SamuelRSmith said: 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

If the cake caused bad PR, shop-rite would be better off not allowing the cake. Its the same thing as managers at baseball games asking ay couples to stop kissing becuase it is upsetting others. They aren't supposed to, but the do it becuase they care about their bottom line, not inspite of it.

I was wondering if that would be covered by the Civil Rights Act.

That is a good point... since they are refusing service... becoming "private" without stating as such.

They refused service for the parents because of the name they gave their child in this case. Last time I checked a parent doesn't necessarily choose the "race" of their child, although they may in the future, but in this case they choes a name that they new would be particular offensive. If I named my child "cocksucker" and then had the audacity to get offended because someone wouldn't write my child's name on the cake and then complained of discrimination, I think I should be commited (cocksucker may be a bad word, but the connotation of the name hitler, I think carries a far greater genocidal punch) I feel bad for the children, and no they shouldn't be discriminated against because of their names, their parents should be.

By definition this could be construed as discriminatory. Correct . I was under the impression that the connotation was categorial discrimination, not case by case. For example, if you see someone who looks like they are casing the place, loitering etc, and they are black - that's not discrimination. If you throw out all black people that is discrimination.

As this was an individual case, I don't really see it as a discrimination problem. There may be thousands of adolf hitlers in the U.S. though, and they could be discriminated against.

Employers discriminate all the time (not just on the usual terms), but also on bullshit like  'education level,' 'relevant experience' and other discriminatory shit like that.

The good of the general public I believe that's  the point of social folkways and mores. If you go against those, it's harder to get by.

Like I said, I think the only case for discrimination could be the kids case. What if the Baker was a son/daughter, of a holocaust survivor, should they be forced to create the cake? If I walk into an all black church, wearing full hood and robes, should I expect everything to be ok. In an Ideal utopia, nobody would be offended and no one would be dumb enough to name their kids something that would upset the majority of the people.

Choice. (The kid's dont have it yet).

So if this situation played out the way you'd like it. They government would step in and make them make the cake. They would be happy because their "freedoms" were preserved while the companies liberties would have been restricted.

What's next. The government is going to come in and tell people to stop making fun of this kid because his name is "Adolf Hitler." I never understood this, this country loves to cry to the government about everything. This country is so ridiculous, it want's so many freedoms (an insustainable amount because some peoples freedosm infringe on others freedoms) and also loves order and structure so much. How does this work itself out? I don't know.  

On the race thing, I think it would have worked itself out better. If the government didn't try to forcibly make people like each other. It takes time, understanding, exposure etc. Part of the reason hate lingered is because people were forced to do something. Did forcing the hands of people make society better for blacks, yes to some degree. enough at least to clear the white conscience. In reality, has the cultural assimilation and union taken place? No. Have we not learned that forcing equality doesn't work? Women have a lot more oppurtunities than before, but still make 70% of what men make for equal work. I just think it's delusional to think that by stepping in the government can fix a problem. It takes effort, education (not formal just exposure and a real unveiled look), plus an open mind to solve many of our problems. None of which any regulatory agency can grant.

I see what your saying, it is definitely discriminatory, as are many things.

Although I wouldn't expect to be served if I said "hey gook, get me another green tea" or whatever. Maybe I'm going crazy and think free speech should now be restricted because 99% dumbs down the society, distracts us and keeps us caught up in this Politcally Correct bull all the time.

I think I have just lost all faith in humanity now. It's more important to play this gotcha discriminatory game, than what the hell people are doing. I can see it now:

"Wheelchair bound man tries to break into house, sues owner for not having ramp" 

So, let's say that someone naked and covered with crap wants to shop at their store. You guys are saying that they would be wrong at not letting them in?

I was thinking they could claim discrimination due to their national origin. Despite the negative connotations associated with it, Adolf Hitler is a German name. The family could claim that the store, which as you noted is not a private club and is open to the public, discriminated against them due to the sound of the name they chose-their national origin. Unless they explicitly told the store they chose the name becuase they wanted to promote Nazi ideals, I am fairly certain they could successfully make this argument.

So should they force their employees to do something against their own morals? Obviously the company as a whole is against this since a spokesperson said themselves they will not indulge this request. It isn't like they wouldn't serve them at all. They let them buy a cake, they will write on the cake everything but the "Adolf Hitler" part of the name, and they will either sell or give them the tools necessary to finish the job. That sounds pretty fair.

As previously mentioned, what if the request was a swear word like "Cocksucker"? Should Shoprite bite the bullet and write that on cakes too? If I should be allowed to request anything, then I should have no limits to what I can have written on a cake. What if the next request out of those folks is a pretty little blue frosting swastika above their child's name? Would you finally say "enough is enough" or should we allow them their civil liberties still? How about if it was an anniversary cake? "Happy Anniversary to Hitler's reign over Nazi Germany. Fuck you Jews!". At what point should Shoprite step in and say "no", if at all?

Never underestimate the stupidity of people. Fucking with racists is just so much fun...

There was the time a few of us stormed a white supremist board, named ourselves after characters from The Lion King, and then "conspired" with them to eliminate the "Jewish problem", proclaiming ourselves to be fundamentalist Muslims. Boy, that was a lively conversation. The best was that to get on the board, you had to be approved manually by a moderator, and no one seemed to notice the names applying at the same time were Rafiki, Pumba, Timon, etc...

Then there was the time I refused to serve a Neo-Nazi chick tequila because she "hated Mexicans and therefore, didn't deserve good tequila", but that's another story. Almost ended up in a fistfight over that one.

Most people get mad at overtly racist people. I think they're hilarious in a mostly harmless way. After all, it takes someone way down on the intelligence ladder to become one and at that point, they've already marginalized themselves in the grand scheme of things.

What if it's against someoens morals to serve someone who is black?

What if it's against their morals not only to write a black persons name on the cake but sell them at all.

This can go both ways eaisly.

wow just wow, i'm speechless thats fucked up for the poor kid .

To leave race out of it and keep things more grounded, would it be okay to refuse to serve anyone named Hussein? Saddam? Where is it "okay" to draw the line?

That's the entire problem... Yes, these people "invited" this on themselves. Yes, they're ignorant. But arbitrary lines drawn in the sand aren't an acceptable solution either because then you have to ask the question "who gets to draw the line?" and that creates another set of questions with no good answers...