Belief and Ability.

I was ponderIng the relationship between a persons beliefs and their ability in mind of the situation of the baker that said she would not bake a cake for a homosexual occasion. Or something like that.

https://aclu-co.org/court-rules-bakery-illegally-discriminated-against-gay-couple/

And so he was brought to court and it’s a big case.

Now whenever I hear this story on the radio what comes to my mind is it sounds to me that the Christian Baker is unable to bake a cake for the homosexual couple.

And so I’m wondering what’s the difference?

I think it would put people who are discriminated against in a better position if we just call out those people who claim that their beliefs will not allow them to do things, to do a service for them because of whatever state they might present themselves as. Because then we would hold people responsible for their believes by saying that your belief is reflective of your capacity and ability.

So a baker who is being a bigot or a homophobe because they won’t bake a cake for a homosexual occasion, instead of just saying they’re assholes, we can say that they’re incompetent.

I mean think about it. If there is a computer programmer who said hey I’m an excellent computer programmer and he knows all the commands that there is in every single Computer coding language including machine language, but then you ask him to write a program that sorts out my emails and he won’t do it, we wouldn’t say he’s just an asshole. It wouldn’t matter if he writes a bunch of other programs because obviously, de facto, by the fact that he is not writing this simple email for me means that he is incapable of doing it . Becuase then we’d say Well, prove it. The fact that he could write an email program for someone who is not homosexual would not prove that he was making any sort of value judgments, but de facto show that he is absolutely incapable of making that cake for a homosexual couple. We would then say he’s incompetent and we wouldn’t hire him.

Perhaps we are serve ourselves better if we adopt that kind of attitude instead of the attitude that everyone gets to choose what they believe. Or better yet, judge people according to the actual circumstances that present themselves. If someone can snowboard super well when they’re just up at Snowmass or whatever, and they’re doing flips off of random rocks and embankments, as well as beating everyone down the hill and whatever, if we take them to the Olympics and she totally flounders, we wouldn’t say that that Olympic snowboarder is making a value judgment about where she wants to perform.

So I say it is not that the baker is choosing not to serve certain people Becuase of a belief, but they are unable to serve Becuase of an inherent aspect of what they are, and using ‘belief’ to justify their lack.

And would it matter whether or not they bake this perfect cake for the birth of Christ or something. Because we would see openly and overtly where their ability lay.

What do you guys think?

29 Comments

  1. With respect to your comment “Nietsche was about seeing existence for what it really is”, he also proclaimed belief in the pre-Socratic Hericlitan Eternal Return. Here, I will Christian-splain it. Jesus said to Peter, before the rooster crows tomorrow, you will deny me thrice. How did Jesus know? Answer: it already happened – stuck in time loop. Neitzsche proclaimed that we should love this Sisyphean fate (it’s actually a curse): Amor Fati. So tell me if you think he was consistent? Was he about seeing existence for what it really is in this example?

    I’m not reading into Neitzsche what is not there. Ressentiment and revenge exist independently from his observation of same. I’m using his example as analogous. The intellectual Left is a Tarantulan nihilistic death cult hell bent on imposing its Totalitarian decadence thought control program on whatever is left in this world that is good and decent.

    Humble request. Give us this day our daily bread. Please. Thank you.

    No! Instead The Left demand that you bake it for me. If you don’t, those Blue Lives Matter Pigs that we also hate will arrest you and force you to bake it for me. The Left wants schadenfreude cake.

    1. …. I don’t know if I would go so far to make a distinction between the baker and the gays. I think they are both involved in the same problem. I think the baker should have to make the cake because we exist under a system which functions in the attempt to mediate or mitigate the problem of ignorance, of society of self righteous decadent people. If the baker is participating in that system, then he must set aside whatever ‘beliefs’ he has an provide the service to everyone.

  2. I suppose you can call it rude. I suppose the couple could decide to never go to the bakery again. Do you suppose the government should punish the bakery; fine them $135,000 for this rudeness? That’s how it was handled in Oregon.

