Some Thoughts on LGBT Issues after the Colorado Baker’s Win

Lately, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the baker in Colorado who refused to bake a cake for a same-sex couple isn’t liable for anything. The ruling left the question of whether it was bordering on religious discrimination. But for me, it isn’t. Establishments have the right to refuse to give service to customers for their own reasons. It’s not the same as hanging a “No Filipinos/no gays allowed” sign, which could be argued as more like discrimination. But this probably will get the LGBTs fuming, with the SJWs among claiming that it’s “oppression of the state,” or other baloney like that. I thus would like to consider the other side, something like the side of Zaxx’s article, where he discusses negative effects of some LGBT attitudes.

A couple I know in church who’d been traveling to other congregations related that pastors had asked them topic suggestions for sermons. The couple said, just look at TV. Broken families, switching partners, making crime look good, and more. And one example they talked of at length was a gay beauty pageant on TV. During an interview, the contestant was asked if he had a boyfriend. “Yes.” Where is he? “With his wife.” Oh, wait, isn’t there a problem with that? “No, because his wife is OK with it.” Jumping in is this famous actress acting as judge: “I’m so proud of you for standing what you believe in!”

Cringe.

Other gays are not that lucky. Some straight guys just flat out refuse. They’re straight, for crying out loud! But the gay person might feel slighted. Life’s wisdom tells us, it’s part of life to be spurned, but the gay will not accept it. So what might he do? Some gays might take revenge in some way against the straight guy. They might stalk or harass the straight guy, like immature spurned teens would do. Others might try to “out” the straight guy as a gay, although that’s a lie. But in doing so, he commits defamation and harassment.

Since suicide has become a topic in social media after Anthony Bourdain’s death, I’ll just give it a little controversial link to my topic. Let’s say an LGBT person commits suicide after they become spurned by someone. The reaction might be, “the spurner is a bigot,” “the suicide is his fault,” and all sorts of trolling and bullying. But no, these are wrong. Unless the spurner or another person was caught on record to have actually encouraged suicide, there is no fault with them. Better to research the person’s background for the complex web of reasons that led to it – including the person’s own decisions. I will also make that controversial point later – that people with mental illness are not always victims, but could possibly have brought it upon themselves. But back to the current topic.

Let me recall the case of Jeffrey Laude. One of the local ladyboys who was killed by a visiting American soldier, in a situation that our webmaster Benign0 likened to the movie Crying Game. The American was expecting his new sex partner to be a legitimate female. Of course. But he found out Laude was male (a transsexual or transgender if you will), and got mad. He was deceived. He snapped, lashed out and did wrong himself. But Laude’s deception would make him less free of fault than media would like us to believe.

I’m pretty sure no one wants to fall into a trap like this

I don’t expect most gays to be like this; I’m sure many of them disapprove of the above behaviors. But there are likely some who may defend wanting to be recognized as a woman while hiding their being a man. The problem is, it is still deception, and if all you are looking for is sex, you don’t deserve to be protected from the consequences. Hiding one’s real sexuality is not a right.

Such gays are working on the idea that, if I want something, I deserve to get it. Perhaps it can be forced by law. Entitlement operates in this scenario. Perhaps the agenda of these particular gays is, it shouldn’t matter whether you screw a man and woman, right? So everyone should be homosexual! They should be forced to be give sex to whoever wants it! People are entitled to this joy they want from others! But wait a minute, forcing someone to have sex… isn’t that rape?

So, for this guy, the solution to “inverse rape” is force. Basically rape itself.

Human rights is based on the precept that everyone is entitled to self-determination, which includes their sexual orientation. This could be seen as in favor of gays as well as against. But when they want something from others, that other person has the right to refuse them as part of their own self-determination.

The problem cited by opponents of laws in favor of gays is that such laws would grant unequal protection, or special treatment. It could also lead to ridiculous provisions that are not fair. For example, if one does not agree that someone is beautiful, it is considered “bullying,” or someone who doesn’t want to play along with one’s declared transsexual orientation (still referring to one as male even when dressed up and really looking like a female) should be punished.

Also, let’s look at these ridiculous genders some have tried to invent. Nature (which determines reality) only recognizes male and female, and these can’t be naturally changed. Or you have a sex change and want to be called the other gender. What if someone disagrees, and says, “you’re still your original gender.” They have a right to do that. You can’t sue them. They’re not oppressing you. That’s life. It’s not meant to obey you, and other people are not either.

