December 17, 2008

• I was sure you were kidding about the sister part. Um. Yeah. That's...a special brand of special!
• I feel sad for those kids, ultimately. Usually we grow up to reject, or at least only partially embrace, our parents' beliefs. Maybe these kids will grow up to become white supremacist douchebags, but maybe they won't, and meantime they're saddled with the names and get all the ass kickings and other fun stuff that will certainly permeate their childhoods. I remember going to a local festival and seeing a guy who was all decked out in Dallas Cowboys gear who had actually named his kid Landry. Okay, dude, I love the Cardinals, but I'm not naming my next kid Whitey. How much worse when it's a mass murderer. I hope little Adolph grows up and changes his name to Martin Luther X Evers Parks Hussein Obama Campbell. And is gay. And a communist. And an atheist. Who hates football.
• What sort of parents...I mean...argh. *speechless*
• I think most racist parents will succeed in turning their kids into racists, to some level. But I'm pretty sure a kid named Adolf Hitler will grow to hate everything his parents believe.
• "The Campbells ultimately got their cake decorated at a Wal-Mart in Pennsylvania, Deborah Campbell said." Heh
• No Cake 4 Hitler Wasn't that a Beastie Boys song?
• Wait, I'm thinking of No Sleep 'Till Brooklyn.
• There are so many discredited names to choose from that are NOT fake names: Caligula, Attila, Pol Pott, Nero, Aaron Burr, George Bush...
• OK, the father was making slightly decent headway with the whole "start focusing on the future and not on the past" bit - - and then the moment I got to the other child's name, JoyceLynn Aryan Nation Campbell, it was clear that *he* is the confused one with his head in the clouds... That aside, it's a cake. The story mentioned that said grocery had denied similar requests the previous two years. If the parents truly had the interests of their children at heart, they would have bought a damn tube of decorating gel and wrote it out themselves. Instead, they went ahead and lobbed a media grenade. They've obviously generated a lot of attention, and I would gather to suspect that they are savoring every last glob of it... I do feel sorry for those kids!
• Screw the "start focusing on the future and not on the past" bit. Mr. Asshat Douchbag Campbell just named his child in honor of a mass murderer. Couldn't find a relative, couldn't find any illustrious name from his Scots ancestry, couldn't even name him Asshat Jr. People and their damn agendas. Poor kids.
• If the ShopRite had just done its job, instead of applying subjective censorship, this wouldn't be a news story. The family wasn't requesting hate speech; it's the kid's name, for better or worse.
• Heath Campbell said he named his son after Adolf Hitler because he liked the name and because "no one else in the world would have that name." He sounded surprised by all the controversy the dispute had generated. Wait, you people have some sort of problem with the name "Adolf Hitler"? Really? Me, I think of vanilla cookies every time I hear it. Delicious vanilla cookies.
• Yep. I buy that one. I'm sure he thought "Aryan Nation" was a poetical name as well. Like medow flowers blowing in the wind. All the white-power, nazi shit was just a big co-inkydink. Oopsy.
• And what little girl doesn't want to be called Aryan Nation? It's almost just like being called Ariel the Mermaid!
• for her third birthday, I heard she's getting a rabbit named Attila the Bun!
• no Genghis Cat?
• Their neighbour Paul Pott is fine with it.
• If the ShopRite had just done its job, instead of applying subjective censorship, this wouldn't be a news story. The family wasn't requesting hate speech; it's the kid's name, for better or worse. I think that censorship is when you try and stop somebody else from saying something. This shop refused to provide a service on the basis that the request was unacceptable to them. I don't think that this is, at all, unreasonable. I know I would be upset by, and refuse, a request to honour Hitler in confection. Put yourself in the mind of the poor cake decorator faced with this unusual request: 'Yeah, "Happy Birthday Adolf Hitler"... it's for a three year old boy. Cute as a button. I'm sure you believe me that you're not being asked to participate in some kind of racist attack, right?' Besides, I don't think it's necessarily bad for racists to have the bright light of the media shone upon them every so often. It's not bad to get people talking about the fact that neo-nazis still exist or debating how we, as a society, should respond to them. As for the poor kid who didn't get his cake... well I do feel sorry for him, but it's not the cake shop that did this to him. Parents could have asked for 'Happy Birthday Adolf Campbell', which nobody could have objected to.