    I don’t think describing these bakers as unable or incompetent fits very well. They are technically able to execute the baking and the decorating of the cake. I think they are finding themselves in situations where their participation in the weddings means that, in a significant way, they are affirming that marriage between two men or two women is a good thing. And, they don’t want to affirm that. They don’t believe that marriage between two men or two women is a good thing, so they choose not to participate in the wedding by making the cake.

    1. I think my criteria for deciding whether it is a value or an ability is valid: if the baker is able to bake the cake for the homosexual couple, then ask them to do it. If they cannot do it or won’t do it that means, defect oh, that they’re unable.

      If they say well it’s against my beliefs, then again I would say… And? So you are not able to bake me a cake because you’re believe prevent you from doing it.

      That sounds to me like you’re incompetent.

      And the bigger says, no I can bake a damn good cake, it’s just that baking it for the homosexual people is against my religion.

      So then I say, OK so it’s against your religion, well go ahead and bake the cake because I don’t think you are able to do it.

      I am able.

      Then do it

      I can’t

      why?

      It’s against my faith.

      So you are not able to do it because it’s against your faith. That sounds to me that you are not actually able, you are not actually capable of baking a cake for them because of your believe that sounds to me that you are not actually able, you are not actually capable of baking a cake for them because of your belief. That is not discrimination, that is in confidence.

      But I could bake the cake, but I just won’t.

      Why not?

      Because it’s against my faith.

      I think you’re just not doing it because you can’t.

      Well I can, here’s an example of a cake that I baked.

      Yes but you didn’t bake that cake for a homosexual wedding.

      Yes but I can bake a cake.

      But, as we keep going over, you are not able, you are not capable of baking a cake for a homosexual couple. that is incompetence.

      It doesn’t matter if you want to say that it’s your personal believes, because what part of your believing is separate from what you’re actually doing, which are actually capable of doing. I’d say there’s no difference. In what way is you’re believing any different from what your body is capable of doing? You’ve told me over and over that you won’t bake the cake, and I keep telling you that you won’t because you can’t. And you say that you can but it’s against your faith. And I say if you can then do it. And then you say I won’t I can’t. And I say you are incompetent.

      —- lol

      Yes they should find the baker. I do not respect peoples retarded belief just because they have a right to believe whatever they want.

      Yes, you have a right to your face and you have a right to believe whatever you want.

      But this is America and religion is separate from the state. When you are involved in making a product that you sell on the open market you are involved with doing state business.

      The baker is not using “Christian money“. The baker is using American money and in America everyone has a right to whatever services are available on the open market.

      😄

      1. I’m not seeing what it is that you are trying to reveal or clarify with your incompetence-rather-than-choice argument. It sounds more like the way kids goad each other:

        Why don’t you ride your bike off the ramp, Jimmy?
        I don’t want to.
        You don’t want to because you can’t.
        No, I just don’t want to.
        You can’t. You’re too scared. . . .

        What am I missing?

        “When you are involved in making a product that you sell on the open market you are involved with doing state business.”

        What is state business? If we are “using American money,” then we are doing state business?

        When you say that “this is America and religion is separate from the state,” what are you trying to say? The first amendment to the US constitution says that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

        You are telling me that, even if the baker has been glad to sell his goods to the couple before the wedding and will be glad to continue to sell his goods to the couple after the wedding, you are going to require him to make the cake. You are going to require him to participate in a rite that he does not want to participate in. That sounds a little bit like requiring a religious act of him.

        Not only that, you want the government to fine him if he doesn’t participate. You could make the argument that government is starting to establish religious practice at that point.

        Also, if I am organizing an event where people will gather peacefully at a rally focusing on immigration, and I go to Carlos’ Mexican Panaderia to ask him to make a big, white cake, decorated with the words “White is Right” and “Keep Dark-Skinned People on the Other Side of the Fence,” should he be fined by the government if he declines to make the cake for me? (completely hypothetical situation in case you are wondering)

        “Retarded beliefs.” First, if you ever want the mother of a Down Syndrome child to hear and respect your thoughts, you might want to avoid the word “retarded.” Second, I would guess that my beliefs on this matter align pretty well with the baker’s. And, I think they are pretty sound and reasonable. Feel free to ask me about them.