The outcry of many LGBTs is mainly against harassment; that I agree with. But being harassed doesn’t give you the right to harass back. If harassment is a problem, you don’t need a new law or special treatment. Existing laws on harassment can be applied to that.

If some people return, what about heterosexual spurned lovers, the same should be true for them? I agree. There have been many women who made false rape charges against men (the story of Brian Banks who was wrongfully convicted because of a fake rape case comes to mind), many “spurned” who “take revenge” against their spurners. And I’ll repeat that example of our former maid’s brother, who was poisoned by someone who thought he was his rival over a girl. That attitude of “I must have what I want” keeps turning people into monsters.

Again, on that wish of people who believe “I deserve to be loved;” it likely means, they want sex. Sex and love are actually two concepts that have long been differentiated. And perhaps being pampered and being a freeloader can be the actual meaning of the “love” they desire. Sorry, kids, none of that is a right, and you don’t deserve it.

The saying, slightly worded, “I will defend your right to disagree with me,” comes to mind. That seems more appropriate if you replace the latter words with “your right to refuse to give what I want to take from you.” What we need is respect, especially respect of other people’s refusal of you. As well the acceptance that we sometimes don’t deserve to get what we want. That applies to even “love.”

This kind of sound advice flies over the heads of people so trapped by their own ego and dopamine addiction

If you’re a transgender, better reveal that you are, and there are people who will accept you for what you are. Deceiving other people means not only do you lack respect for others, but for yourself as well. If you feel you have to lie to get what you want, chances are, you want something that you should not have. If you want find the love of your life, you don’t steal someone else’s love of their life. And if you want something to validate yourself, don’t get it by force, like what a gay couple wanted from the Colorado baker. Get it fairly and honestly, and if refused, move on to the next. If there are other people who don’t accept you for who you are, there’s no point wasting time on them. Keep calm and carry on.

print

About ChinoF

I stick with this blog because I believe, as my cohorts do, that many things Filipino embrace as part of their culture are pulling them down. And I blog freely to show that in a truly decent society, with true freedom of speech, even nobodies have a voice.

38 Comments on “Some Thoughts on LGBT Issues after the Colorado Baker’s Win”

    1. You’re linking to wikipedia and like every Western blogger and “Reputed” Media Organizations who reported on the “Incel Rebellion” and to top it off, you’re calling the author here, an “Incel” without even taking to the task if this gay victim couple that couldn’t go to some other bakery and instead double down on their right to force people on their sexual preference, even against their wishes is “Brave” according to what your complaining here.

      1. Can you pls copy and paste exactly where I stated that the author was or is an incel? Thank you. Secondly, I am not complaining anywhere. It looks to me that the author is complaining that the world does not look the way he wants it to look and to be. Well, tough luck for him. The world is changing even without his permission.

      2. Re: the bakery

        I think that a cook/chef/bakery can refuse any customer he/she likes. But if I were that gay couple, I would and will double-cross him by letting my sisters order the cake and when collecting it to tell him who it is for. I want to see his face and see him getting real mad and angry.
        AND, I will never go to court for this because I just double-crossed him.

        Lets wait and see who will laugh last.

    2. Yeah, quite a funny group. In Filipino terms, that might be a group of people seeking revenge for getting “friendzoned.” lol

      You know, if the sisters ordered the cake while hiding the real customers, that’s deception too. It can be considered dishonest. Well, the baker may or may not get mad. But running it that way just to get someone mad isn’t a good way to do things at all in society,

      I just remembered the example I should have used is that minister who refused to marry a gay couple, then the couple wanted to sue him or get the court to force him to marry them. That also is a bad move. These days, if people don’t get what they want from others, they just sue them in court. That’s why people like me that would be likened to “incels” or called bigots (add Zaxx to that) are becoming more vocal.

      1. ChinoF,
        Let me spell it out for you:

        When today the bakery refuses to bake and/or sell that cake to a gay couple, then tomorrow my GF and I will go to that same bakery and order and buy a cake. After we (my GF and I) collect the cake we will tell him for who the cake is.
        Well you can sue me for being dishonest and being deceptive. Is there a law against it? Any dutch judge will laugh at you. Why? Because I paid the cost for the cake, so nobody was getting short in value/money. I even helped him making a profit on the sold cake. Only his religious ego got a blast. And that is not against the law.

        Do you have any idea what the cost is of sueing someone in a civil suit/action? And not knowing whether I will win? So, I will go for the prank instead. Much cheaper.

        Re: incel(s)
        I never had you in my mind re being an incel.

