The things is, they simply cannot assume that a person is named after a dictator and refuse them the same services they would you or me. They have to consider that a person may be named after a German relative and refusing them service because of their name is discrimination. If the parents said our child is named after Hitler as a political statement, the store would have a case, but I have not seen any evidence that the parents made the store aware of that. A store cannot refuse a person a service because their name is Osama even if they are unaware that Osama is a common Arabic name and believe the person is named after Osama bin Laden.

You didn't respond to what I said. If it can't be assumed they are refusing due to the naming being after the dictator, it can't be assumed that they are aware that Adolf Hitler is a German name. Play by your own nonsense rules.

No, it cannot be assumed that they know that the name is of German origin; however, whether or not they are aware is impertinent. They were the ones discriminating, and the onus is on them only to discriminate when it is explicitly allowed. In this case, it appears as if they simply assumed the child was named after the dictator and did not consider that the child may be named after a German relative. Perhaps they could have masked their disdain for Germans by feigning ignorance? It is a possibility. We simply cannot allow people to assume why a person was named and subsequently discriminate against them.

*edit* I did some further research on this, and it appears as if the child was indeed named Adolph Hitler because the father's ancestors were German. Also, Adolph is spelt differently than the German dictator's Adolf.

I noticed the different spelling myself, but I'm pretty sure no German would consider naming their kid anywheres near the dictators name. From what I've heard, even bringing up anything about Nazi Germany in Germany is a no-no. Its an embarrassment for them.

Knowing what the other kids names are, its more than a little clear that the parents are white supremacists. The angle you are taking would never actually work to sway an opinion, only to prove something true by extremely convoluted logic.

We all know that if someone walked up to us and talked about an adolf/adolph Hitler, we are thinking "oh yeah that evil dictator" not "that damn german guy. Man I hate germans"

No one in the legal system would be willing to twist the law this horribly for these people. Law gets twisted quite frequently, but no one would for these people. I would hope.

It would not be twisting the law, it would be following the law. We cannot allow people to assume why someone is named. If that is the case, one could discriminate against someone named Usama and claim that he/she had no idea Usama was an Arabic name. Oh, his name is Hideki, and it is obvious that he was named after the Japanese general. No, we do not allow people to discriminate simply because of what they feel or assume. You have to treat everyone equally unless there is a reason allowing you to discriminate, and the store's reason was not strong enough in this case.

No thats twisting the law. You know that. We know the intentions of the laws, when you bend the law to make it reach your goal, while it no longer fits within the intentions, its twisting it. Thats why people hate lawyers.

The laws were meant to protect people from the *actual* discrimination on national origin. Not to protect people who you could prove from very convoluted logic could have possibly been discriminated against on that basis by a slim to none chance. Thats just slimy.

Edit: I would also like to add that your examples are terrible. You only used first names. If the parents asked for the bakery to only write "adolf" on the cake, they would probably have done it. The first name in itself is not offensive.

WARNING OFF TOPIC


Civil Rights and Civil liberties are getting messed up here. Civil liberties are what the government cannot take away from you. Civil Rights are what the government tells others they have to do. Civil liberties are the government. Civil Rights are what the government enforces on businesses not to take away. I don't know why I just said this.

Hey, I got a question. (since many of you seem to be aspiring civil justice lawyers)
If I go to a church and lets say I'm an atheist, and I want to receive the eucharist for whatever reason, can the church deny me the eucharist for (christian chirst) being an unrepetant atheist?
I guess this sort of situation would apply to the homosexuality thing as well?
Would the government be infringing on the "freedom of religion" part of the first ammendment? Or do civil rights trump civil liberties in this case?

Your thoughts?

I really don't know what this eucharist thing is, but I'm assuming they can deny it yes. I think it the reason would be worded more along the lines of "you aren't a part of our church. become a part of our church and then you can"

Guys, there isn't a single legal problem with this. The store doesn't have to do it if they don't want to. Perhaps it's because they think being associated with a hitler cake could lose business or reflect poorly on their reputation, or perhaps its just because the person behind the counter said "Adolf Hitler? No way in Hell!"

Either way, that's fine. A store isn't legally obligated to serve you, it's a private enterprise.

And no, it's not the same thing as denying service to someone based on their race, ethnicity, gender or sexuality. This isn't discrimination.

A church would fit the definition of a private club as defined by Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. That means a church can deny someone the Eucharist. The government will look at a few factors to determine whether or not a club is indeed private: whether or not it exerts control over operations (a church satisfies this), whether or not membership is selective (a church satisfies this), and a few others. Considering the Eucharist is given to church members, the church can deny this service.