Poor kid

[Deckard]

Heath and Deborah Campbell were furious when their local baker in New Jersey refused to decorate a birthday cake with the name of their baby boy.

The boy's name? Adolf Hitler.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article5358489.ece

His parents insisted that some of the toddler’s best friends were black. Mr Campbell, 35, said that about 12 people attended the birthday party on Sunday, including several children who were of mixed race.

“If we’re so racist, then why would I have them come into my home?” he asked.

:confused:

I can barely get my head around how anyone could knowingly inflict something like that on a child.

[gambit]

........fuck?

Adolf Hitler Campbell turned 3 this week and celebrated at a party with his younger sisters Honszlynn Hinler Jeannie (sic – apparently in tribute to Heinrich Himmler) and JoyceLynn Aryan Nation Campbell.

...

A spokeswoman for ShopRite said that this was not the bakery department’s first run in with the Campbells – a similar request was denied two years ago when the shop also refused to daub swastikas on baked goods for the family

...

The angry father, who was wearing a pair of black boots that he claimed were Second World War German artefacts, said: “They need to accept a name. A name’s a name. The kid isn’t going to grow up and do what (Hitler) did.”

He said he named his son after the leader of the Third Reich because he liked the name and because “no one else in the world would have that name.”

"Other kids get their cake," he complained. "I get a hard time. It's not fair to my children. How can a name be offensive?

Wow, just...wow. These people are either Nazis, or stupid, or both.

[Sean]

When I first started reading this article yesterday, I was giving them the benefit of the doubt. Maybe "Adolf" and "Hitler" were somehow family names that they just decided were more important than the outsider's historical view of them. But then I saw that his sister's names included "Aryan Nation" and "Hinler", and that they only chose "Adolf Hitler" because "no one else in the world would have that name." It's all pretty clear once you hear that stuff. And in the article I read, the dumbass "Campbell said he was raised not to avoid people of other races but not to mix with them socially or romantically. But he said he would try to raise his children differently. 'Say he grows up and hangs out with black people. That's fine, I don't really care,' he said. 'That's his choice.'" Wow. How very progressive. :rolleyes:

[myrrh]

Well, that sucks to be the kid, but there is no reason why the baker shouldn't have made the cake. It is his job, and it's not like there is technically anything wrong with the name Adolf Hitler.

I could see if the baker was a Jew and these people specifically did this kind of thing to get under his skin, but it seems that they have a legit case in that they chose to name their kid Adolf Hitler, and want his name on his birthday cake.

[Sean]

Well, that sucks to be the kid, but there is no reason why the baker shouldn't have made the cake. It is his job, and it's not like there is technically anything wrong with the name Adolf Hitler.

I could see if the baker was a Jew and these people specifically did this kind of thing to get under his skin, but it seems that they have a legit case in that they chose to name their kid Adolf Hitler, and want his name on his birthday cake.They offered to make the cake and leave room for the family to add whatever lettering they desired themselves. Seems fair enough to me.

[gambit]

Every business has the right to refuse business with any customer. They also were asked to paint swastikas on something for this family in the past, and they turned that down.

[dubman]

yeah no business is obligated to fulfill a stupid request. the customer's wrong enough as it is without getting uppity about this complete nonsense.

if the dad is retarded enough to name his son this then he should know that he needs to also own the baggage that comes with it.

the fact that they wanted a swastika on a cake before makes this "sounds like a good name" and "i only wear these as artifacts" complete bull.

[chuck]

And here I am wanting to name my baby "Rocky" or "Cornelius" - and wondering what all the fuss is about when people protest!

:D

[Deckard]

And to think there are some unfortunate kids out there called "George Bush" too.

However Rocky or Cornelius are cool.

As would be Darth Vader, Osama bin Laden and Jack Bauer.

(Probably a good thing that I don't have kids)

[//\/\/]

As would be Darth Vader, Osama bin Laden and Jack Bauer.

(Probably a good thing that I don't have kids)

...good names for sheep, though :p:D;)

[myrrh]

The point I am making is that really, there is no bases for not putting this name on a cake.

This would be like if I was a cake decorator and some church came in and wanted a cake that had a big cross on it. Then I refused to decorate because I believe that it is offensive and insulting to think that God would allow one of His prophets to be crucified. Let alone it reminds me of all the killing and horrors that have been committed with people wearing big crosses on their tabards etc.

Would the same reaction from everyone be happening? Somehow, I doubt it. :rolleyes:

[dubman]

hahahahhahaha

man are you still there

"well, what about this point i have about christianity?! ooooh one and the same one and the same, yes, got you now"

:rolleyes:

if someone wont put a crucifix on a cake because it symbolizes thousands of years of repression and bloodshed, that's still their right, and it's still funny that the people requesting it are getting screwed around by the decorators.

yet the cricifix, in europe and the states and wherever else christianity is the main religion and not nazism, is not generally considered as such and as a culture doesnt represent the evil of the church but as a symbol of faith.
as oppposed to a political party whose main jollies involved gas and ovens.



