt” and “Bible belt” states. Now there is also a Democrat push to Abolish the Electoral College which is the only thing allowing all 50 states to have an equal voice in government representation.

I fear Authoritarianism more from the Democrats than I do any other party, they have made the most Totalitarian policy shifts thus far and are actively lobbying to violate constitutional law which is what keeps the powers of the branches in check.
 

PCPilot

Contributor
Messages
250
Role
Diaper Lover
Your argument about Democratic radicalism seems entirely centered around firearms, which is interesting - if you went back to a 1960s level of firearms regulation and availability you would not have your precious AR-15s or AK-47s.

It is also interesting that you seem to think that people are leaving the Democratic party in droves. Yes, there is a massive realignment going on; rural, poor, uneducated whites are moving from the Democrats to the Republicans, and college-educated, suburban whites and immigrants are switching to the Democrats. Unfortunately for you the first group is shrinking and the second group is growing. Virginia (especially the prosperous northern suburbs) are now solidly Democratic, only the backwoods and poor rural areas are Republican. The Atlanta suburbs are now starting to become solidly blue - Newt Gingrich's old district voted for Clinton in 2016 and elected their first Democrat to Congress in over 40 years.

Most people care about issues other than guns and abortion. The GOP has nothing to over Americans except increasing desperate cries of "but.... Socialism!"
 

CutePrincess

Est. Contributor
Messages
1,877
Role
Adult Baby, Diaper Lover, Little
Democrats have Taken a very sharp, mostly unwanted, Steep turn left into the realm of extreme Radical Leftism. Its become mainstream that, if you don’t mirror the Echo Chamber then you are a racist deplorable and are considered less than sentient. The Modern Democrat Party has changed from the idealists that wanted a better future to a borderline Totalitarian regime that praises a hive mind mentality
No this is the republican party, and you see this every day from trump tweets and the people that support him. His supporters are ether bots or people so brainwashed you can't tell if that account is a bot or not.
 
Last edited:
Top