The Hitler Cake
A family who named their child Adolf Hitler is angry with a local supermarket for refusing to put the child's name on his birthday cake.
According to The Express Times:
A local supermarket refused to make a birthday cake with "Adolf Hitler" on it.I'm sure there's going to be a lawsuit. I wonder how it'll turn out. Will companies have the right to refuse birthday cakes to little Hitlers? I bet they won't.
The ShopRite in Greenwich Township has also refused to make a cake bearing the name of Campbell's daughter, JoyceLynn Aryan Nation Campbell, who turns 2 in February.
Honszlynn Hinler Jeannie Campbell, a girl named for Schutzstaffel head Heinrich Himmler, turns 1 in April.
"ShopRite can't even make a cake for a 3-year-old," said Deborah Campbell, 25, who is Heath's wife of three years and the mother of the children. "That's sad." ...
Karen Meleta, a ShopRite spokeswoman, said the grocer tries to meet customer requests but rejects those deemed inappropriate. "We believe the request to inscribe a birthday wish to Adolf Hitler is inappropriate," she said.
The grocer offered to make a cake with enough room for the Campbells to write their own inscription. But the Campbells refused, saying they would have a cake made at the Wal-Mart in Lower Nazareth Township. The Campbells say Wal-Mart made cakes for Adolf's first two birthdays.
A spokeswoman for Wal-Mart said the store won't put anything illegal or profane on a cake but thinks it's important to respect the views of customers and employees.
So in the meantime. Happy Birthday three year old Adolf. Your life's not going to get any easier in the near future, at least until you turn 18, change your name, and get away from your crazy parents.
43 comments:
At least ShopRite offered to make some accomodation, leaving space for them to fill in the name themselves. It's not ShopRite's fault the parents refused their offer. Wal-Mart will do it... hey, there's money to be had!
Does anyone else remember the story from New Zealand about the judge who ordered a name change for a young girl whose mother named her "Talula Does the Hula from Hawaii"? I am a big opponent of judicial activism, but you gotta admit, sometimes it just makes sense.
I wonder if these parents voted for Obama...
I fear that, by the time he reaches 18, he will have been so severely warped by his parents he won't want to change his name.
I wonder if these parents voted for Obama...
I highly doubt it, given the names...
The article I read contained absurd comments from the father. One was that there is nothing racist involved (if the one son alone had a Nazi name, that would be one thing, but a sister with the middle name "AryanNation" removes all doubt). The other was an oblique reference to the election - he said something about change and more tolerance.. Bizarre.
One can only hope these parents don't warp their children's minds, because there is something seriously wrong with people who honor some of the greatest criminals of all time in their children's names.
Where is the great relativism of Modernity here? Aren't liberals fans of free choice without discrimination?
I don't see anything wrong with the name.
15-20 years from now, a therapist in New Jersey may become very wealthy.
Vladimir Stormfront: Funniest post of the week!
Have you been reading Cake Wrecks? I hate to say it but I think that blog might be funnier than yours...and I think yours is a riot!
God Bless,
Ryan
Ryan is hereby banished from this blog for heresy!
One interesting thing is that bakers have the right to refuse to write on a cake while pharmacists may not have the right to refuse handing out the morning after pill.
When I first heard the leader on this story on the news I was sure the little boy's name would be "Hussein" (a very common name in the Middle East, by the way) or something like that.
This is ammo for anyone arguing for competency tests of prospective parents.
(I apologize in advance for the double post and the legnth of this post)
I'm not sure I understand why Wal-Mart feels it has to respect the views of its customers and employees. This is a company that refuses to tolerate any suggestion of a unionized workforce, despite the views of the employees. Refusing even to engage in the discussion doesn't sound very tolerant or particularly respectful.
Furthermore, the point has been made here and elsewhere time and time again that, while we must recognize the right to a difference of opinion, we do not have to respect other people's views and opinions. Tolerance and respect are two different things. I will tolerate different opinions about abortion, for example. I recognize that, however tragic, people have different opinions. However, that doesn't mean that their opinion is equally valid or acceptable, and it is certainly not. But they have a right to think what they want, no matter how wrong or foolish or indefensible. In the case of these parents, they certainly have a right to think their son's name is not profane or offensive, but that doesn't mean Wal-Mart has to validate their opinion or confer some equal dignity upon it. It's like Nzie said yesterday (and I am paraphrasing her quoting GK Chesterton): just because you can doesn't mean you should.
These people would have a talk with Monsignor Staffieri.
And maybe some other people as well, the kind that wear white coats.
*should have a talk
And so when the same store refuses to put "Happy Birthday Jesus" on a Hispanic family's cake because it might be offensive to WKW, what shall we say? Or could we imagine the "outrage" that would have ensued had they refused to decorate (or spell out the name) a cake for a child named "Osama"?
Are these parents messed up? So what? In this country, it is legal for same-gender couples to simulate being parents. And we wonder who will need theapists?