        1. Maybe in a Dutch court, it may go in your favor, but depending on laws in other countries, pranking businesses may be liable.

  1. I have no quarrel with transgender people; however, if they deceive someone, that they are male, but are female, and a vice versa. This is the problem.

    The Colorado baker, refused to make cake for the same sex couples, on religious reason.

    You may call me a bigot, but, I don’t agree with same sex marriages. I am a conservative guy. Marriage is for a man and a woman. For the procreation of children. I don’t know how a man and a man enjoy sex; or woman and a woman , enjoy sex.

    I still don’t agree with the decision for the same sex couples.

    1. Two lesbian women and two gay guys will enjoy sex in the same way heterosexuals enjoy sex. Its actually very simple. Its all about love and lust. And with some help from others and/or technology, both can still have kids or through adoption/adopting.

      1. Death of the Family Unit in the West, you already posted about “Incels” now enlighten everyone why we should follow the Western Nations in your Same-Sex Crusade and Equality nonsense that just created a society that pretty much hates each other with all of your special interest and minority groups competing for more Rights and Privileges. Also some facts on Homosexuality, high prevalence in promiscuity between homosexual couples, and most of their one-night stands are with strangers. High incidence in mental illness with depression and anxiety with substance and alcohol abuse, and high rates of suicides which you and your people will cry about and that more rights and equality is the solution. But please, show the internet that you are a good person with your virtue-signalling nonsense on Filipinos and people whose opinions and views you deem bigoted.

        1. Tunod,
          nowhere did I use the word “bigot”. But, I do think we are dealing here with a bunch of crybabies. Oh BTW we call those people “Calimero” and the “Calimero-complex”.

          If your world doesnt look the way, you want it to look and then start blogging about it (even when that group of people (lesbians, gays, transgenders) are a very small minority group both in aboslute numbers as in relative numbers) you are reallty a cry baby.

          As I have stated many times before, the Philippines have far more and far deeper problems and far more serious problems.

          Unless of course, everyone is satisfied the way it is going now and has been going for the past few centuries.

        2. Tunod,
          It seems that the lesbians and gays in my country do not meet your characteristics. So probably Philippine lesbians and gays behave differently. I am shocked? No, not really.

          I cant speak intelligently on behalf of all the lesbians and gays, but all they want is the same options that heterosexuals have. And because they are human beings as you and I are, they must have the same options. That is not more rights. It are the same rights. That is not more privileges because we heterosexuals also do not get more privileges.

          Not one lesbian nor gay does offend me, because they do not change my personal and private life. And because of their absolute low numbers they will never pose/create a threat to heterosexuals (what you so eloquently call “family unit”).
          So why are you so bothered about them? It doesnt make sense at all. In numbers, they are not even a blip on a radar screen.

          Maybe you should start worrying more about the absolute increase in teenage pregnancies in your country and the number of PH guys who abandoned their girlfriends leaving them behind with kids. Culture? Religion? Or lack of good upbringing by parents.
          You still have a lot of work to do.

        3. Tunod,
          Let me give you an update on the ‘family unit’ in my country.

          More and more heterosexual women choose voluntarily and deliberately to stay single. Pls translate that as not being interested in getting married and making kids. So they are OFF the market for heterosexual men. Should and must that make me angry? No, not at all. Is the ‘family unit’ at stake here? Should I care? No, I don’t. There are so many ways to have a fullfilling life. And maybe those single women, just will score a guy to have sex with. As we like to call it ‘sex without strings’ or “no strings attached” (NSA). You live in a country where sex must lead to a pregnancy and sex is only for procreation. Well, we moved on and we passed that station.

          And for those heterosexual women and men who will start a relationship (married or unmarried), they will make less and less babies.

  2. Going against established norms, i.e., sex is either male or female only, any objections is now deemed as bigotry, discrimination, bullying, homophobia, etc. That is the problem.

    If you force people to change accepted norms, do not expect to be accepted outright as a NORMal person. Grow up and accept the fact that some things are just not acceptable. Normal people can also be offended by you going against the norms. You want to be treated and accepted as a person then be normal. If you do not feel normal then some thing is not right and you need help. Go ask for help.