• YOU KNOW WHO ELSE LIKED BIRTHDAY CAKE?!?!?
• I am a bit torn. I think anybody should be able to get a cake that says whatever the hell they want it to say. But I also think a business should be able to say no (as long as they didn't accept money for it already).
• Yes, perhaps what was engaged here was not censorship. But at the same time, a business cannot refuse this service based on whether they like the message. They're in the business of writing words on cakes. Could they refuse to write "Happy Birthday Jesus" on the cake? BTW, the kid did get his eponymous birthday cake; they got it from Wal-Mart instead. I just realized that this post was Godwined from the get go.
• Happy Birthday der fuhrer, Happy Birthday der fuhrer, Happy Birthday lil' Adolf, Happy Birthday to you! Blow out the cross shaped candles and wish for a new name! But seriously, in this economy, can anyone afford to refuse a job?
• But at the same time, a business cannot refuse this service based on whether they like the message. I don't want to belabour the point, but I think that this is just not true. I'm all in favour of businesses having to be fair about providing services based on criteria that are, as it were, have nothing to do with the service provided. It would be wrong for these cake providers to refuse service because the customer is a particular race, for example, or disabled. But it is quite a different thing for a service provider to distinguish between the types of service being provided. For example, let's say I go to a cake decorator and ask them to inscribe a cake with a threat, a taunt, a gross insult, or some other form of harassing message. That cake provider is now enabling me to do something very hurtful, perhaps even becoming partially responsible for my harmful actions. I'm sure that little Adolf would see 'Happy Birthday Adolf Hitler' as an uplifting message to receive on his birthday cake. On the other hand, if one of my colleagues were to present me with the same cake it would be a grotesque and disturbing insult. Given that people like me are much more common than people like Adolf, I don't think it's an unreasonable presumption, on the part of the cake decorator, that the item they are being asked to create is intended for some malicious purpose that they want no part in. I don't think that craftspeople are, or should be, obliged to take any job that comes along no matter how it conflicts with their principles.
• What really galls me about boneheaded bigots like these two is their transparent retreat to mealy-mouthed waffling once media attention is focused on them; "They need to accept a name. A name's a name. The kid isn't going to grow up and do what (Hitler) did." No, but I'm sure Dad wishes he could. And I'm also certain that the opinions he expresses to the media don't reflect his true beliefs. And I agree, Dreadnought, that craftspeople should absolutely have the right to tell them to fuck off. Poor kids.
• We're not talking about a self-employed craftsperson, where the ethos of the individual is exactly that of the business. This is a chain of supermarkets, with the associated public obligations. The requested cake design is, at least at face value, not immoral or a grotesque or disturbing insult. The shop knew the boy's name and the parents' intention for his birthday party. I can't see the argument that the store is protecting some 3rd party from harassment. Or say it was his grandparents, who denounce all things racist, who were the requesters? They should still refuse to make it then? What happens if my name turns out to be a most vulgar word in the baker's native language. It doesn't seem like they could refuse make it for me in this case either.
• I'd say that the requested cake design would be regarded by many as something, if not immoral, at least grotesque and disturbing, and that a store, and/or it's employees should have the right to refuse such business. Decorating a cake is not, after all, an essential service.
• I think this is comparable to the case where a pharmacist refused to sell someone "the morning after pill" because they were against abortion. The pharmacist's job was to fill prescriptions, not to decide which drugs go to which people. The supermarket cake decorator was hired to fill orders in a similar fashion. Sure, it's wrong to refuse service to someone in that setting, but I wouldn't hold it against the employee if they walked out and found another job.
• And if Mr. Campbell had any sense, compassion or balls at all he'd change his own name to 'Adolph Hitler Campbell' and leave his children out of it until they're old enough to make their own decisions.
• I can't see the argument that the store is protecting some 3rd party from harassment. In the US, they don't have to make this argument. They're not denying the family an essential service they can't get elsewhere, and they're not violating the civil rights act. Within those bounds, my understanding is any business can refuse service for any reason. I don't have a problem with this, as businesses have rights too. I think this is comparable to the case where a pharmacist refused to sell someone "the morning after pill" because they were against abortion. I understand where you're coming from, but no. There's a world of difference between making someone's medical decisions for them and refusing to write "Happy Birthday Adolph Hitler" on a cake. You might have an argument if the family could have made themselves a morning after pill in their own kitchen.