      2. Yes. “Retarded”. Is not pc.

        All I’m saying is that this society in which the baker so freely has his beliefs, such behavior thatbstems from his beliefs is secured by the state. His ability to bake cakes is assured through the state, through the money he uses and the supply chain by which he gets his ingredients.

        Sure he could bake cakes without the state and have all the belief he wants and sell to he wants, but then also he gets to live in a world where if he chooses not to sell a cake to someone, then he risks getting killed it robbed by that someone.

        In our society, we say that I can have my beliefs and have security for getting to practice how ever I want and not risk threat. But the practice is limited.

        It is my conviction that yes, someone who is naive of the reason why they get to have their belief secured without having to defend it from violence themselves, it stupid.

        We give up our right to shoot someone in the face if we want to, so we can bake cakes without worry. Go ahead and worship a cow and think everyone is a sinner, but if your security is in the commonwealth, this republic, then if you are using our economic basis for your wealth and living, you cannot segregate.

        Go ahead and go back to bartering with your Christians if they want. But they still have to pay taxes Becuase a larger group has claimed this land. So really, if you only want to seek to “God fearing Heterosexuals”. Then go find another country. Otherwise grow up and have responsibility for understanding how you are able to exist so nicely and peacefully.

        Our government is a religious organization.

        Perhaps you didn’t read my book so thoroughly.

        The problem with the Jews back in Roman times in the Bible and the gospel, What is that they had an uneasy truce with the larger government which was Rome.

        Basically their agreement was that the Jewish priest her to keep their people in line and then Rome won’t have to come in and impose order.

        Jesus was causing a problem and so Roman had to come in and impose order. And the Jews, instead of staying true to their one God instead took the side of Rome and said you are our king. You are our government. So in a fact their religion which at one time was “true“ now just became “religion“, I believe among a multitude of other believes of people who all think they have the best idea of what is true.

        And what is Jesus doing that famous scene in the temple. He says “give unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s“. He’s affectively saying that the Jewish people are Romans.

      3. Oh…and that is why the Christian in early Pagan Roman times. We’re seen as lion and entertainment fodder: Becuase they refused to recognize Caesar as a God, among other things. The Christians of today have the luxury of “believing” something of truth as a religion. I do not the think the Martyrs beloved anything: they knew the truth and were often willing to stake thier lives on it. It’s quite a nifty luxury that your God doesn’t require that of you anymore; only in analogy or a nice allagory for living. 😁

      4. It’s one thing to say that you think someone who underappreciates the liberty secured by our government is stupid, but it’s a pretty important step you take when you say that that person should be punished. By the way, is Carlos going to be fined for not making my White is Right cake?

        I don’t know what you’re talking about when you say that our government is a religious organization.

        I don’t think your characterization of the relationship between 1st century Jews and the Romans, and the way Jesus fit into it all, summarizes the situation especially well. And, I think you missed the point of Jesus’ interaction with the Jewish leaders at the temple. What the Jewish leaders were doing in that situation was manipulative; designed to corner Jesus in an impossible political situation, namely, to either anger his fellow Jews by siding with the Romans or to get Himself in trouble with the Romans by saying that his fellow Jews shouldn’t pay taxes. I don’t think that, in this situation, the Jewish leaders were making any meaningful statement of loyalty to the Romans. Jesus’ response was brilliant, telling them to give both Caesar and God their due; a wonderful opportunity, if they were willing to receive it, to consider where their loyalty lay.

        The life that Christians have in America certainly is a luxury. Thank you, God. And, may we make the most of this historically unprecedented situation and amazing set of opportunities.

