Wow, just wow. I am not sure what can be said about this really.
JoyceLynn Aryan Nation Campbell, Honszlynn Hinler Jeannie Campbell and Adolf Hitler Campbell.Good names for a trio of toddlers? Heath and Deborah Campbell think so. The Holland Township couple has picked those names and the oldest child, Adolf Hitler Campbell, turns 3 today.
This has given rise to a problem, because the ShopRite supermarket in Greenwich Township has refused to make a cake for young Adolf's birthday.
"We believe the request ... to inscribe a birthday wish to Adolf Hitler is inappropriate," said Karen Meleta, a ShopRite spokeswoman.
The Campbells turned down the market's offer to make a cake with enough room for them to write their own inscription and can't understand what all of the fuss is about.
Good for Shoprite. But what can you really say to this family? "Yo, uhhh, that is really racist!" Offensive is an understatement. That is your WTF for the day.
Thanks to Legba for the link.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Appalling: Naming your child Hitler and wondering why people are not OK with it. .
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/10981
poor, poor kid... *shaking my head*
They know exactly what they are doing.
I think it's ridiculous to name your child Adolph Hitler, sure. But that's his name. He already has to grow up with parents like these, being made fun of by other kids for his name.. can he get a birthday cake, at least? Know what I'm saying? It's not his fault; he didn't name himself. Besides, I didn't know there were names that were in any way illegal, or that couldn't be printed on a cake.
Again, I think these people are bat shit crazy. But I am questioning, on legal and moral grounds, the store that wouldn't write the name on the cake.
That's the unfortunate thing about using your kid as a tool to push your (nasty, bigoted) views. The child is going to face reactions and consequences for something they had no choice in. Why do you think the parents wanted Adolph Hitler on the cake instead of just Adolph? This is exactly what they wanted to have happen. The parents are the unbearable combination of attention whores (Ok, I realize this term is sexist, someone help me find a good substitute with the same ring to it) and bigots. Besides, leaving room for them to put their own inscription is a reasonable compromise.
good substitute for that word...perez hilton? lets start using THAT name as an adjective.
These names are rather tame. Ive seen some that judges have had to ban from use...We live in a culture of shock and volatility.
Also...people just want to push the envelop and see just *how free* this country is...
It's the parents' fault he isn't getting a cake. They could go somewhere else, or bake him one themselves, or have accepted Shoprite's offer of a blank cake so they could write the inscription themselves. Don't blame Shoprite for denying this kid a cake.
Seriously. Besides, they are a private company. If they don't want to make a cake for someone named Sally, that's their right and their decision.
I disagree. I am for equal rights for all, not equal rights just for those I agree or identify with. A store denying service to someone who has acted inappropriately is one thing; a store denying service to someone based on their identifying features (particularly ones they cannot control) is prejudice many people, including many here, have worked long and hard to eradicate. Pick your battles all you want - this particular situation is hardly something I care about - but when you start approving treating people differently because of their name you'll find little sympathy from me when you find your name in the "out" group, and little support for your efforts to get certain names in the "in" group.
Consider what will happen to this child if all he experiences is rejection because of his name. Is it the fault of his parents for creating this situation? Yes. But we chose how we act when interacting with him. We will have to deal with the consequences of a damaged individual if all he receives is rejection from the outside world. We cannot predict where he will direct his anger - at his parents for naming him such, or at society for rejecting him - but is there any doubt that he will have rage issues? A name is one of the most superficial things there are about us; why encourage people to use it as a good excuse to identify and reject the "other?"
Cakes aren't medicine, I don't see anything particularly amoral about a private company opting out.
The parents could have settled for a cake without his name on it and written it in themselves, or something. There are viable alternatives, this isn't discriminatory.
I think Shop-Rite would be in a whole lot more trouble if they DID put baby Hitler's name on the cake. They would probably lose a lot of customers nationwide.
At first, I thought they were obligated to do as the customer asked, but can't they set limits on what they will and won't write on a cake? Like no profanity, no dirty pictures, and no names of genocidal dictators.
From what I heard, Walmart agreed to do the birthday cake.
I feel horrible for these kids. Not only are they in for a lot of negative reactions from others, but how will they themselves feel when they get old enough to learn what their namesakes mean?
As for Shop Rite's decision, I dunno. They were willing to sell them a blank cake, icing, and baster; the parents could have inscribed the cake themselves.I haven't decided if it's comparable to something like a pharmacist denying prescriptions--a cake is a bit more of a luxury item.
I do think there's a bit of fame seeking, and willingness to exploit their children for attention, on the part of these parents. Most white supremacists are at least aware that their views are unpopular and that others generally have an averse reaction to Adolph Hitler--did they stop and think about what they were setting their kids up for in the future? Do they even care?
As an ironic little sidenote, I read in one of the articles on this that both parents are on disability. Ironic because I wonder if they're aware that their idol A.H. did not look to kindly on people with disabilities?
I think it's ridiculous to name your child Adolph Hitler, sure. But that's his name. He already has to grow up with parents like these, being made fun of by other kids for his name.. can he get a birthday cake, at least? Know what I'm saying? It's not his fault; he didn't name himself. Besides, I didn't know there were names that were in any way illegal, or that couldn't be printed on a cake.
Again, I think these people are bat shit crazy. But I am questioning, on legal and moral grounds, the store that wouldn't write the name on the cake.
What legal and moral grounds? It's a private company. They can refuse service to anyone for any reason, no? This is a cake. They can refuse to make a cake for someone named Sally Fields if they perchance hate Sally Fields. I mean, I'd find it silly and would likely refuse to do business with them if they refused to make a cake to someone named Saslly Fields, but that's their decision to make.
What legal and moral grounds? It's a private company. They can refuse service to anyone for any reason, no?
Need I state the obvious reference point -- on this blog, anyway -- for this argument?
They CAN refuse service to anyone for any reason, however, within legal limits. Refusing medical service or medicine could possibly be harmful to someone's health.
Refusing to ice a cake isn't.
Of course, but as demonstrated in, among other things, presidential debates this year, neither health nor legal limits are all that well-defined when it comes to private companies' obligations to their clientele. (I hardly want the difference between my health and my preference to be what requires a pharmacy to hand over the contraceptives, anyway.)