• The family is being deliberately provocative by #1 naming their kid Adolph Hitler, and #2 trying to get a store to put the name on a cake, rather than do it themselves. They're thrilled to be the center of attention. Don't feed the trolls.
• I agree with middleclasstool that this situation is different from waxboy's pharmacist example, but I think the distinction is sufficiently subtle that it deserves spelling out. As a general principle, I would argue that we should never force a provider of goods and services to do something unless we have a very good reason. For example, we force them to maintain sanitary standards to protect the public. We force them to serve people of all races, because we've observed that there's socially negative consequences for not enacting such standards, and so on. With pharmacists, there is an extra layer of coercion involved. Pharmacists are professionals in the true meaning of the word, which is that they are part of a formal profession. As such they are party to a code of professional ethics which says that they are not allowed to make treatment decisions for their customers. Cake decorators are, of course, party to no such obligations. We're not talking about a self-employed craftsperson, where the ethos of the individual is exactly that of the business. This is a chain of supermarkets, with the associated public obligations. On the other hand, I don't think that working at a large supermarket requires one to surrender one's individuality or personal ethics at the door. Admittedly, we often hear of bosses telling their employees to put up and shut up, telling them that they are not paid to think and that they are expected to behave like automatons. Personally, I don't think this is a necessary feature of Modernity. I think it's a feature of bad leadership, of bosses who don't know how to do their jobs effectively and don't know how to deal with the people who work for them. Indeed, I can see real 'corporate self-interest' reasons why this supermarket chain may be very pleased that their employees did as they did: 1. All the publicity has put their name in the news as the supermarket chain prepared to stand up to Nazism. 2. More generally, they probably have policies preventing their employees from putting things on cakes that might hurt the image of the company. Think of how an unscrupulous competitor could tar their image by revealing that they sold a cake festooned with swastikas and wishing health and happiness to Hitler. I think that flurker is absolutely right in that it's often a very healthy thing for a big company to adopt a 'the customer is always right' policy for the vast majority of cases. On the other hand, I think we all recognise that such a policy has to have limits, which is why we arrest customers who think themselves entitled to the contents of the till (or else, buster!). I think that, on a corporate level as well as the level of the individual craftsperson/employee, this particular case crosses the line.
• The requested cake design is, at least at face value, not immoral or a grotesque or disturbing insult. Ah, let me clarify. It's true that providing this particular three year old with this particular cake is not an insult. However the cake decorator has to take into account the (I think rather likely in this case) possibility that the person buying the cake is lying. What are the chances that this guy really did call his kid Adolf Hitler? Pretty small. What are the chances he's going to present it to his hated Jewish colleague? Much larger. What are the chances that he just wants to cause the cake decorator distress by forcing him or her to write something distressing or repulsive? Even larger still. Of course, with hindsight, we know that there really was a real three-year-old Adolf, but the cake decorator was not to know this, nor should he or she be expected to know it.
• You know, my parents never called me by my middle name unless I was in trouble. For the parents, I think there is more to it than wanting a cake for their kid (why the whole name?). They'll probably put it up on stromfront, or what ever, and chuckle about it. I also wonder if the first maker they try each year is Jewish. I think a pair a racists would get a big kick out of paying a Jew to bake a "Happy Birthday, Adolf Hitler!" cake. But in this instance, I can see a parallel between bakeries and ISPs. If a person wants a "Happy Birthday, Adolf Hitler!" website, should ISPs be able to turn them down? That's tricky. I personally think it's up to society to reject the message, not up to the business. Leaving it up to businesses to reject messages lands us somewhere I don't want to be. So, even though I think they reasons for getting a the cake are artificial, I'd rather that when a company's business is to put other people's messages onto media, they should always do it, instead of them doing it only when it conforms to their beliefs. But this is very tricky, and I'll probably change my mind often on it. I think I changed my mind 3 or 4 times just typing this comment.