        Your question about selling a cake to a person “now that you know that they are gay” frames the question much differently than it has been framed in this conversation up to this point. We’ve been talking about a situation where a baker might have been selling goods to the couple before the wedding, and was willing to continue to sell goods to the couple after the wedding. He just doesn’t want to participate in the rite of homosexual marriage. Now, you want to frame the situation as one where a baker discovers that a customer is gay, and has a decision to make.

      5. You have a ooh t about making a “white power” cake.

        But I counter that not only do we want a free society, but we want a good society.

        We know by now you and I just simply disagree about religious matter. The Bible and stuff.
        All I say is if we disagree and one of us in not incorrect (that is not: I am correct and so you are incorrect; if one of us is not incorrect then we both must be correct) then what is the point of talking about the truth if the Bible?

        I think that while you seem like a nice guy, your faith makes you duplicitous.

        And I think you view of “most cogent story” while cogent in a certain manner is drastically myopic.

        But you can’t understand that, so I dont really feel like going into it again. 😄

        Unless you have a different place to start.
        I

      6. I agree that we want a society that is both free and good. But, is that just a statement about something that, by coincidence, we both want? Or, is it more of a statement about what should be? I think it is more of a statement about what should be. And, I think that when we start talking about what should be, it implies that humanity has a direction. Certainly, it implies a direction that we should be moving toward, but it also suggests something about where we are and where we have come from. Our big story.

        I think you and I continue to be at a disadvantage because you see the project of articulating our story the best we can as myopic. And, there is a sense in which you are right about me. I am not seeing the bigger understanding that you are trying to convey.

        But. . . . I seem like a nice guy, but I am duplicitous? Pretty harsh way to sum me up.

        And, you’ve been indicating in your most recent comments that people like me are stupid and retarded, and that we should just leave the country.

        If you have ever had a problem with Christians because we are judgmental. . . .

      7. Lol. Yes. I guess you are stupid as I am damned ! 😆

        I just think we both are seeing “the biggest” story we are able to.

        My “should” does not have an extension; it is an inherently limited condition that I find myself doing Becuase that is what and who I am. That is why. God is with me, in a manner of speaking. And the Bible reflects this biggest story.

        Your “should” sees itself attached to something that “makes you” or “draws you on” toward the big and the good, as though you could know only part and do not good. The Bible reflects this biggest story also. And God is with you in that way.

        So I guess. In my book I’m speaking of these two biggest stories and how they do not reduce again to say that either you are right or I am right, and one of us wrong.

        And if that is the case, then the Bible describes, again, the conditions necessary as a knowable experience.

    1. Yes. I think for a moment that is why ‘equity’ is the new goal: to each of thier ability and capacity.

      But Nietchze was living in a time of fantasy, and while I do agree with him, it is that agreement that would come under argument for others who would say they agree with him also.

      He was speaking in a moment , his moment. And we find that there is no ‘regular’ human being that remains static through time. And neither a “bit” of information which moves through time-space to arrive in my mind intact and unaltered from 150 years ago.

      Nevertheless, that is why I am suggesting a different view upon this whole thing of “values”. Perhaps it was twilight if the idols.

      But I see nietszche and Kierkegaard even as taking the huge self righteous step as though people would then listen to them in their condemnation of decadence.
      But people don’t hear. And that’s a fact. It doesn’t matter how much we yell or condemn. People make sense of it as they do. That’s the problem.

      1. Hungary will have none of what they called gender nonsense (no longer allowed to be taught in universities). Hungary will have no outsider dictate its sovereign borders (they threw out Soros and his open border society). The desire for power is not a fantasy. The homosexual used the power of the state to exact revenge upon the baker. He didn’t need to invoke Neitzsche to do it. It’s innate. They ought to just leave people alone (laissez faire), but they want power and revenge. This can have an equal and opposite reaction. Normies can take power back. Then they can bake their cakes in peace.

      2. Nietsche was about seeing existence for what it really is. What is it delivering; what it is actually presenting. Not about political righteousness. Or “letting people live”. He wasn’t even talking about what humans should do. He was taking about realizing, witnessing what is existing.

        I think you are reading something into N that is not really there.

