The parents might be bigots, racists, and completely fucking stupid, but where is the ACLU in situations like this?

That organization used to actually stand for something... Now it's just a liberalist agenda bullshit group that covers the people it likes and ignores those it doesn't... It's been years since I saw them fight for someone whose rights were being infringed upon and who also happened to be an ignorant, racist fucktard. They're a long way from the days of Skokie, Illinois vs. Neo-Nazis.

/end rant on ACLU.

Businesses do have the right to serve whom they please and how, but basing it from a name alone is sketchy, at best.

You may think these people are horrible for naming their kids what they did and for having the beliefs they do - but they deserve the same rights as anyone else. Would you look so kindly on that Shop-Rite if they started refusing to make birthday cakes for kids with Muslim names?

If you see a difference... I have a question to ask you. Who made you judge, jury, and executioner on other peoples' beliefs? Just curious.

who else wants to go to lil Hitlers bday?

I'd show up in blackface just for the lulz.

I've made up my mind. I'm against the action, and here's why:

This corporation, shop-rite (or whatever it's called) has the sole purpose and legal responsibility to generate profit, deliver to its shareholders, and, theoretically, function in the general interest of the public (I stress the word theoretically).

Corporations achieve these goals by selling goods or services, in this case, they were selling the service of naming a cake, by denying to perform this service, the were denying the ability to generate profit, they now won't be able to give the shareholders as much of a dividend, as they'll have less profit, and the consumer wasn't getting what they wanted.

Whatsmore, a corporation isn't a democractically elected body, therefore it has no right, no mandate, to state what is and isn't right, and they certainly have no rights over censorship. To give them these rights would be undemocratic. This corporation should act in the way that the government tells them, to reject and allow what the government says that they can reject and allow.

Any true liberal democracy (and, in particular, the US) has freedom of speech, and this means that the government says that the people of its country can say, think, and feel whatever they like, and aslong as they're not putting anyone else's lives at danger, they won't get in trouble for it. The non-elected, undemocratic corporation has infringed on one of the most basics of civil liberties, and it should not be allowed.

Hell, perhaps I should join the ACLU

Why name him that! Why!

only if it is a publicly owned corporation (which I don't know if it is or isn't) shopright could be a privatly owned chain, and therefore doesn't have any shareholders.

The whole freedom of speach argument that people throw out doesn't apply. Freedom of speach only applies to the government censoring its citizens, it doesn't restrict corporations from enforcing rules they want. Just like this website is not required (it is hosted in the US) to allow you to say whatever you want. Just like Neogaf censors users from typing VGChartz, shopright could too (as stupid as it would be)

Freedom of speech definitely doesn't apply here, but you can argue that they are being unfairly targeted and that their civil liberties are being violated because the company is refusing to serve them based on name.

So what happens when ShopRight or some other group refuses to make cakes that say Mohammad or Abdul or something.

It's not illegal.  Though it is... rather stupid and discrimitory.

There's actually a big difference between the real situation with that store and your little hypothetical one.  Writing a cake adressed to Adolf Hitler could concievably hurt sales.  Who wants to go to a store that supports Hitler, the Nazis, etc.?  Of course, that's not what's really going on, but it could easily be percieved as such by someone who just hears about it in passing.  Their decision not to serve them can not be proven to based solely on that family's beliefs.  It can very easily be argued that the store believed serving them would hurt sales in general, and thus refused to do so.  It's hard to argue that when it's a Muslim name.  In fact, not serving them would probably do just as much damage as serving someone advocating nazism.

The ACLU isn't involved because no one's rights have been infringed upon. There is no legal "Right to Cake Naming" in the constitution, nor any law on the books that states that a store or bakery has to serve anyone who walks through their doors (all stores have the ability to refuse service, most never do, but the rule is there nonetheless).

The state allowed these chowderheads to name their kids what could be the most idiotic names I have ever heard (celebrity kid names included), no one has told them they can't be Aryan Nation propagandists, no one is taking their kids away, so how can you come to the conclusion that the ACLU or any legal body needs to intervene in this situation?

And how can you compare this with a Muslim name? The parents knew good and well what they were referencing when they named their children, this wasn't some innocent mistake or a cultural difference. this was a wanton disregard for good taste and, honestly, is insulting not just to the millions of people killed and tormented by Hitler's Germany, but to humanity at large. This is not rights issue, this is a supermarket deciding that they would not take part in something as horrible as this, but still giving the customer the avenue to do it themselves.