And exchanges like these remind me: But if fucking healthcare weren't completely private... Wishful thinking.
Oh, I agree it's not well-defined. I think medical care (ALL medical care, including BC and abortions) should not be defined under normal "consumer laws" or what-have-you. They are a necessity and have a large impact on the health of people and therefore refusing medicine shouldn't be the same as refusing to ice a cake.
Hopefully we get there some day.
They should take their business up the road to Goebbels' Family Bakery in Phillipsburg.
Don't be absurd.
WalMart said they would do it.
Wal-Mart also has no morals. They'd do anything for an extra buck, and a cake! Well, that's an extra $20 smackeroos!
I completely agree with flamingo. That's fucked up, but the kid is 3 and his parents' name choice nonwithstanding, it's not his fault.
Mmmm... see on one hand, I kind of get why they said they wouldn't make the cake. On the other, if as a teen/adult they walked up and, you know, asked for a cake with their name on it and were denied, would anyone really call that fair?
The fact they're called that doesn't somehow mean they don't deserve a birthday cake, does it? The fact their parents gave them such a horrible name doesn't invalidate their right to be served.
Although I heard they ALSO wanted swastikas on it which kind of changes the story from being about the name to being about the message.
"The fact their parents gave them such a horrible name doesn't invalidate their right to be served."
..>What right to be served? Last I checked, private businesses have a right NOT to serve.
"JoyceLynn Aryan Nation Campbell"
Seriously? That's not even a NAME...
Really, I'm kind of more bothered by the "Aryan Nation" name, just because it indicates to me that they're being intentionally racist and hateful with the names rather than just stupid or jokey or ignorant.
But shouldn't a person put every name in context? Yes, Adolf Hitler was nuts and helped kill lots of people, and these parents were obviously intending to be hateful assholes by giving their children such names. But people get named after murderers every day - sometimes genocidal murderers, except the genocides weren't as well-known and so we don't have such immediate reactions against them.
Also, I'm not really sure what to think about this considering other businesses' (pharmacies') refusals to sell women birth control. I realize the two situations aren't really comparable, or at least that a woman has far more entitlement to her prescription than to a cake. Still ...
I feel so sorry for the poor kid. What the hell will he do if he eventually wants to, like, move and get a job somewhere normal or multicultural? He'll have to change his name - or at least drop the "Hitler."
Yeah, those two situations aren't even a little comparable. Refusing medicine or medical service is not the same thing as refusing to make a cake. Not even close.
Healthcare is a human right, not delicious cake.
You know, even though they're clearly insane to name their kids they way they did, is it really ok for Shoprite to deny them service because they have an idealogical problem with the kid's name? If they denied people service for any ideology that we agreed with then we'd hate them for it. But since this kid's parents are bigots, we congratulate the store.
I just think that they do have the right to name their kid whatever (STUPID) thing that they want. I'm not sure if the store can deny them because they don't like the name.
But on a personal note, those parents suck and I pit their children.
Arguments aren't terribly sound when they rely on removing context because it opens the door to twisting things to an absurd degree. Nobody's denying the cake because it's "a name" but because the store finds it offensive to make a cake for a genocidal maniac. Much like I couldn't get a cake wishing my dear friend, Cocksucker, a Merry Christmas.
See, I was presenting a point in a respectable way. I'm sorry you saw it as "twisting" it in any way, when really all I was doing was stating the facts, removing the very heated name "Hitler". If you look at the situation for what it actually is, they have an ideological problem with the name and what it represents. But we're generally ok with that opinion because it's a name that everyone hates who isn't actually a Nazi.
But it does come down to "a name" because this kid is not THE Adolph Hitler...but A Adolph Hitler. So no, they're not actually making a cake for a genocidal maniac. Unless this kid is REALLY advanced for his age.
All I'm saying is that if it were any other name we would be hands-down agreeing with the parents. While that might upset or offend you, it's the truth. It just so happens that Hitler is the name most associated with hate and death.
No, actually it's not "the truth."
I understand the point you're trying to make and I am neither upset or offended. I don't think you were personally twisting anything, but that your argument, to remove the context, thus changing the situation, isn't logically sound.
If you remove the context of Adolf Hitler, it's just a name. If you remove the context of the kid, it's to Adolf Hitler the historical figure. If you remove the context of a private business it's discrimination. If you remove the context of the grocery store, the parents are upset that the cake didn't magically appear. See how that works? We can do it all day, but it doesn't actually change the situation.
I know that context matters. But I find it thought-provoking that there's only one name in the world that's 100%-off-limits-no-matter-what. Don't you?
Ugh.
No. No I don't.
You do realize what Adolph Hitler did, right? And WHY his name is so recognizable? Why people are so offended that a parent would name their child Adolph Hitler? Why a bakery might refuse to make a cake with that name, and other racist symobls?
And please, once again, slowly this time: It was not just about the name. I have met a few Adolphs (or Adolfs) in the past. But they were not named after Adolph Hitler, and their middle names, indeed, were not Hitler. Don't you think it's curious that the parents wanted to put the first and middle name on the cake? Don't you think it's curious that the middle name is Hitler to begin with? If it was Adolph James, then there wouldn't be a problem.
And what about all the names of their children?
"JoyceLynn Aryan Nation Campbell, Honszlynn Hinler Jeannie Campbell and Adolf Hitler Campbell."
This wasn't just about A name. It was about this name in this particular context. IE, a racist context.
Do I need to explain further for you?
Ok, first of all, I was replying to Roni- so don't answer my question like it was specifically directed at you and as if I must be stupid for not knowing what you think, even though we weren't engaged in any conversation. I can already tell that you don't enjoy anything thought-provoking, so asking you would be a waste of time.
However (and I'll use a lot of bold and caps so you're sure to understand). YES I understand CONTEXT and OF COURSE I know what Hitler did. But did YOU know that there were plenty of other people BEFORE and even AFTER Hitler who committed equal atrocities- yet their names don't inspire nearly as much hatred and knee-jerk reactions. So, I say, Gee, isn't it interesting that Adolph Hitler that every single person (who isn't a self-proclaimed Nazi) hates equally?" and Isn't it funny that in ANY OTHER CONTEXT (see, I do understand context. In fact, it was my entire point.) we would all have a big problem with the situation?"