• I personally think it's up to society to reject the message, not up to the business. What is society then? What our business and corporations do reflect our ethics and concerns. If we, as a society, demand that a bakery put any message on a cake the buyer wants, we're saying that the buyer's right to purchase what he wants in the name of free speech transcends any other rights the bakery or anyone else may have. Dreadnought has a point about the intent of what is written on the cake. The bakery shouldn't be in a position of having to question the intent of the message. I don't think refusing to make the cake was in any way a denial of free speech to these people. I don't even have a problem with a pharmacist not filling certain prescriptions--just as long as there are other pharmacies nearby, so that the quality of public health isn't impinged upon, and as long as the pharmacy posts in BIG letters on the front of the store what the agenda is. No one should have to enter a pharmacy not knowing that they will be refused their medication or embarrassed because they present a script that the pharmacist personally doesn't care to honor. If you don't work for a pharmacy that has that type of agenda posted loud and clear, then keep your damn mouth shut and do your job, or quit. See, that way nobody has their toes rights stepped on. I get really pissed at public energy being wasted on attention seeking asshats who keep whining about their "rights" being violated. Nobody has a 'right' to a damned store-bought birthday cake. It wouldn't have ruined the kid's day to have 'Happy B-day, Adolph' written on it. Would have been a heck of a lot easier to get on the cake, too. After reading how these two wonderful specimens of humanity named their other two children 'Aryan Nation' and 'Hinler' (apparently they couldn't spell Himmler right on the certificate)AND finding out that neither of them work because they are 'disabled'--not so disabled they can't run around to different stores looking for just the right message on a cake rather than baking a homemade cake AND FROSTING THE DAMN THING themselves, I've decided screw them. I just feel bad for their kids. Real and ugly violations of human rights go on every day, all around us. Why does this get air time?
• First off, I meant to thank everyone earlier for their well-reasoned comments. Now, on with the show... >> Within those bounds, my understanding is any business can refuse service for any reason. IANAL, so this argument gives me pause. I also believe businesses have rights, and can set policy, but I've always thought those policies were founded in the public good. For example, "no shoes, no service" seems a reasonable infringement on my desire to go barefoot, since there is clearly a public health/safety argument. If the store's argument is that they're protecting a 3rd party from harassment, then fine, I agree; they should not be coerced in to harming someone. But this is not the case. The store knows this cake is bone fide. It has been approached at least the 2 previous years. >> If we, as a society, demand that a bakery put any message on a cake the buyer wants, we're saying that the buyer's right to purchase what he wants in the name of free speech transcends any other rights the bakery or anyone else may have. I'm not sure anyone is claiming this was a violation of free-speech; in fact, this is the first time it has been mentioned. Personally, I think it could be framed that way, but I'm not sure that it would hold water legally. If they had been denied when filling out the certificate of birth, then it would most certainly be a free-speech issue. >>The bakery shouldn't be in a position of having to question the intent of the message. I'm a little confused here. Doesn't this support the position of not denying them the cake? Otherwise, it sounds like you're saying they don't have the right to even ask for the cake? That, most certainly, is a free-speech impingement. >>I don't even have a problem with a pharmacist not filling certain prescriptions--just as long as there are other pharmacies nearby How to you ensure this? Do you set up a license for allowing someone to not supply specific drugs? Do they limit these like alcohol sales licenses? This is the same argument against banning smoking in bars and restaurants, because patrons and employees alike can simply choose to go elsewhere. But this doesn't work to ensure non-smokers can breath non-smoke, i.e. protecting their rights, hence the ban*. >> See, that way nobody has their toes rights stepped on. I believe this is a separate, but equal, argument. As long as you provide this service, even if it is one shop, 20 miles away, you're ok. In this extreme, where this is only one store providing this service, you could argue that this actually identifies the parties, a sort of scarlet letter. >>Why does this get air time? Because, the ugly violations are pretty cut and dry. This issue walks the line, and therefore defines where our liberties begin and end. The former needs no discussion, it needs action. The latter needs no action, it needs discussion. *where I'm from, indoor smoking is banned
• IANAL, so this argument gives me pause Why? If they're not being denied an essential service and their civil rights haven't been violated, what's the tangible harm? Hell, the bakery offered to sell them a cake, they just said they didn't want to write "Happy Birthday Adolph Hitler on it." Maybe you think that's silly, but silly != should be legally forced to do the opposite. You don't have a right to do business with me. That's a mutual arrangement that we must both consent to. You can't force me to sell you something or buy something from you. Yes, the government sets legal limits on that to preserve our respective civil rights, but within those limitations, we are free to do as we choose. Remember, perhaps the most important legal right of all is the right to say "No."
