Supermarket Defends Itself Over Adolf Hitler Cake

I bet though if someone of arbic blood had a son named Osama Bin Laden or Sadam Hussien and it was a victim of 9-11 or a military family member and they refused it would be a protest and they would be called racist. If you are offended by someones name...quit...sorry it's the kids name.

Say you are Jewish....Will you write Merry Christmas?

Same with a Muslim, so on and so fourth.

Am I a supporter of Hitler. Hell no, but this is the kids name, they better not write the name of other kids now.
 

meesterperfect

Hiliary 2020
Yeah, if they want the cake with that on it, they can do it themselves. That crosses a line, and like Xombie said, what if the decorator was Jewish?

Why just jewish?
shit my uncle was killed by a guy working for hitler another got shot up pretty good., but if I was a cake decorater I would still write his name.
Why? Because Its just a name and I don't have 60 lbs of shit stuck in my anus.
Feelings, whoa whoa whoa feelings.....
 
I personally think that this is EXACTLY what the parents wanted when they named their children this. They wanted an uproar. They wanted to sue somebody. They wanted to be headline news. They wanted us to talk about it over and over and over.
 

Jagger69

Three lullabies in an ancient tongue
I personally think that this is EXACTLY what the parents wanted when they named their children this. They wanted an uproar. They wanted to sue somebody. They wanted to be headline news. They wanted us to talk about it over and over and over.

Wow...some great responses and I'm glad to see the majority do not feel this to be a violation of Mr. & Mrs. Campbell's civil rights. The store has every right to refuse anything they deem objectionable....just like they would be within their rights to refuse to put "Happy Birthday Cocksucker" or whatever. To force the store to do it would be a violation of their rights under the first amendment. Of course, the parents are free to find someone who would agree (which they did....good ol' Wal-Mart!) or to even do it themselves.

I agree with Xombie....these are white-supremacist publicity hounds who are trying to get something out of this. My guess is they'll both get something much bigger in a few years when little Adolf grows to become a big, strapping and very angry 18 year old....a serious ass-whipping for having named him that stupid fucking name!!!
 

om3ga

It's good to be the king...
"Named their child Adolf Hitler Campbell."

Why? :shocked:

People need to start thinking before they name their children.

Gwyneth Paltrow named her child Apple.

Nicolas Cage named his child Kal-El Coppola Cage.

Shannyn Sossamon named her child Audio Science.

I found this, 50 craziest celebrity baby names.

Look - up in the sky!!

Is it a bird? Is it a plane?

No it's...Kal-El Coppola Cage!.....:1orglaugh

Methinks N. Cage Esq was dabbling with mindbending substances when he named his kid....:D
 
"Named their child Adolf Hitler Campbell."

Why? :shocked:

People need to start thinking before they name their children.

Gwyneth Paltrow named her child Apple.

Nicolas Cage named his child Kal-El Coppola Cage.

Shannyn Sossamon named her child Audio Science.

I found this, 50 craziest celebrity baby names.

Audio Science WTF, going to check that link later. BTW lots of Asian names probably others as well come from items, celebrities etc.

Anyways its the parents own decision how to call their children. If they want to call their kid after their idol, who are we to judge them. Its not something i would do but okay. I feel sorry for the kid through, he is going to be an outcast for sure.
 
Why? Why would you name your kid that? Even if you absolutely agreed with everything that megalomaniac said and preached, and considered him to be your messiah, you still have to consider the constant backlash and criticism your child will face for the rest of his life. Why would you do that to your own child?

This was an act of hate upon their own offspring. I don't care what the fuck they claim their reasoning is, it was not an act of love. I thought people naming their kid Candle or some such shit was bad enough, but this, uh, *clears throat*, takes the cake.
 
If it's legal to give that name to a child in USA, it should be illegal to refuse to service him. :2 cents:

Parents are really stupid to give such a name - they were certainly aware of the problems it will cause to their child all is life.

We have a law in Canada regarding children names. When it could be prooven that it will cause problems for the child, it's simply not allowed. Ridiculus law because people are ridiculus... *sigh*
 

ChefChiTown

The secret ingredient? MY BALLS
These parents named their child Adolf Hitler Campbell and were denied in their request to have a birthday cake decorated with that name on it by a local grocery store.