I only realized about the additional racist messages that they wanted on the cake after my initial comments. So, keeping my original comments in their proper CONTEXT, I still think what I said made perfect sense.
As the person you're officially replying to, that's crap. This is a community based blog, not your journal, it's ridiculous to argue certain people do and don't have right to speak to you.
Also, if you didn't think the implication of the name through when you first commented, that's your problem. If you made a hasty mistaken argument, that simply means you're wrong. No one's obligated to stick to your mistaken time line. You seem to have a lot of rules on how and when people are allowed to talk to you, I strongly suggest your reconsider your participation in public discussions.
I never said that no one was allowed to reply to me. She just replied to my question as if I had asked her directly, in the middle of a long exchange, which is not the case.
And I already conceded that my initial response was in error. But I was trying to have a conversation on that point, which everyone else is refusing to do. No one has to do anything. If no one wants to follow this dialog, I'm not making them.
Just what are you basing your argument on, that "Adolf Hitler" is the "only name in the world" they'd refuse? I imagine his sister, Aryan Nation, would have a tough time, and I don't recall seeing that they've made cakes for Joseph Stalin, Idi Amin, or Pol Pot anywhere in the article. That the article is about "Adolf Hitler", so that's the only name they would ever refuse is a pretty huge assumption.
But you're assuming that it would be the same reaction, which is still making an assumption. I actually think that the name Joseph Stalin (or perhaps a variation on the spelling, but still the same pronunciation) does come up from time to time, and still gets brushed off by a lot of people as an unfortunate name combination. There are a lot of people that end up with names the same as serial killers. And I have heard of a few guys named Christopher Columbus. Although, for some reason, we've decided that he isn't evil and even gave him his own holiday.
Yo? CONTEXT MATTERS.
I just love when people take away the context -- basically the entire point of something -- and then say, "What about now, huh? huh?"
Um. Context fucking matters.
Thanks for the bold caps and swearing. I might not have understood you if you presented your statement politely and maturely.
Oh, come on. Free speech and censorship are basic things that I was taught in like, 5th grade, if not before. They are not hard concepts. And yet, even after we try to explain why this is not a violation of any rights, people KEEP insisting it is. Sorry I'm not gentle toward idiots, but I'm not!
I never said any rights were violated. Maybe you should read what I actually wrote before replying with such obnoxious self-righteousness.
Nothing says "stupid pile of apeshit" more than this choice of names.
I dont know if you have any legislation on naming over there, but... hey... aryan nation is NOT a proper name. It's like naming your kid "flat tire" or "little green thingy i found under the kitchen sink".
Besides that: a name means something. it should be a ciphre for its bearer... i would not want to be connected to "crazy mass murderer" or "nation that should have been created by a crazy mass murderer". under normal circumstances i would expect parents to give their kids names they can live up to. in this specific case i hope these kids don't.
There's practically no legislation on the names that a parent can give a child. I think that certain punctuation marks within a name have been challenged, but at least hyphens and apostrophes are OK, in names like Anne-Marie or O'Brien. (There are actually more regulations on name changes as adults. For example, if parents want to name their baby girl Michael, no problem. If a grown woman wants to legally change her name to Michael, she needs a judge to approve it. There were some posts here a few days ago about gendering being used as a consideration in legal name changes, I think. As far as I know, the only universal US regulation on name changes is that you can't change your name for fraudulent purposes.)
A child can be named anything so long that it is pronounceable in some way. There was a case in the late '90's of parents who wanted to name their kids a series of numeric symbols and it was ruled that they couldn't. Since no one could pronounce it, it technically wasn't a name.
Beyond the obvious intentions of the parents, the comments from some people have me just as perplexed. Where is there a right for a store, a private business, to have to serve everyone and anyone? If ShopRite doesn't want to put "Adolph Hitler" on a cake, they have no obligation too. You can't even make a case for Civil rights violation, since the store said it would sell them a cake. Only, not one they deemed offensive.
Too many 'rights' that infringe on other 'rights', so which is rite?
Exactly. Some people aren't thinking logically.
Well, I guess I'm saying, this "your rights can't infringe on my rights" argument is the same one pharmacists who refuse to fill prescriptions are making. Your hateful non-religious habits are infringing on my right to live out my religious beliefs.
It's just a slippery slope. Of course I know businesses often reserve the right to kick people out (bars) or not serve people (who are not wearing clothes, or something). Or just not serve people for any reason at all. But this history of refusing to serve people is also tied up with, say, Jim Crow laws. What if a business said they would sell someone a cake, but not with the name "Mohammed" on it?
"What if a business said they would sell someone a cake, but not with the name "Mohammed" on it?"
Then they have a right to do that. Refusing to ice a cake is not infringing on anyone's rights, nor could it possibly be harmful to their health.
If someplace wouldn't frost a cake with Mohammed...
I wouldn't go there once I found out ... Voting with my almighty Dollar!
However, now that ShopRite has stated their policy on not promoting bigoted views, even in the wierd-as-sh*t situation of a kid named Adolf Hitler, I would consider going to them.
I think refusing to ice a cake with the name "mohammed" would be an issue of religious discrimination, and hitler adorers are not a protected group in this country.
from what I understand, most of these cases about discrimination are decided on an ad hoc basis in courts: the facts are weighed and judges try and come to a reasonable decision. So im guessing like adolph hitler wont get his cake, but little Mohammed and Jesus would get theirs.
but these are good free speech questions- what if shoprite in south dakota refused to make you a cake honoring the anniversary of Roe v. Wade? Or a stationary company refuses to print business cards for planned parenthood? pro-choice political opinions dont have protected group status, and I dont know what charges if any you could bring. Im pretty certain you'd have a case if they refuse to print up stationary for a mosque or refuse to make a rammadan cake.
Again, this has nothing to do with "free speech." People are free to speak; they do not have the right to be provided with forums with which to air their speech - be it another person's blog or a cake.