Gotta go along with Anonymous post at 2:07pm on this one. Liberals would be raising holy hell if the name 'Osama', 'Whitey is a rat fink' or any other name that would be a creative way of defaming those they consider narrow minded were not allowed. While I would never subject a child of mine to this, the parents may have just done this to make a statement on liberalism. For their childrens sake, though, they could have chosen better.
the parents may have just done this to make a statement on liberalism
I very much doubt it. When asked, the father said he chose the name "Adolf Hitler" because he liked it and because no one else would have the name.
I'm not really sure what Anonymous 2:07's point is. Is it that the store shouldn't be allowed to make such decisions? Why not?
I'm sorry, but as one of the lone Europeans here, thank GOD we have laws against such stupidity. And I honestly think this is one place where the US should follow suit. I can't understand how the US allows flags, names and paraphinalia of regimes that it fought AGAINST and sacraficed thousands of lives in. And I'm talking confederate flags, WW II flags etc. It's just nonsense to me.
Call me a Fascist, but these parents should have been locked up a LONG time ago BEFORE they had a chance to procreate and destroy the lives of these children. May God help them.
Call me a Fascist, but these parents should have been locked up a LONG time ago BEFORE they had a chance to procreate and destroy the lives of these children. May God help them.
Locked up for what?
a) public display of Nazi propaganda (flags, symbols, names etc)
b) motivation to insight racial hatred (i.e. by using a public shop to write the name of Adolf Hitler)
c) support for armed anti-government entities (Aryan Nation).
These are all jailable offenses in Europe. I'm saying the US should take a lesson here.
As much as I hate to defend such stupidity....
Asking someone to write "Happy Birthday Adolf Hitler Campbell" is not inciting racial hatred.
The name is stupid.
The idea of naming your kids such horrific names is stupid.
The idea of suing because someone refuses to work for you is really, really stupid. (that is what refusing to make the cake pattern boils down to)
The idea of any government deciding what is an unacceptable though? What is an unacceptable name?
Screw that.
It'll end with all Christian names being banned because the Crusades are offensive to the invaders.
Re:
December 17, 2008 1:23 PM
Right to work, for the win!
I'd say the store made the reich decision here.
The parents could have avoided all this controversy if they would have just named the kid Che Guevara.
These are all jailable offenses in Europe. I'm saying the US should take a lesson here.
As deplorable as these things are, we simply cannot trust a secular government to enforce such laws. If the State recognized the Social Kingship of Christ (which all States are bound to do), that would be one thing. Putting such power in the hands of the secular State is a mistake.
As much as I hate to defend such stupidity....
If you hate to do it, why do you do it so often in here? Odd...
Asking someone to write "Happy Birthday Adolf Hitler Campbell" is not inciting racial hatred.
That's entirely your unsolicited, unsubstantiated and uneducated opinion.
The idea of any government deciding what is an unacceptable though? What is an unacceptable name?
Screw that.
Nice mouth. I suppose you think the church doesn't have a right to choose what is an unacceptable name either.
It'll end with all Christian names being banned because the Crusades are offensive to the invaders.
No, it won't. That's just moronic.
Now, hang on, let's play nice.
Deusdonat, the US generally has a different attitude towards those sorts of things. The attitude is not that they are okay, but that it would be an unjustifiable wrong to silence them for what they think. As much as we screech about "freedom of speech" it's really more about freedom of thought.
To the (generalised) American view, it is only justice to punish actions, not motivations. That is precisely why any hate speech legislation is so contentious. It is not because the people who don't support it don't find those things heinous, but because punishing those things amounts to policing the thoughts of citizens. Those thoughts may be ill-considered, uneducated, or downright evil, but if we interfere with their right to have them, we are interfering where we have no right.
The attitude we have is like the one attributed to Voltaire: "I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
Also, the claim that those laws can be turned against people is valid. In Canada, priests and other religious leaders have been tried by a human rights council that is answerable to no one because they dared preach the truth about homosexual behavior. That council was founded to defend the weak, but it has been used to attack the truth.
NZIE, I understand that viewpoint very well. But I also feel the US has historically been very hypocritical and one-sided in its approach to "free speech". After world war II, the US punished both Nazi and Japanese Imperial propagandists. These people commited no violent actions on anyone. But they DID promulgate hate speech and ultimately incite violence without calling for it directly. So, the US doesn't seem to have a problem prosecuting hate speech as long as its not on US soil. Double standard?
I am defending this practice, as we have seen how very weak-minded people (looking at a few posts above me here) can indeed be influenced by such speech. Rwanda, Bosnia and Sudan are good examples of how the government used the media and propagandists to incite violence without actually saying, "go out and kill as many as you can". So, while it may be against the law in the US to say, "kill all Jews", obviously one can imply it by naming their son after the architect of the Jewish holocaust during WW II. And to me that just doesn't make sense.
I know I am mixing in religion where a political theory should be here, but I just don't buy into the wholesale freedom of thought argument. There are some thoughts which should be purged by society.
