Poor kid

[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.

[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"



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]

Originally Posted by //\/\/

...good names for sheep, though

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]

Originally Posted by gambit

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]

Originally Posted by Deckard

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]

Originally Posted by myrrh

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?

[//\/\/]

Originally Posted by Deckard

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]

Originally Posted by myrrh

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.