These parents know, and knew, exactly what they were doing from the time they named their first child in 2005. They're white supremacists. They're part of an established hate group. The kids - as children are just that, children. No they do not have anything to do with their parents beliefs .... now. Just like I did with my children and just like others do with their children, we raise our children based on our belief and value systems.
It's not about the age of the 'cake recipient' - it's about the inscription. It's fucking offensive and what it demonstrates is offensive, and none of you stating that it's "just a name" and it's for a child, then it's apparent you do not understand the world of hate these parents are exposing their children to. There is absolutely no reason we have to tolerate hatred and those who promote those beliefs regardless of the props they use.
I'm sorry, but that last bit bothered me- about the tolerance. Sometimes you do actually hate to tolerate that someone is hateful, so long as they are not personally attacking you. Tolerance extends even to stuff we don't like- that's why they call it "tolerance". It just means you have to accept that it exists and that you probably can't do anything about it. That doesn't mean you shouldn't try to convince a racist NOT to be racist, but if you fail, you have to tolerate that. Unless they're being actually violent and/or in your face. That is intolerable.
Let me ponder a bit.
I've been thinking and discussing this a little more - of course seeing someone name their kid Adolf Hitler makes you think "wtf." But I think we all value a little thing called the First Amendment, our right to speak freely.
Sometimes things are said and written that offend others - sometimes those things are hateful, dismissive, verbally violent. However, what one person holds to be true, another finds to be offensive. In supporting free speech, we assert that the truth is powerful enough to be self-evident and render that which offends us harmless. In supporting free speech, we also support the thoughts and words we hate and that offend us, as much as we support our right to speak in a way that may offend others. It's easy to defend what you believe, more difficult to say - well, that shit is racist, but I respect the right of free speech - I can speak out against it and add my voice to the conversation.
When you support the people at ShopRite and their decision not to give a 3 year old his birthday cake, you become the censor. If you want to argue that "speech matters and offensive speech has a great enough effect that you should curb it" then guess what-- there are a lot of other groups that say the same exact thing about, oh, say, evolution, abortion, women's rights, gay marriage. While naming your child Adolf Hitler is most likely "appalling," I don't feel like anything has been won by ShopRite deciding not to make some words in frosting on a cake.
The First Amendment ("Congress shall make no law...") =/= "the customer is always right."
After all, it's not like we slapped a frosting and frosting supplies embargo on Central Jersey.
The First Amendment does not include a constitutional right to cake (though I wish it would.) A private company has the right to deny service to anyone, insofar as it is not actively discriminating against a group of people.
Even censors have free speech y'know.
People really have no, no idea what censorship and free speech mean.
PRIVATE COMPANIES HAVE THE RIGHT TO REFUSE BUSINESS TO ANYONE FOR ANY (legal) REASON.
Refusing to make a cake is NOT a violation of any rights, nor is it a violation of free speech, nor is it censorship. PERIOD.
Gotta agree with marilove here. I've written different times about free speech, and people have a tendency to misconstrue what it means.
In this case, the right to free speech extends to the parents' rights to name their child Adolf Hitler. They even have the right to talk about how much they love and admire Adolf Hitler. However, free speech does not extend to forcing an independent bakery to make a cake with Adolf Hitler's name on it. That is just plain ludicrous.
Sorry, but you need to research a little more on the right to free speech.
No. Sorry, but no.
They can still make a cake that says "Happy birthday Adolf Hitler and death to the Jews and the N******!" but they cannot force a private company to do something. You can say anything you want, but you cannot use my mouth to do it.
If you're all about freedom, how about the company's freedom to refuse? How about the employee's freedom? Why is the "freedom" of the hateful is the only "freedom" worth protecting?
I realize this is going to sound rude, but you should really research the first amendment further. There are a number of misconceptions in your post, but I'll point out a few things. The first amendment gives you the right to free speech (with certain limitations) but the government, much less a private business, is not required to give you a platform (much less a cake platform) for that speech.
Years ago, in maryland, the adopt-a-highway-ish program they had, was eliminated entirely. Because the Klan wanted to adopt part of the highway, and put up a sign with derogatory language, and claiming their supremacy. I believe it was a state organization, and they had to let the Klan join in. So to prevent it, they scrapped the entire project.
But if Shop-Rite is a business, they have a right to set their own rules.
And, in Germany, you are not allowed to name your child Hitler.
In Missouri they gave the KKK Rosa Parks Highway.
This is true. And we all get laughed at it.
Yeah this demonstrates a really poor grasp of the First Amendment. No one is raiding their house to prevent them from having "Adolf Hitler" on a cake. No one is arresting them for putting it on the cake. Shoprite is simply refusing to do it for them.
This is interesting because I had a similar argument with someone who didn't understand how the First Amendment worked not too long ago. I had some former classmates posting some idiotic comments on my Facebook wall and decrying that I was being "fascist" and "violating free speech" when I took them down.
The First Amendment applies to government censorship. It applies to public forums, such as a community bulletin-board or a public square. It doesn't apply to privately-owned forums, and a cake made by ShopRite would fall under "privately-owned forums."
This isn't a case of the kid not having the right to have his name on a birthday cake. The parents could have made the birthday cake themselves. They could have gone somewhere that was willing to write it on the cake, as they eventually did. The store didn't even refuse them the cake - it refused to write his name on the icing. I'm sorry, but that was perfectly within their legal rights to refuse to do that. As I tried to explain with the comments on my Facebook site, not allowing the owner of a private forum the right to control its content is in a sense abridging the owner's right to free speech. Just as the parents have the right to express their views by naming their kid Adolf Hitler, ShopRite also has the right to express theirs by not writing his name on a birthday cake.
We've been talking about slippery slopes a lot, but think about the slippery slope we'd be on if ShopRite had been forced to make that birthday cake. That could, by extension, be used to say that book companies don't have the right to turn back certain manuscripts, that owners of social networking sites aren't allowed to control what their sites are used for, that bloggers aren't allowed to delete comments, that newspapers have to print every letter they receive. You're taking away one private forum's ability to regulate its content, so how can one not do the same to all of them?