Lastly, we're not talking Canada, we're talking the US. Apples and Oranges.
unsolicited, unsubstantiated and uneducated
You are an expert in such things.
In identifying them, yes. Not so expert in tolerating them unfortunatley.
Brings whole new meaning to "how do you live with yourself."
Imperfect application of (and failure to apply) a principle does not invalidate it. More laws are not necessarily the answer. The law is inherently violent, because by making it law we are essentially saying we are prepared to kill under it (cf. Stephen L. Carter, Civility). The more powerful the government, the more violent. The most violent crimes of the 20th century were not disorganised, scattered, or haphazard; they were planned, and not by people alone, but those with the force of law and government. The government is a necessary tool but a dangerous one.
NZIE, I sincerely do not know of any police officer willing to kill for someone driving 40 in a 35 mph zone. I think we can agree some laws carry a bit more weight. And there is a very good reason we have misdemeanors vs felonies.
So, we'll have to agree to disagree here.
On 12/18 Deusdonat said "There are some thoughts which should be purged by society."
Being an American and being used to the ability to think for myself and make my own decisions I would rebel at society attempting to purge my thoughts. Additionally, who would decide which of my thoughts to purge? From your posts I can only assume that you think you should be one of the determiners. That is a pretty powerful position you want to occupy.
Being an American I have grown up with the attitude that what I am thinking seems to be my own business and none of yours. Being an American I also have the right to express those thoughts should I desire and, thank God, there is nothing the Europeans or anyone else can do about it.
As far as we being "hypocritical" you may be right but in those cases we won and got to determine what did and didn't happen. We decided it was in our interest to prosecute those people and we did. If you don't like that I can only shrug. There doesn't seem to be much you can do about it.
Poco, don't get your poco-panties in a bunch. I never said I was the arbitor for the thought police. If you think it's all good and well to maintain thoughts of genocide against a group of human beings, then you just go right ahead. I'm not going to stop you. However, you would do well to listen to the church on such matters. And yes, I would allow the church to be such an arbitor.
As far as American hypocris on the subject of freedom of speech, I guess you didn't pick up on it, but I said I supported it. And yes, just like you picking your nose, there is not much I can do about it. But that's irrelevant since this is a discussion forum.
It's not about whether its good or bad to have those thoughts -- there is no doubt that genocide is wrong. That, however, does not justify any means to police another's thoughts. Punishing a person for what they think is not freedom. If they inflict harm on another person, then one can punish them.
You know, neo-nazis tried to hold a rally in my town. They figured it's got a majority of caucasions, has had settlers since the 17th century. They were within their rights to gather for the purpose of espousing hate, detestable though that is. Well, once the people here got wind of it, that was it. They protested loudly and fervently, gathered outside and made terrible conditions for having a meeting. The answer to free speech used poorly, badly, or wrongly, isn't its removal -- it's more free speech used well and morally.
The issue about the law I actually was paraphrasing from a law professor at Yale. He wrote that any law we make implies that we are prepared to kill for it, even ones that seem to have nothing to do with it. And yes, if that person refuses to stop when getting pulled for 40 in a 35, or resists when they finally do stop, the police officer may well shoot him, with the full force of the law behind him.
Deusdonat, Now who has their panties in a wad? As you stated "I never said I was the arbitor for the thought police" I also did not state that I entertained thoughts of genocide.
I just rebel at your arguement that "There are some thoughts which should be purged by society." That arguement calls for thought police. Smacks of Naziism, Fascism, Red China and post revolutionary Russia. Be careful of what you wish for, you just may get it.
And yes, you are right, you are powerless when it comes to controlling my thoughts and actions, discussion forum or no.
POCO you seem like a powerless, sniveling little pest who has no power in the world or in life, so you resort to comments like "you're not the boss of me!" over the internet. This much is obvious. Rebel all you want. I'm sure it makes you feel big...
Deusdonat,
WOW. Do I ever feel cowed.
It would seem that at least one of us is, as you say, a powerless, sniveling little pest who tries to belittle others when he says, and I quote from your December 18, 2008 8:14 PM post, things like "as we have seen how very weak-minded people (looking at a few posts above me here)" .
And, you still haven't addressed the fact that your remarks smack of Naziism,Fascism, etc.
Poco-
Don't mind him, he just likes to try to cow folks-- you've probably just earned yourself a vendetta by not rolling under, same way I did.
Foxfier, formerly Sailorette,
I get the impression the guy is a pseudo-intellectual operating within an overestimation of his mental capabilities. Probably eurotrash. You know how they set themselves up as the moralists of the world and involve themselves in things that do not pertain to them. They are usually liberals that, when they find themselves backed into a corner, start calling names (I guess I am also guilty of that considering what I just said about him).
The BBC made the comment that we colonists have finally bacome civilized because we have elected a black as president in this country. Of course this insensed quite a few of us. My sister wrote them a note stating that she was glad that we could finally become part of the world community right next to the black king and Prime Minister of England.
Anyway, Merry Christmas and hope you have a raging good New Year.
Post a Comment