    1. To me (this is addressed to others rather than Joeld), if people are just not going to accept you outright, forcing them to accept you won’t always be a viable solution. That may actually be the cause of conflict in some cases rather than non-acceptance of people. Perhaps these people can carry on as they are without needing to be in conflict with other people (basically picking fights and attacking people). But actually, I notice, such people are already being accepted in a way, perhaps because attitudes have already lightened since the more violent times, such as when gays were given shock therapy to “cure” them. Zaxx is for example disapproving of Charice Pempengco’s lifestyle in what he wrote, but isn’t calling for her to be arrested, forced into shock therapy or something. Disapproving a person’s certain behaviors is not non-acceptance, because being part of society will always have people disagreeing on things, but letting each other go on.

      1. ChinoF, I think the word that applies here is “tolerance”, which can range from zero to 100. If I had zero tolerance for the LGBT lifestyle, I wouldn’t have been pulling punches in that previous article on Charice.

        What fumes me most though is when these LGBTs start demanding rights that step on those of normal peace-loving people. They demand respect/acceptance while at the same time step on the right of normal people to express their disgust for the perversion they represent (freedom of expression).

        Normal people should keep these self-destructive abnormalities from the liberal West at bay, lest we end up fully corrupting the basic core institution (family/marriage) that has perpetuated our society since time immemorial. The rampant school shootings and mass killings in the US are just a symptom of the steep morality-devoid sinkhole they got themselves into.

        Its good you got to drive the screw in a bit deeper on this topic, and keep the LGBT debate alive. I just hope we don’t end up with yet another stupid Lina law which protects and encourages land thieves (squatters).

        1. Zaxx,
          (“the basic core institution (family/marriage) that has perpetuated our society since time immemorial. “)

          Can you pls give me all the benefits of the basic core institution? (No, I am NOT sarcastic). And also pls give me the roles each member (of the family) has to play. And while you are at it, pls also give me the – ideal – number of kids a family should/must consist. Do you see no/any disadvantages of a family?
          In your set up, does it also include the legal possibility of a divorce?

          Last but not least, I am a bit surprised you call it an institution.

  3. “Grow up and accept the fact that some things are just not acceptable. ”
    Why not acceptable? It is here; they are here.

    “Normal people can also be offended by you going against the norms.”
    I consider myself to be normal (whatever that might/may be) and I am not offended nor insulted. How can I be offended? Their being here, doesnt change my life at all.

    I am again.st snakes. Big deal. Grow up, they are here.

  4. What’s wrong with wanting a cake for their wedding? Just bake a goddamn cake regardless of one’s sexuality or gender identity. It’s just like a normal day, you sell it to someone regardless of their race, age or societal status. Is that so hard to do?? Everyone knows it’s not harmful to bake a cake unless you put poison in it. It’s crazy to think, some people sell meth to poor people and yet some won’t even bake cakes bc they’re gays??? Bigotry, my friend, is everywhere. Those who agree with me, let’s help our deteriorating nation gather some strong foundation for a better future. We need each other now more than ever.

    1. The stronger foundation for society is respecting other people’s refusal of you and stop insisting on getting what you want from them. We need each other now more than ever… to do just that.

  5. ChinoF,
    “Maybe in a Dutch court, it may go in your favor, but depending on laws in other countries, pranking businesses may be liable.”

    I paid for the cake. So what is the liable? Because I told him the cake was for the cat? Or for our neighbours? Or for a lesbian couple?

    Again, I told you earlier, if I was that gay/lesbian couple, I will never go to court. Too costly. I still have to pay my lawyer even when I win the case (and also when I lose the case).

    1. Well, perhaps that baker will remember and not take an order from you again. Their loss, but their freedom, too. They may have been a jerk to the gay couple in your eyes, but not to others’s eyes, because they’re simply exercising their freedom and rights. Refusing to render a service based on religious or otherwise belief isn’t oppression or bigotry, it’s just refusing, there’s no harm in that. Real bigotry would be wanting that gay couple beaten up or arrested for ordering a cake.

      1. Not a jerk. A cake is a cake and we are all in the business of making money. The baker will most likely not get bankrupt for not selling a cake to a lesbian or gay couple.
        I am looking forward to read an article (in a newspaper) where a Ford car dealer refuses to sell a Ford car to a lesbian couple. The car dealer didnt manufacture the car himself. Whereas that baker might have made that cake himself.

  6. Great read Chino. I have no idea the proportion of LGBT population that believe in getting intimate with somebody who repulses you idea . Whatever the case, I believe we should look at something like the stock market. Shares for Ayala Corporation closed today at 978 pesos per share. What that means is before the market closed today a party wanted to sell their shares at 978 pesos per share and another party wanted to buy their share of AC at that same price. There is an agreement. Nobody forced them to. You can be happy or sad or indifferent to selling your shares of AC at that time and price. Fact of the matter is you agreed. Hence the term market forces. Supply and demand.