To Acaciamarie,
The people at ShopRite have no right to tell the parents what to name their children. However, the parents have no right to tell the people at ShopRite what to put on cakes.
I have less of a problem with ShopRite than with people rejoicing over it. ShopRite is a business and can decide to deny a service is they so desire (though saying the parents have no right to tell people what to put on cakes seems silly, since that's exactly what ShopRite encourages people buying cakes to do...).
But legally in this country parents can name their kids any thing they want - like Chair and Peaches. My name is Acacia, so I can't really talk. What's the point of having that legal right if you are then unable to use it? That's like saying "sure you can write whatever you want, we're just not going to give you paper and a pen." And - again, while I think this is an awful decision on the parents point and clearly intentionally hateful - why should I or you be able to name our children what we choose, but be able to restrict others.
Just to play devil's advocate - what would people say if ShopRite was like, "I'm not putting Hussein on a cake, damn terrorists." I realize that this is absolutely not the same thing and that if they were to say that it would be completely ignorant and racist - but IF that did happen, we'd all be up in arms, right?
Of course we'd be all up in arms, because the cake shop would be the racist pigs. The parents in this case, however, are the racist pigs. That's why we are outraged.
And of course they have a right to name their children anything they want, but we ALSO have thr right to not only be disgusted by it, but also voice our disgust.
" (though saying the parents have no right to tell people what to put on cakes seems silly, since that's exactly what ShopRite encourages people buying cakes to do...)."
And, no. They are a cake business and they allow people to choose what to put on the cakes, WITHIN REASON. I am sure (or hope) they would deny out-right sexist or offensive language or pictures.
What if they had instead asked to put "Happy Birthday WHORE!" and the cake shop refused? Something tells me you'd be a-okay with that.
The cake shop is a private business. They have every right to refuse business from anyone, within legal grounds. This falls well within legal grounds. It is not discriminatory, nor does it infringe on any rights, nor is it censorship and therefore it does not infringe on free speech.
The parents are still able to write whatever they want on a cake themselves.
Are you seriously comparing something motivated by racism to something motivated by a dislike for a genocidal maniac and his racist followers?
It's not like anyone here is saying that child services should be picking up the kids, although the parents clearly aren't fit, because they gave their kids names that not only will ensure harassment, but possibly violence.
I just don't see where you're getting this moral outrage from.
Some ppl would be up-in -arms but would be wrong to be so. ShopRite would be just as in the right as they are now.
"ShopRite would be just as in the right as they are now."
Sure, and I would have every right to be outraged by their business practices. And then I'd decide not to do business with them.
It's called consumerism.
I have read through the comments but do not have the energy to reply to each and every person I want to respond to.
American citizens do not have a constitutional right to cake. Sad but true. The store is not in violation of any law. Had they refused to sell a cake to a person wearing a Nazi-themed shirt, it'd be a different story. But nobody has the right to make a private store decorate a cake a certain way. The kid is not being refused cake, the family is being refused their specific decoration request. I'm sure the store sells icing, with which the parents could write whatever they wanted on the cake.
Also, medical care/treatment and baked goods are not in the same category.
Sure seems like these kids' parents wanted to make sure they'd never be able to land job interviews.
Oh yeah - forget to mention ShopRite's role. ShopRite ABSOLUTELY has the right to refuse this couple's business. It's a business. If people have a problem with the action of a business, we know what can be done. ShopRite won't do it, so Wal-Mart will. Because its' about the $$$. ShopRite drew the line; Wal-Mart won't.
those poor, poor children. they'll find out soon enough that their parents have made life so much harder for them than it needs to be. in the meantime, let the poor kid have a cake on his birthday.
Who knows, the kid just might grow up to be the greatest, most universally beloved president these United States ever had. Then Shop Rite could present him with a ten-story, inscribed cake to honor his winning the Nobel Prize for Peace on his 80th birthday. Parents all over the world would name kids after him, and nobody would think it was in honor of that other Adolf Hitler. Weirder things have happened! :-)
LOL- that would be a stretch, but it COULD happen. (But only if his racist upbringing doesn't ruin him for life)
It's obviously racist but those names are also stupid. Aryan Nation is not a person's name. When I first read it I thought it read .... "of Aryan Nation" or "Aryan Nation member." And I'm assuming they meant Himmler not Hinler if they're going with a Nazi/racist theme.
I know there are neo-Nazi and Aryan Nation groups (some where I live) and their ideology is offensive of course, but the stupidity of the members is just as offensive. And this might lend itself to why they are a member of those groups in the first place. I have met some of them and it (their knowledge and beliefs) really does boggle the mind.
Whenever I hear about these types of stories I just feel for the kids and don't get too worked up about the parents because they're knuckleheads. Knowing that these toddlers are being groomed to be like their parents and won't get a decent/accurate education is depressing.
Free speech does not mean being able to say whatever the fuck you want, whenever the fuck you want to whomever you want, wherever you want. Free speech is a responsibility as much as it is a right.
This story gives quite a bit of background.
Your link doesn't work.
Here we go. My apologies; I got sidetracked.
That's a good story, and worth the entire read.
When I was working at Bitch Magazine we had a 10th birthday party and Costco made me a cake that said "Happy Birthday Bitch" no questions asked. Take that racist maniacs.
I'm kinda surprised at the number of people who are so adamant that a private business should be able to refuse service given majority response when the issue of refusing service normally comes up on this forum.
Personally I'm for private businesses having the right to refuse service for whatever reason they want - from the sensible such as excluding a known trouble maker from a nightclub to the (IMO) crazy stuff like if some shopkeeper refused to serve people wearing red.
I'm kind of surprised that more people who profess familiarity with this website aren't aware of the concept of civil rights laws and protected classes.
Civil Rights laws have been used and abused for decades by those with their own agenda. How does the struggle for equal treatment under the law and government apply to this situation?
It doesn't; I was distinguishing this situation from a true civil rights situation (e.g. refusing to put a Jewish star on a cake as opposed to a Nazi name).