• >>IANAL, so this argument gives me pause >Why? I simply meant that I hadn't thought out your logic before, and I needed to think about it. >> You don't have a right to do business with me. Well, yes and no. I agree with the spirit of that comment, but in practice, you can't deny me a service for an arbitrary reason, while at the same time providing the same service to someone else. In this case, the denial was because the cake's decoration was "[deemed] to be inappropriate". My argument is that they are wrong. How can a birthday cake be any more appropriate, then to wish the recipient happy birthday by name?
• The store knows this cake is bone fide. It has been approached at least the 2 previous years. Well, if I don't get service, I don't go back. How come these people expect to have it there way when they've been told 'no' before? If it's not a free speech argument, what possible argument could they have? Denial of service? Supposed they wanted to put 'Happy Birthday Fuckhead' because that's the nickname they use. They're not being denied a cake with 'Happy Birthday' on it, the bakery just didn't want to put Adolph Hitler. That's really worth a whine if you're an adult. Damn it, buy some canned frosting, go HOME and put the stupid name on yourself, instead of thinking you're such a special snowflake. The bakery shouldn't be in a position of having to question the intent of the message. By question the intent, I was referring to the comment someone had made above. How does the baker know that the cake is honestly for a child (unlikely name!) and not being used to offend someone or being used in a KKK gathering? I sure wouldn't want to be their caterer. And with the turnover in employees, the server might not have known they had asked several years in a row. Do you set up a license for allowing someone to not supply specific drugs?... Why would this need a license? A notice to the public would seem to be sufficient. Thanks to good old-fashioned capitalism I would imagine the lack would be filled so fast it would cause a vacuum. Sorry, they are asshats who think they're privileged. Adults being told that they can't have what they want on a birthday cake just vote with their feet and $$$$ and go somewhere else. Spoiled babies that want attention whine and cry.
• Doesn't this support the position of not denying them the cake? Otherwise, it sounds like you're saying they don't have the right to even ask for the cake? That, most certainly, is a free-speech impingement. This is an exceptionally clever argument. I think you're right: it does not do to say that the bakery should not be put in a position to question their motives. The Nazi parent types clearly have the right to ask for the cake, so long as in doing so they're not committing an assault on the baker (which could happen: 'Hey Joe, please bake me a cake which says "Joe will die tonight"'). But it's a different matter as to whether the baker should be required to supply the cake. I have already argued that the default position should be that businesses are not compelled to do business unless we, as a society, feel the need to so compel them. As there is no overriding need here, such coercion is not, in my view, warranted.
• I agree with the spirit of that comment, but in practice, you can't deny me a service for an arbitrary reason, while at the same time providing the same service to someone else. In practice, there are no "arbitrary" reasons. A business owner wishes to make money. If he refuses to take your money, he does so because of an overriding, non-arbitrary (to him, at least) reason. Given that his livelihood is at stake, that reason will be very, very important to him. If that reason for refusing service and payment does not violate federal or state law, then the law says he has the right to stand on his principles. I honestly cannot conceive of why this is a bad thing. I we feel his reasons are wrong to the point of causing real harm, like several decades ago when business owners refused service based on skin color, then we need to work to create laws that criminalize such behavior. Short of that, let the free market decide whether his business sinks or swims. If his standards are bad enough, people will vote with their money.
• If we feel, gah. I've been typing with nine fingers for the last few days.
• I think DN and MCT are making similar points: >>the default position should be that businesses are not compelled to do business unless we, as a society, feel the need to so compel them. & >> If that reason for refusing service and payment does not violate federal or state law, then the law says he has the right to stand on his principles. I honestly cannot conceive of why this is a bad thing. I agree with these statements. I'm not convinced, however, that this refusal of service hasn't overstepped consumer rights, at least a little. I'm trying to reframe this issue, perhaps foolishly, without emotional entanglements, but it's difficult though, and I mean no disrespect to anyone. Let's say I request a holiday cake saying "Happy Hanukah", and by chance, White Power Bill* happens to be the shop owner. He says he won't create the cake because it's inappropriate. (I don't know, maybe "Hanukah can never be happy"?) While I bet I'd hightail it outta there, still... my rights as a consumer have been stepped on. I think this scenario would invoke a different popular opinion. One can imagine other similar scenarios, provoking even more outrage, such as an atheist baker not serving a Christian customer. *Sorry, couldn't resist a little humor.