        We should not pull N out of his time and in to our time. That is ideological decadence. He was talking “outside” of time. “More than” human righteousness.

      3. I’m saying that the bakers are limited by their belief, similar to how “the gut” determines one’s existence. That their belief is preventing them from existing, allowing them to live in the decadence of self- righteousnsss.

        But the irony is so are the homosexual couple, as well as the government. But that is necessary. Like I said, N witnessed another time and could only frame his ideas within the capacity of discourse of the time. We shoudnt take him as being suspended in some ethereal vapor to deliver us eternal human meanings.

      4. I understand what you are saying, and thank you for exercising my brain. Decay implies a form has reached its peak stage after emergence. I observe … think, … believe, post-modern mental-masturbatory neo-logism de jour, that, … superior beliefs and practices, … exist, … ascend, rise, integrate, take final virtuous eternal form Atomic (not capable of disintegration). Beauty, goodness and truth. Love of self, self-righteous in a positive sense.

        This is the opposite of self righteous in a negative sense – the Will to Nihil – to Negate, to Murder, to Annihilate Self and Others – to debase every virtuous form – THIS IS DECADENCE!

      5. I think I see where you are coming from.
        Perhaps.


        I wrote a short essay a long time ago (not published or anything) and then I lost it and then I re wrote it (but the first one was so perfect !)

        It was called “Glumn the Mad”. And in it he proclaims upon the ‘cattle’ how their ignorance with make them into prostitutes, and like announcements.
        He emerges from his cave and comes upon the world and people and the says this to them. “I am Glumn the MADD, and I do not deserve to live” Becuase he was incapable of communicating to ‘the cattle’ how they are doomed.

        I wrote that way before I knew anything about Nietzche. Before I had read or knew anything about philosophy. And then years later my room mate left a book on the table and it was Kierkegaard “Either /or”. I had barely heard the name before but I knew he was a philosopher. I figured I was something like a philosopher so I figured maybe I would read it and see what’s up.

        I didn’t read the introduction or anything I just went right to the beginning of the text the main text. The problemaga Of whatever. Lol. And I read the first couple pages of it and I was struck because I knew exactly what he was talking about. And I looked at the 800 page book or whatever it was, and from those two pages I thought in my head that I knew what argument he was going to make. So I flip the head a chunk in the book and I just started to read at random and within the first couple paragraphs I knew what argument he was making and how he had developed that argument from the beginning of the book and everything in between. I thought I was going insane and that I must be making shit up in my head. So I flipped to a further chunk of the book to see what might be there, and again within the first page or so I knew what he was trying to say and I knew everything that he had said from the beginning of the book leading up to that point and even extrapolated that to the end of the book. So I again jumped a chunk. And i was correct.

        This so amazed me that I sat down and I read the whole book from beginning to end and I was right about the whole thing, i seemed to know about everything he would write Inuitively. What he was saying.

        But I couldn’t believe it. It was too incredible. How can this be?

        So that started my journey into philosophy. I simply could not believe what I was coming upon . So do this day, I proceed to read philosophy in the attempt to prove myself wrong about what I have come upon.

        The same thing pretty much happened with N. And many other authors.

  3. Does it make a difference if the couple have been welcome customers before the wedding, and would continue to be welcome customers after the wedding?

      1. I don’t know that it was the case in that Colorado story you linked to, but I have heard at least one situation described that way — maybe in Oregon.

      2. I don’t understand either “How rude” or “belief reflecting a limit of ability instead of a value choice.”

        I don’t understand what you’re taking about.

      3. lol. I mean, how rude to have a regular customer that you sold things too until they asked you to make a cake for thier homosexual wedding. Seems to me quite rude and actually plain stupid.

        And then:

        My question: Is belief something that the baker is not choosing? That the “choice” is something like an excuse for an inability?

        Like a belief could be something intrinsic to the person like a freckle or the shape of one’s breasts. Or a dimple. So is their “choice” not to serve a homosexual couple could be not so much “discriminatory” as it might be simply incompetent ?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s