Er, well, this also gets into night clubs banning bandannas and 'do rags and other things that are implicitly racist, then pretending like it's all right. I'm pretty sure people would be outraged if a business refused service to all people wearing red. Businesses cannot just all refuse to serve whomever they want, supposedly randomly. Again, I think people are forgetting the history of American businesses refusing to serve certain people. "Ice cream" is not something people need. It's still racist not to serve blacks ice cream.
I think ShopRite did fine here. Hitler was not part of a historically oppressed group. But I'm just pointing out that it's also dangerous to immediately call the very *name* "Adolf Hitler" hateful and deserving of censorship, just like we totally forget the long Indian history of the swastika in our clamor to ban it for its use in a certain genocidal event less than a century ago.
Context matters, for one, and also, refusing to ice a cake because of its racist message isn't the same as refusing to do business with a PERSON because of their race or religious beliefs.
Besides, they didn't say they wouldn't do business with the parents. In fact, they said they'd still make the cake but leave the frosting blank.
They ONLY refused to write a racist message.
I don't understand how people are seeing this as a violation of rights, or free speech. IT IS NOT.
"PRIVATE COMPANIES HAVE THE RIGHT TO REFUSE BUSINESS TO ANYONE FOR ANY (legal) REASON."
(Your caps)
"Context matters, for one, and also, refusing to ice a cake because of its racist message isn't the same as refusing to do business with a PERSON because of their race or religious beliefs."
Isn't this really saying "I think private companies should have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason that I agree with?"
I'm just thinking - when the BC issue comes up the enthusiastic support for private business right to refuse service isn't really there. Personally I think they should be able to refuse, but I also think BC should be available through mail order and be available free from state hospitals under a universal health care system.
I suggest reading some of the many other comments discussing how denying medical treatment isn't morally or legally the same as denying icing. Much like how screwing up a medication as has significantly different legal and medical implications, than screwing up icing colors.
Jesus H. Fucking CHRIST. Refusing to ice a cake is not the same thing as refusing medicine or medical treatment. PERIOD. END OF FUCKING STORY. Stop comparing the two! THEY ARE NOT THE SAME.
You like your CAPS and boldface, but you gotta admit it's a bit weird in one sentence, IN ALL CAPS, saying that a private business should be able to refuse service for any reason they like then in another sentence, bolded, saying that no they fucking should not.
I guess it really is "They should 100% be allowed to refuse service, but only if I agree with their reasons".
As I said - I'm for making the pill free under a universal healthcare system and available through mail order if people are not able/willing to travel to a dispensing pharmacy, I think the pharmacists who refuse it are asshats - but I also think they should have the right to be asshats.
I never said that.
"PRIVATE COMPANIES HAVE THE RIGHT TO REFUSE BUSINESS TO ANYONE FOR ANY (legal) REASON."
Notice the (legal) reasons?
This was WELL within legal reasons.
Please learn how to read. Thanks.
I'm getting tired of people talking out of their asses about free speech and censorship when they have no knowledge of it whatsoever. It's harmful to perpetuate ignorance like that.
Not to mention that this is shit we all learned in elementary school.
I saw the legal bit but translated it as "Legal things I agree with". I assume that if the law allowed people to refuse service to Black people 1950's style then you would probably not defend their right to refuse service.
I also assume that in states where it IS legal for a pharmacist to refuse to provide Birth Control or Emergency Contraception that you do not support their rights to legally refuse service.
If I am wrong in these assumptions, and you do fully support the rights of pharmacists in states that allow them to make that choice and you would fully support shops refusing entry to Black people if the law allowed it then I apologize, otherwise I think my interpretation of your statements is correct and that it takes some level doublethink to shout that private companies have the right to refuse service for any reason while at the same time shouting that they don't.
As to the justification you now give - now looking at only the racist message and the right to refuse to write it - you have also said:
" If they don't want to make a cake for someone named Sally, that's their right and their decision."
and
"What legal and moral grounds? It's a private company. They can refuse service to anyone for any reason, no?"
Pointing out the Nazi thing now is a sidetrack.
Bear in mind - from responses (from others) to my first post it is apparently also not ok for clubs to have dress codes... but it is OK for a shop to refuse to sell food for any reason? Or is it just luxury food?
And as for "Learning to read" - where the hell did I mention anything about Free Speech or Censorship, I didn't mention it at all and I sure aint talking about it. Learn to read yourself.
And, once again, refusing to ice a fucking cake is not the same thing as refusing medicine and medical care. Basic healthcare is a human right. Guess what isn't? That's right, icing on a cake. Fuck, they didn't even refuse to bake and sell them the cake, though they certainly had that right. They only refused to write a racist message and racist symbols on the cake, and told the parents they would leave room for them to do it themselves. Comparing that to refusing birth control is fucking idiotic, and all it does is hurt our cause. Seriously. Please think some.
Why, oh why did I bother to get out of bed today?
I am opposed to these peoples reproductive rights.
I was under the impression that free speech ended when the speech incited violence, as in, you can't yell "fire!" in a crowded theater without repercussions. That said, I guess I should feel like it's ok for businesses to choose whom they will and will not serve, and yet, were this a pharmacy denying service to BC customers, I'd be pissed. No one's life or livelihood is at stake here. They're not denying someone's human right- it's a friggin cake. This is exactly what the parents want. If they were really into Aryan history or wanted a name that exemplified an important Aryan rights/historical figure, I'm sure there are more significant and less showy names than Hitler. It just seems like a publicity ploy to me.
Yo, peeps: There wasn't even any refusing of service. All they refused was to write a racist message on a freakin' cake. They even offered to still bake the cake (when frankly, they had every right to refuse to even bake the cake).
So, so many people in this thread need to do research on civil rights, free speech, and censorship, jebus all mighty.
Here's the interesting part of this post
It is about a kid named Hitler contributed by someone who calls self "Legba" as in Elegba, I assume.
I love this world.
and I pity that child.
And? Your point is what, exactly? Papa 'Legba is a deity and in no way comparable to Hitler.
exactly the point
a trickster who stands at the crossroads, who ]you must make peace with to reach all other orisha
that name
to a post about a racist name of an innocent child of wacked out parents not geting his cake.