• Speaking of which, it's after sundown so... Happy Hanukkah everyone!
• I'm trying to reframe this issue, perhaps foolishly, without emotional entanglements, but it's difficult though, and I mean no disrespect to anyone. I think that this, far from being foolish, is the best way to get to the nub of the issue. I think that we all feel that there is some balance between consumer protection and business freedom at stake, here, and we're groping around to find exactly where that balance point is. Having said that, I think that the Hanukkah cake example is 'flawed' in the same way that the Nazi cake example is. In that case, however, our sympathies tip away from the cake maker and toward the poor, cakeless customer. In other words, it is possible that we might wish to proscribe religious discrimination in law. Let's pick an even more neutral example and see how that strikes us: Alice wants to buy a cake from Bob that says 'Congratulations Charlie'. Bob hates Charlie because of that dispute about the fence that one time. Does Bob have the right to turn away Alice's custom? My first instinct would be to say 'yes'. While this may very well be contrary to Bob's best financial interest, Bob could raise two other arguments that I can see: 1. Bob may, in some small way, be damaged by providing the cake. All night he'll be thinking of that nogoodnik Charlie stuffing his self-satisfied face with delicious Bob-made cake. Bob just won't be able to relax and enjoy his nightly ritual of throwing darts at a picture of Charlie. 2. Reductio ad absurdum: if Bob is not permitted to turn down Alice's custom for his own reasons, for what reason is he allowed to turn her down. Let's say he has more requests for cakes than he can fulfill in a day? Is he required to take them on a strictly first-come first-served basis? What happens if Doris also wants a cake, but she is a long term, loyal customer? To some extent, Bob is required, by dint of his position, to act as Arbiter of Cakey Goodness. Don't we need a very clear reason to restrict his ability to choose for himself?
• No cake for you! Get out of my store. Consumer rights? Nope. Not being sold a cake laced with melamine, that is consumer rights. Wanting to have your way no matter what dumb-ass demand you are making, that is childish. Nothing to do with rights. I'm sure they will sell that fucktard nazi as many cakes as he wants, so he is not being descriminated against. Not making a happy Hannukah cake is cleary a different case, as it is obviously discriminating based on religion. No business should be forced to comply with neo-nazi white power assholes just becuase they are jerks enough to inflict the name of the person who is arguably considered to be the most evil and hated person in the history of the world on their poor kid. Hey, yeah, dickwad, you do that sort of moronic thing, and people are going to treat your kid like shit for it, and he isn't going to get personalised store bought cakes. I'm willing to bet that just feeds into the White Power asshole's personal feelings of oppression by the masses and marterdom for the cause. For that matter, the kid isn't going to find name plaques or mugs with his cute little moniker on it. I don't imagine anyone is going to sue Mugs Inc., PRC for that oversight. And I bet you are right, Mr. K. This type would love to take that kind of request to a Jewish baker, so they can run around to their aryan nation friends saying how they have proof that Jews are hypocritical and have it out for them. Then again, maybe the sub-morons are illiterate, and incapable of piping the name on themselves. On a side note, I remember reading a while ago that in some parts of the third world, there are lots of Hitlers and Stalins and whatnot running around, as people pick names that are of famous people without understanding the context.
• >>Wanting to have your way no matter what dumb-ass demand you are making But it's not a dumb-ass demand. It's perfectly logical to request a birthday cake saying "happy birthday ". >>Not making a happy Hannukah cake is cleary a different case, as it is obviously discriminating based on religion. Sorry, no. It wasn't based on religion, it was deemed inappropriate.