I refused to decorate because I believe that it is offensive and insulting to think that God would allow one of His prophets to be crucified

honestly what the hell is this
this part makes no goddamn sense.

wait why the fuck did i even bother

[Deckard]

...good names for sheep, though :p:D;)
Someone baaaaaa-a-a-an him please.

[gambit]

Rachel Maddow put it best, and I'm paraphrasing here, so bear with me. Businesses can't discriminate against certain protected groups based on minority, religion, etc..., but there is no protected group for kids named Adolf Hitler.

Oh, and one more bit of information: Wal-Mart made the cake with the "Happy Birthday Adolf Hitler" on it. So....yeah.

[Deckard]

Businesses can't discriminate against certain protected groups based on minority, religion, etc...
Here's a question: Is that a good thing?

Much as I'd be disgusted by any business that said something like "no blacks", should it be enforced by legislation?

And moving away from innate attributes like race and sex, why should religious affiliation be protected by that legislation, but not political affiliation?

Just interested to know everyone's thoughts.

[myrrh]

Here's a question: Is that a good thing?

Much as I'd be disgusted by any business that said something like "no blacks", should it be enforced by legislation?

And moving away from innate attributes like race and sex, why should religious affiliation be protected by that legislation, but not political affiliation?




I don't know whether it is good or not. I would think that according the value system of the US in that it bases it's principals on equality, then yes it is a good thing that legislation exists to protect it.

On the other hand, if you have a have a business that is say... a gynecological practice that is run by all women and cater to women who don't want to be naked in front of men doctors, then it seems perfectly acceptable to have a sign that says "no men".

I am not sure about the last part either because there could be a no line between political party and religion. Like for instance here in Morocco, there is no line. Politics and religion are one in the same, which is a different way to do things than in Western Democracies.

So, perhaps the answer then would be that I think that political parties should be protected too. However, I don't think that the US would ever allow something like that because then an idea other than their version of Democracy could become so popular that it becomes a threat.

[kagenaki koe]

The point I am making is that really, there is no bases for not putting this name on a cake.

what if the request was for a child's birthday cake, but they wanted it decorated or made to look like goatsecs and the kid's name was Billy Buttfuque?

[//\/\/]

Someone baaaaaa-a-a-an him please.

think about it - calling a sheep 'adolf hitler' would be pretty funny, and would undermine his name somewhat. you could have a flock of dictator-named sheep ambling around being normal sheep, but with daft names...*






(*idea somewhat appropriated from harry hill's badger parade)

(these antibiotics are good!)

[//\/\/]

i also think the moment you're forced by law to decorate that cake, it's a bad day for freedom. better to go to court than pander to every loon who steps through your door.

[Strangelet]

So, perhaps the answer then would be that I think that political parties should be protected too. However, I don't think that the US would ever allow something like that because then an idea other than their version of Democracy could become so popular that it becomes a threat.

there's only one version of democracy. Even whatever you mean by "the US" knows that. You're treading closely to calling the brat's birthday cake a first amendment issue. Like if we disallow his cake to be depicting a flaming lynch mob we are infringing on the rights of minority voices to exist. which is pretty amusing.

[Rog]

storm in a teacup really......anyone who calls his kid adolf hitler ......or aryan nation........ is a fuckin idiot...end of. the cake thing is not even worth talking about and has fuck all to do with religion:rolleyes:

[cacophony]

^ finally, a rational reaction.

[Deckard]

Well I was kind of hoping this would move into a general (rational) discussion of whether businesses should or shouldn't be able to legally discriminate against certain groups, and if so, which groups. I don't have links for each of these, but a private housing development in the US banning black people, a hotel in the UK banning homosexuals, a pub in Australia banning heterosexuals - I don't know about everyone else but I've always found this issue less cut-and-dried than I'd like.

[cacophony]

i think discriminating against PEOPLE is different from discriminating against MESSAGING.

[Deckard]

It is. So?

[//\/\/]

i have no problem with discrimination against white supremacists.

[Deckard]

You know that's pretty much the sort of thing I'm talking about. Really I'm not trying to be a smartass here. Discriminating against people is different from discriminating against messaging, but there are times when I see the line between the person and the message as fuzzier than I'd like it to be, because a message can be tied up so closely with the belief and the believer.