Is this a violation of the parents' rights under the first amendment? Or is the store within their rights to refuse to print anything on a cake that might be deemed "inappropriate"? I'd love to hear any thoughts on this.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081217/ap_on_fe_st/odd_hitler_cake

That business was within their legal rights to refuse to decorate a cake like that. Just because they offer a service, doesn't mean that they have to comply with every single request.

If somebody walked into the restaurant I work at and requested that we change one of our recipes in order to suit their individual desire, I have every right to refuse them of service, even if it's something as trivial as "no onions". That's a right that is given to businesses, especially businesses that provide "customized" items.
 

Facetious

Moderated
The kids are the real story, AFAIAC. They'll likely end up as wards of the state, only to live a life of confusion and yes, likely indoctrinated by weirdo staffers at child protective services.

Also - The poor excuse for parents don't deserve to be dignified with Mr. & Mrs before their names. :) just a thought
 
That business was within their legal rights to refuse to decorate a cake like that. Just because they offer a service, doesn't mean that they have to comply with every single request.

Unless they're a pharmacy and its a prescription for birth control. Then they have to fill it :yesyes:
 
Unless they're a pharmacy and its a prescription for birth control. Then they have to fill it :yesyes:

The difference in those cases is what you would call an overriding public interest.There is no overiding public interest in getting a cake decorated while there is one in ensuring access to medical/prescriptions sevices.
 
The difference in those cases is what you would call an overriding public interest.There is no overiding public interest in getting a cake decorated while there is one in ensuring access to medical/prescriptions sevices.

Forcing a tiny percentage of pharmacies to provide a service that is medically necessary for a tiny percentage of the population is an overriding public interest? I think not. For the vast majority of people, cakes and birth control are both luxuries and there's a Walmart down the street that will still provide both services.
 
Forcing a tiny percentage of pharmacies to provide a service that is medically necessary for a tiny percentage of the population is an overriding public interest? I think not. For the vast majority of people, cakes and birth control are both luxuries and there's a Walmart down the street that will still provide both services.

Here are some people/women who think very differently.98% of women using birth control at some point in their lives is not a tiny percentage.And the public I would think has an interest in preventing unwanted pregnancy.

http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/issues/birth_control/pharmacy-access/

"Guarantee Women's Access to Prescriptions

In theory, the concept is simple: a woman walks into a pharmacy with a birth-control prescription from her doctor and should walk out with the medication – without intimidation, without delay, without a run-around. But in reality, there is a growing movement of pharmacists refusing to fill women’s legally prescribed birth-control prescriptions. Some pharmacists even go so far as to lecture women, humiliate them in public, or refuse to hand back the prescription after they refuse to fill it.

We must guarantee women’s access to their legally prescribed medications because telling women to simply “go elsewhere” is not just an inconvenience, it is impossible. For the nearly 98 percent of women who will use some form of birth control during their reproductive lives, birth control is a basic form of health care. Pharmacies have an ethical obligation to honor valid, legal prescriptions and avoid jeopardizing their patients' health."
 
Forcing a tiny percentage of pharmacies to provide a service that is medically necessary for a tiny percentage of the population is an overriding public interest? I think not. For the vast majority of people, cakes and birth control are both luxuries and there's a Walmart down the street that will still provide both services.

Birth control is only necessary for a tiny percentage of the population? Birth control is a luxury??:1orglaugh:1orglaugh
Yeah, it sure is. :rolleyes:

Why did Wal*Mart kick up a stink in Massachusetts about filing birth control but they didn't kick up a stink at spreading racist propaganda?:dunno:
 
Forcing a tiny percentage of pharmacies to provide a service that is medically necessary for a tiny percentage of the population is an overriding public interest? I think not. For the vast majority of people, cakes and birth control are both luxuries and there's a Walmart down the street that will still provide both services.

Would you feel the same way if a pharmacy just decided for whatever reason to stop giving people prescription allergy medication, medicine for some rash, or for the flu, for example, just because it didn't feel like it. Most of the people wouldn't need it and for the majority of them it isn't life threatening either. I don't see too much of a difference, and I also don't think medicine is something that should ever be treated like a normal business, so I have no problem with it having a lot more regulation.
 
Top