    This whole idea of requiring an intimate relationship outside of personal choice is crazy. Like you said only one person gets to choose? If this makes so much sense how come this idea was not developed a lot earlier by the hetrosexual community? Again this could just be a noisy sub group.

    1. Thanks, Gogs. Nice analogy, reminds me, I did forget to use the concept of market forces to name the situation of the baker or even the minister who refused to officiate at gay marriage. In case you’re denied sale of a product of service, suing that seller is not the the way. Move on and go to a seller willing to sell to you. If he doesn’t get business from others, he’ll close. But if he has business from other customers, that’s life. Let him be.

      About the last idea you mentioned, it’s the Tyler Cadbury quote, right? That was actually about heterosexual people not willing to date fat people, I think, so this SJW goes about suggesting “forcing” people to date. Of course, the SJW LGBTs would be quick to ride on that. You’re right, though, it’s a noisy subgroup, these SJWs. If someone’s personal choice offends them, they want to punish that person for their personal choice. Thus making them the real fascists.

      1. Yeah this is capitalism. Many business do well or close based on the ability to serve or not serve the market. Whether it is 2018 or the time of the cave man , there are no new needs. Only new products to serve the same needs we always had. That is why I have no reference to the idea of legislating intimacy.

  7. A nicely written article as always. Going back to the Masterpiece Cakeshop case I wonder why the the baker – Jack Philips – limited his defense by simply invoking religion. I stand with him. But unlike him, and if I were in his shoes, I would invoke the right against Involuntary Servitude.

    The reason is simple: Being asked to bake a cake is like being contracted or commission to do a piece of work as oppose to simply selling an item off the shelf. In a contract for a piece of work you are duty bound to render work, time, talent and skill towards the accomplishment of a particular project. And like most contract of this nature, no one can be force into it without their consent – regardless of their reasons or motives. Forcing people to work against their will is akin to involuntary servitude which is no different from slavery.

    On those who side with the gay couple I have this to say. Would you still cry discrimination if the baker happen to be an African-American who refuse to be force by a group of Clansmen to design and bake a cake with racist trimmings to commemorate the anniversary of the Ku Klux Klan?

    Just my two cents.

    1. I’ll give you my 3 cents.

      Now what if after the baker baked the cake and the price is paid, upon leaving the shop, the customers tell the baker that the cake is for a lesbian couple to get married?

      1. If it’s paid, the baker has to deliver. That’s when the customer can complain rightly, I paid, but that seller refuses to deliver based on what is paid. I believe that is estafa in this country.

        Or, the baker can opt to refund.

        1. Chino,
          all I wanted to show is that when someone (a baker) does do things (or doesnt do things) out of principle (or out of religion) it can be by-passed very easily.

        2. For me, religion or principle is not the issue here. It’s that any seller can turn down a customer for any reason, and the customer cannot take that seller to task for it.

  8. During the Time of Jim Crow’s Law in the U.S. Black or colored people cannot go to restaurants, bars, cinema, restrooms, parks, bakery, etc..for white people.

    There were signs in most restaurants serving white people that read like this:

    “We reserve the right not to serve anybody…

    So, if you are a brown Filipino, and you go to the restaurant for white people; the owner will point the the sign. And if you don’t leave, he will call the Police, and have you arrested.

    The LGBTQ think that their fight against discrimination, is the same as the Civil Rights fight against racial discrimination, of the: “separate , but equal” principle of racial discrimination.

  9. Chino,
    What I understand is that when a person enters a foreign country, he/she is only allowed to have so much cash money on him/her. Lets say the equivalent of USD$ 10,000. If that person carries USD$ 15,000 on him, he has to declare that money and also being able to proof where that money comes from. If that person cant proof the money comes from legitimate channels, he is denied entry into that foreign country. I dont think going to court over this, will help me/him in any way.

    On the other hand: Carrying only USD$ 500 and having a million dollars in my bank account (from illegal sources) still shows it can be by-passed. Using my bank card (or credit-card), I can still withdraw money from an ATM in that foreign country.

    1. That airport case is about regulations on what amount of cash a traveler is permitted to carry during entry or exit in a major transport terminal. But having $500 on hand and being able to withdraw when already in the country is not bypassing, but legal. I don’t see how that is related to the free market where a baker can turn down a customer, or if he decides to stop serving the customer who paid, give a refund.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.