[Strangelet]

Well I was kind of hoping this would move into a general (rational) discussion of whether businesses should or shouldn't be able to legally discriminate against certain groups, and if so, which groups. I don't have links for each of these, but a private housing development in the US banning black people, a hotel in the UK banning homosexuals, a pub in Australia banning heterosexuals - I don't know about everyone else but I've always found this issue less cut-and-dried than I'd like.

my reply was kind of a vague, snarky answer to this question. If this discussion has to delve into issues like democracy or freedom of expression, I think these concepts get strained to the point of breaking in the context of little hitler's cake.

these heady concepts are for the realm of public policy. not private business. So yes, businesses should be able to discriminate the hell out of everyone if they want. allowing this just doesn't seem to fit under the heading of "tolerating intolerance" because tolerance has nothing to do with birth day cakes.

I mean are we going to be intolerant of the minority of birthday cake makers who have personally or knows someone who have suffered from racial prejudice? And then we force them by law to make a "fuck non white people" cake?

In other words, when two people agree to do business, business is done. That's because business is inherently free. In government, people don't have any choice about living with each other. That means equality must be enforced by law as a consequence of this lack of choice.

But anyway, I think you cut right to the essence of the point here, decks. How do you separate intolerance towards the person versus intolerance towards the ideology?

Would the perfect world be such that everyone would be free to hate and discuss and be intolerant towards ideologies but the people would be completely free to participate and patronize any business, even to bars that don't approve of their sexual ideology?

I think you reveal the difference between the virtue of making employers, lenders, and landlords practice equal opportunity business, but telling hitler jr to buzz off. Work, money, and housing are essential to life, to conduct business prejudicely in this way would really become an intolerance towards the person. Telling white trash hillbillies their pathetic attempt to prop up their race as a reason to feel superior in the absense of any other possible candidate is repugnant my cake making artistry, and up with which I will not put, that's something else.

[cacophony]

It is. So?
so i'm not going to get my panties in a bunch over messaging rights.

[cacophony]

How do you separate intolerance towards the person versus intolerance towards the ideology?
being tolerant of the person means not preventing him/her from saying what's on his/her mind.

being tolerant of the ideology/message means being the instrument through which what's on his/her mind is expressed.

they have a right to name their kid adolph hitler. they have a right to make their own cake and put hitler on it. they don't have a right to force others in private business to be the instrument through which their message is delivered.

in summary: birthday cake is not a right.

[kagenaki koe]

is Stupidity an ideology? this parent that doesn't seem to understand why Adolf Hitler could be an offensive name seems to come from the same kind of cloth as a Sarah Palin.

[Strangelet]

is Stupidity an ideology? this parent that doesn't seem to understand why Adolf Hitler could be an offensive name seems to come from the same kind of cloth as a Sarah Palin.

yes actually. stupidity is an ideology. and i'm sure the parents understand its offensive to people. in fact they are counting on it.

[Sean]

being tolerant of the person means not preventing him/her from saying what's on his/her mind.

being tolerant of the ideology/message means being the instrument through which what's on his/her mind is expressed.

they have a right to name their kid adolph hitler. they have a right to make their own cake and put hitler on it. they don't have a right to force others in private business to be the instrument through which their message is delivered.

in summary: birthday cake is not a right.Nicely summarized.

Now I'm off to the local Ralph's supermarket bakery section to see if they'll make me a birthday cake with a big drawing of a penis and a vagina on it....

[Deckard]

i'm sure the parents understand its offensive to people. in fact they are counting on it.
Absolutely. Without doubt.

[stimpee]

storm in a teacup really......anyone who calls his kid adolf hitler ......or aryan nation........ is a fuckin idiot...end of. the cake thing is not even worth talking about and has fuck all to do with religion:rolleyes:fuck me, "Rog in sensible sober statement shocker".

[Deckard]

Now I'm off to the local Ralph's supermarket bakery section to see if they'll make me a birthday cake with a big drawing of a penis and a vagina on it....
Save some for me.
(and make sure it's the right half)

fuck me, "Rog in sensible sober statement shocker".
It's 11.30pm Friday night. Give it a couple more hours...... :D

[BeautifulBurnout]

in summary: birthday cake is not a right.


This sums up my view perfectly. :)

[IsiliRunite]

i feel as though, in the interest of fairness, they should have made the cake as ordered but have a clause that certain things cost extra. like 100 dollars extra

[dubman]

haha you'd put a swastika on a cake for 100 bucks

[gambit]

I'd at least start at five grand for painting a swastika on a cake, personally.

[IsiliRunite]

Right, because I believe its legitimate to take an economically momentous stand on things while personally honouring free speech. People will support that company, if they are as moral as they'd like to believe they are.

[kagenaki koe]

I'd at least start at five grand for painting a swastika on a cake, personally.

for 5 grand i'd start my own bakery and sell swastikakes. just for my niche market.

[Rog]

It's 11.30pm Friday night. Give it a couple more hours...... :D

Ha! didn't post this friday.....switched on the laptop then fell asleep:o:D