Elegba is an Orisha
The Campbells turned down the market's offer to make a cake with enough room for them to write their own inscription.
All these stupid people wants is attention, not a cake.
They also have a daughter named Aryan Nation. What will they name the next one, Lebensunwertes Leben?
Also, they admire a guy who would have had them killed. Hitler didn't have much respect for people on disability. He wanted "perfect" people and they would have fallen below his standards.
good point!
Hitler had no tolerance for anyone who wasn't in perfect physical shape! He would have killed these very parents who idolize him! He preferred blonde-haired blue-eyed people like their child, but would have called the parents lazy and sent them to their deaths.
At my last job, a tutor at a new charter school in Baltimore City, There was a kid named "Arion" and one named "Adolf". Both of the kids were black.
This story is just....just...ugh.
Arion is a real name - it's Greek.
Again, and? Are you saying Arion and Adolf aren't good names? And what does the children's color have to do with anything?
I think pointing out that the children were black was meant to illustrate that despite the children's names it was unlikely that their parents were white supremacists.
...
...
Adolf Hitler was not the first, nor the last, with that name. It IS just a name, when it is just a name. In THIS context, however, it's more than just a name.
Also, Arion is, indeed, a real name.
So Dad's unemployed and has emphysema and Mom's unemployed with a bad back.
Clearly these people are examples of the master race.
Ok, first this isn't actually Grneyedgrl308. But her twin sister. So don't bother her about this.
1. RiteAid or whatever is being really childish.... Did that little three year old cause the Halocaust? No. Do you think by the time he's the right age, we'll have invented time machines? I doubt it.
2. Adolf Hitler is a good name, not together but still good names. If Adolf Hitler had never existed it would still be a popular name regardless. I personally like the name Adolf even if I hate what the Germans did to the Jews. It was the man behind the name, not the name behind the man. Honestly. How immature could grown ups get these days?
I agree completely that if Adolf Hitler had never lived, Adolf Hitler would be a fine name. However . . .
Hello, context. ShopRite has every right to refuse to ice the cake. They didn't even refuse to bake the cake. They just refused to put blatant racist messages on their cakes. Which they have every right to do.
Secondly, in THIS CONTEXT, Adolf Hitler isn't "just a name" -- it's racist, and it's obvious they just wanted attention.
"JoyceLynn Aryan Nation Campbell, Honszlynn Hinler Jeannie Campbell and Adolf Hitler Campbell."
Do you REALLY think those are "just names"? Come on.
It's funny how names affect people. People either go just the way their name suggests, or the exact opposite. A guy named "Burger" is going to own a McD's, or he's going to be a vegetarian. Someone with the last name "Crooks" is going to be criminal or a cop.
Either little Adolf is going to grow up a skinhead like his parents, or he'll end up married to a nice Jewish girl. Or, even better, a nice Jewish boy. I'm picturing a gay Lenny Kravitz. :D
Still, I can't say that Adolf is going to be responded to very positively, especially as a young child, and this may give his parents the excuse to home school, reinforcing their own stupidity.
The negative responses Adolf would get, especially from the very people his parents train him to hate would probably create "justification" in his mind, and probably set him up to hate for a very long time. He's really going to need some solid, normal role models.
Just thinking: if a company refused to make an anniversary cake for a gay couple on the grounds that "we think celebrating the marriage of a same-sex couple is inappropriate" would it be a different issue?
Is it different because sexual orientation is a protected status under the constitution and controversial names aren't?
Should private companies have a total right to refuse service to anyone, for any reason?
yes
yes
no
is that clear for you now?
You have to realize one thing though. There is absolutely no governmental action at play here. So, any free speech claims are pretty much moot. Sure, this family is protected from the United States government forcing them to change little Adolf's name. But ShopRite, a private business can pretty much do as they please here. And what else could they have done, from a business or common sense standpoint?!? It seems to me that they made the only smart choice here.
I've got to say though that using your children to make a political statement, bigotted or not, is despicable.
Right. The Govt has to put Adolf Himmler Hitler Heinkleheimer whatever on the kid's drivers license, but the store doesn't have to put it on a cake.
Sexual orientation is not a protected status under the US constitution, nor (I suspect) most of the states'.
i don't know--it is in california. it SHOULD be at the federal level as well, obviously.
There'll be stalemate at the federal level for some time, other than repealing Clinton's DADT policy and letting gays serve openly in the military (prior to 1993 gays were banned completely). They couldn't pass the Federal (Anti-Gay) Marriage Amendment at the height of Republican power in 2004 (they didn't really try hard), and even with a large Democratic majority and President Obama we're unlikely to get a whole lot of progress soon, other than repealing DADT.
i expect so, it's just sad that it's taking this long. i guess not surprising really--lawrence v. texas was what, four years ago?
5, 2003.
And I think the anti-gay wave has crested. It'll be progress from here, but very very slow sometimes.
It may be nutty to name your kid that, sure. But I don't think ShopRite has the right to censor his cake because of his name.
Liza:
Have you read down through the comments? There are some interesting points being made about free speech.
ShopRite did not censor anything. ShopRite cannot control what goes on a cake once it leaves the store. The company can, and did, refuse to write something on a cake. That's not censorship. It's the expression of the company's legal right to refuse service.
This child is not being denied a birthday, or a birthday cake. His *parents* are being denied service based on ShopRite's own expression of their legal right. No right of the parents has been violated.
*headdesk*
*headdesk*
*headdesk*
*headdesk*
*headdesk*
THERE IS NO CENSORSHIP HERE!
Serious, serious educational system FAIL.
People need to actually read the massive amount of comments left before leaving their own idiotic, uneducated comments.
This was not censorship.
This did not violate free speech.
This was perfectly reasonable.
They didn't even refuse to bake the cake, though they certainly had that right. They only refused to ice it. The parents can ice the cake however they want. THIS IS NOT FUCKING CENSORSHIP.
HOLY FUCK.