• Notice my choice in words. Demand, not request. And it is dumb-assed to demand to have your way all the time like a little whingy child. And you are a moron to name your kid after Hitler. Not everyone gets there way all the time, wah wah wah. Buy some fucking icing and do it yourself. Nice lesson for the kid -- sorry, you can't have a birthday cake with your name on it because your parents are ASSHOLES. Well, now he knows. Sometimes lessons are learned the hard way. That couple named their kids the way they did so they could get a rise out of everyone whenever they use their names or dmand they are put on cakes or personalised whatever or registered for sports or have a fucking singing telegram where they get some poor shmuck to sing "for he's a jolly fellow, hey we all love Aldoph Hitler" or whatever. And I stand by my statment that wanting "happy birthday Aldoph Hitler" is clearly different from "Happy Hannukah". You can call whatever the hell you want "inappropriate", but it is pretty clear what would really be meant. Trying to glorify the furer in icing ain't the same thing, and using your kid as a loophole to do so is just distasteful and inexcusable. On the other hand, I would have no pity for someone who went into the "Jesus Christ Christian Bakery and All-Bible Cake Shop" and demanded a cake glorifying Ganesh, and then whinged when they were denyed. I have no pity or sympathy or time for aryan nation new-nazi white power fucktards. Why should anyone be required to appease neo-nazis because they found a particularly offensive and horrible way to glorify an evil man? Oooooo think of the poor little boy, not having his entire given name written out in icing, oooo what pain and suffering he will endure. Whatever.
• Ok, you win.
• Sorry about the salty language. I am a bit, um, passionate, about my views on new-nazis and their ilk, and have absolutely no patience with the sense of entitlement that seems to be rampant in modern western society. This particular situation was just the perfect mix of the two to get my back up.
• This sort of thing makes my rightous indignation flare up and my head assplode.
• Thanks. As I said, I know this issue is emotionally charged (and appropriately so), and I'm not trying to push buttons. I guess I'm trying to understand why it's so cut-and-dry when it's clearly religious discrimination when framed one way, but not discrimination the original way. I'm not 100% convinced of my position either, just trying poke holes in the, shall we say, passionate arguments, with dispassionate ones.
• Let's say I request a holiday cake saying "Happy Hanukah", Why ANYONE with sense would get a dry, tasteless Hannuka cake with greasy frosting from that meshugena White Power Bill instead of a moist, delicious Moishe’s Bakery cake is beyond me.... I digress. I can't see a problem if Bill is willing to sell you a cake, but not write anything on it. You have your cake, go home and pipe whatever message you want at that point. Or don't buy the cake, go to Moishe. Problem solved!!
• I think it is because in this case, the intent is different. They named their kid after Hitler in order to glorify the evil bastard and push their white-supremisist, neo-nazi views, and are using the kid as an excuse to continue that glorification. I don't think people would question it nearly as much if the father changed his name to Adolf Hitler, and then wanted a cake with his name on it and was told no. But because the child didn't choose his own name, he is rightly seen as innocent in the whole matter. I still don't think someone should have to make the cake though, nor that the kid is entitled to it. I see it this way: Neo-Nazi Jerkwad: "I want a birthday cake that says "Happy Birthday Adolf Hitler" Poor Shmuck Baker: "Sorry sir, but I find making a cake that glorifies the evilest man in history to be morally repugnant and innapproriate." NNJW: "Well, you see, that is my 3-year old son's, and I need a birthday cake for him. Nothing innappropriate about it if is his name and his birthday. Boy needs cake." PSB: "Oh. Gee. Um. No, I'm sorry sir, I still find that morally repugnant, because you named your kid to glorify and evil man, it doesn't mean I have to contiue that and support your views by making a cake with that name on it. How about a compromise: I make a cake that Says Happy Birthday Addie, or Happy Birthday Adolf, or just sell you a blank one and give you a tube of frosting." NNJW: "No! You must bake me the cake! How dare you discriminate agains my poor dear little Adolf Hitler just because of his name! No compromise!" PSB: "Fine. No cake for you!" Maybe their is a bright side to this -- maybe the poor kid will be forced to learn why people don't like his parent's views and find his name to be upseting. Maybe then he won't follow in his idiot parents' footsteps.
• (Ugh. That was full of grammatical and spelling mistakes. Someday a preview button will come and save me from such follies.)
• Stick around long enough, fimbulvetr, and we'll let you into the "secret Monkeyfilter lair" where there is indeed a preview button.
• You have to scrape the ookies off every time you want to use it, but it does work.
• Hitler taken from family home
• Well... It will certainly be interesting to see how this little scenario falls out. Certainly anyone naming their children after Nazis couldn't possibly be BATSHITINSANE, amirite?
• "Drunken Negro Face" Cookies On Sale at Greenwich Village Bakery