I don't know how many times marilove has to write it, but THERE IS NO REFUSAL OF SERVICE IN THIS CASE. They were all ready to sell the cake, sans the writing. The first amendment protects these batshit crazy white supremacists to write the name on the cake, to gaze at it, to use it as their fucking myspace default if they want, but it also protects ShopRite from participating in their racist sentiments. Go to a bakery in your town. Right now. There will most likely be a sign saying "we have the right to refuse to personalize our goods with terms determined offensive."
This is not the same thing as refusing service altogether based on who/what someone is or what religion or race someone is. That would be discriminatory.
It has nothing to do with the cake. The kid will have a cake. The only way he'll know anything about it is if his crazy parents attempt to instill him with their hate-mongering when he's older so he feels discriminated against by- er, ShopRites and all the rest of the Jew/N** Lovers like myself (I've actually been called the latter to my face- fun times). It's a freaking ploy.
So go read the first amendment again. PLEASE.
Right. They're not denying service, they're refusing to carry a message. The newspaper probably wouldn't run a properly paid for an ad celebrating Osama bin Laden either. My inability to limit your speech doesn't mean I have to rent you my bullhorn.
but but but, it's TOTALLY the same as refusing medicine or medical service! TOTALLY THE SAME, dontcha know?!
Yeah, that's a big problem isn't it? Finding terms that aren't sexist that have the same ring to them - motherfucker, son of a bitch, douchebag, cunt, etc. All I got is, you dick.
Asshole is pretty non-sexist. So is Ass, Shithead, Shit, Turd, Idiot, Pig.
I remember my friends mother fighting a battle trying to get the courts to accept her sons name as "Chris" just Chris... Not Christian, Christoph or anything like that. It was only allowed after she threatened to call him Adolf Hitler.
And this was in Austria.
Wow... She had to battle to name her child "Chris"? That is nuts. I've known a few people named Chris "NOT SHORT FOR ANYTHING!"
It's a name! Weird.
Why? What was the reason for this?
I think there is a delicate balance between hate speech and freedom of speech. As a private company they may refuse certain demands from their customers if they wish not to perform these demands. however, for the child in question that is just his name. I am pretty sure that a three year old may not understand the controversy of his name. his parents seem off balance to us but they are still his parents. they have the right to name their child as they please. when it comes to racial discrimination I find that often we spend time debating things that make little sense or are of little consequence. These parents are allowed to raise their children with any values they see fit. A child that learns to hate is the one that will be most damaged by this hate. Who knows what lies a head for a child named Hitler. I have a friend name Jihad. He is African American and his parents are Christian. They gave him this name because of what it meant- The struggle within. After September 11th my friend could not find a job, had problems getting into some colleges that thought his name was a joke and generally had many stupid questions and comments directed at him. What this taught my friend is that most people are ignorant and intolerant. Before long he began to us his middle name to find employment and avoid harassment. These are the problems that may await this child. when we discuss the parents as insane we are falling into the trap of reactive politics which this couples children will deal with for the rest of their existence. I believe it to be counter productive to mark his parents as nuts or bat shit even if they are. I am not trying to tell anyone one how to feel about these parents actions but reacting with intolerance just may cause people with these beliefs to retreat into further into this destructive hatred. As a political group racist have a hard time getting their ideas heard without dismissal at this particular point in time.
I am not an advocate for racism. nor do I believe in its validity however, racist make important critiques to the way the U.S. and other countries have dealt with addressing structural and institutional racism. They open themselves to important questions about the production of "whiteness." those of us who are anti-racist feminist must see the desperation in giving children names that put them in danger of open ridicule from others. We must address these actions with tolerance to open up debate about how racial politics manifests now in the U.S.
Everyone is upset about how ShopRite refused to sell theis couple a cake. They did NOT. What they DID refuse to do is to force one of their bakers to write a hate message name on a cake. They could have very well purchased a blank cake (one with just frosting and no writing), gone over to the baking aisle and picked up some cake decorating thngs and done it themselves. Not a big deal. My kids always had their cakes scripted by my hand... It's less expensive and it showed them that I cared just a little more that I didn't just go out and bought prepackaged completely...I took the time for them. This is a case of the couple not doing it because of their rights...but pushing the point because the want the notoriety (maybe because they haven't done enough to make it into the local arayan nation club?) It's like the celebs who show off their crotches to the paparazzi...they are floundering and want attention and will do anything, including verbally abusing their children to get it. Next year, just go buy the stupid cake, the cake decorating tubes, take them home and they can write whatever hate messages on their innocent child's birthday cake they want in the privacy of their own home. They have THAT right. They do NOT have the right to force someone else to do that deed.
"It's less expensive and it showed them that I cared just a little more that I didn't just go out and bought prepackaged completely..."
Oh, come on. Don't insinuate that a parent who gets their cake professionally done doesn't care as much as you do. If I ever have kids, or make a cake for any reason, I will not be doing the decorating myself, because it will look like a 2 year old did the decorating. I am so not creative when it comes to cake decorating. That does not mean I would care any less than you, who can actually decorate a cake without it looking like a mess.
Everyone is upset about how ShopRite refused to sell theis couple a cake. They did NOT. What they DID refuse to do is to force one of their bakers to write a hate message name on a cake. They could have very well purchased a blank cake (one with just frosting and no writing), gone over to the baking aisle and picked up some cake decorating thngs and done it themselves. Not a big deal. My kids always had their cakes scripted by my hand... It's less expensive and it showed them that I cared just a little more that I didn't just go out and bought prepackaged completely...I took the time for them. This is a case of the couple not doing it because of their rights...but pushing the point because the want the notoriety (maybe because they haven't done enough to make it into the local arayan nation club?) It's like the celebs who show off their crotches to the paparazzi...they are floundering and want attention and will do anything, including verbally abusing their children to get it. Next year, just go buy the stupid cake, the cake decorating tubes, take them home and they can write whatever hate messages on their innocent child's birthday cake they want in the privacy of their own home. They have THAT right. They do NOT have the right to force someone else to do that deed.
Well, that's the crux of the batshit racist mentality -- it's all about whining, whining, and more whining. Yes, go to the media when you can't get a cake, dude. The world obviously *owes* you.
Sorry for the double post...my net froze for a minute and I didn't know it went thru the 1st time.