Cake request for 3-year-old Hitler namesake denied

[Methodi]

But that’s still no reason for the store to take it out on the poor kid by not giving a birthday cake - not like he chose his name himself!

They were taking it out on the parents more than the kid, they ofered a free cake with a space where they could write the name in but they didnt want that. Giving your children names like that is attrocious

 

[Lee_M]

It is not a slippery slope fallacy as much as a recognition that the Constitution and its interpretation has never recognized political or religious speech as “good” speech or “evil” speech. In a dictatorship, or an absolute democracy, yes, the evil can be banned without banning the good, but not in America.

Again, this is not a freedom of speech issue. Back to the original issue, a private business does not have to accept offensive behavior. They have a right to refuse business.

 

[stbruno]

Parents should learn how to bake themselves then if they want this name on it.

 

[Lee_M]

Parents should learn how to bake themselves then if they want this name on it.

I agree with you. They have every right to put the name on it themselves but don’t force someone else to do the same.

 

[JPUSC]

Black people give their children names because they are African names or because they want to give their children unique and different names which if I might add is the whole point of giving a name… to tell a person apart from others. This is completely different from someone giving their children a name meant to offend. I checked your profile hoping you weren’t Protestant since some people on here already think some not so nice things about Protestants. I got a real shock when I learned that you are catholic…a good thing there are many other Catholics here who know how to get their point across without being offensive…yeah if you haven’t guessed it yet I’m offended. When I first became interested in Catholicism, the first person I met was racist and said a ton of horrible things about blacks in a Catholic chat…a good thing, I met tons of other Catholics who are not like this who are kind, caring and live their lives for Christ. It’s people like you who make me wonder if Catholicism is for me. I have to wonder when I’m one of only ten or so black people in a white catholic church how many more people are thinking like you when I introduce myself.

Don’t listen to him. I was appalled myself to find that post here. I doubt any racist Catholics will be attaining eternal salvation with that sinful attitude. In the worldwide Catholic Church, Anglo-Americans are a minority.

Unfortunately, there are racists in every group and country. Please don’t let the sins of some affect your view of the Church.

 

[LilyM]

Our right to free speech is abused quite a bit. The founders of the constitution gave us a right to free speech to speak against our government without being locked up in jail. There is a difference between speaking against something or using obscenities. Children using foul language in school can be disciplined. The same goes for racist remarks. Freedom of speech is protection from our government. It doesn’t give people the right to say or do anything they want in a private business.

‘Adolf Hitler’ is a name, and a name of a few real persons. The name itself is not an obscenity or foul language, neither is a picture of a swastika an obscenity or foul language - if these were accompanied with other, more directly hateful speech then they might be, in context. But a child’s birthday cake is not such a context.

By your logic historians wouldn’t be able to use his name combined with pictures of swastikas, in books, because to do so would be ‘an obscenity’ or ‘foul language’. And businesses would be justified in refusing to accept for publication books that contained AH’s name combined with pictures of swastikas, or could be prosecuted for doing so, on the basis that that combination constituted ‘obscenity’ or ‘foul language’.

 

[JPUSC]

Merriam-Webster’s dictionary defines the word “hitler” as pertaining only to Adolf 1889–1945 German chancellor & führer (1933–45).

Books use his name in a historical context for educational purposes. The Catholic Church uses the word “satan” in its prayers because of the fact that he exists and has to be addressed (e.g., St. Michael the Archangel, defend us in battle…by the power of God, thrust into hell Satan…), but in regular conversations, that is a name to be avoided. When that name is graffitied on religious property, it is considered a hate crime.

If someone wanted to put the name G-d or Yahweh on a cake, and the business owner was a Jew, they would refuse service. The same for the name “Allah” for a Muslim-run business. It is offensive to put these names on a cake for their culture. In the year 2008, the name “Adolf Hitler” is offensive to most people. A word doesn’t have to be a curse word to be deemed offensive.

The Church has rules about naming children for a reason. Although the parents are not Catholic, it was undignified for them to purposely name their child after an evil man. They also named their other child Aryan Nation.

The business has a right to refuse service for any reason. If the child suffers as a result, it is the parents’ fault for knowingly chosing a name which is offensive in the modern world with its historical context.

Though, the name “Adolf” by itself would’ve been acceptable as it has no clear connection to Hitler.

 

[LilyM]

Merriam-Webster’s dictionary defines the word “hitler” as pertaining only to Adolf 1889–1945 German chancellor & führer (1933–45).

And this poor child who bears the same name, and the other people who surely have born it before or after WW2 as well, are non-existent and unworthy of consideration simply because they’re not famous enough to be in the dictionary?

That child did nothing to deserve having his name treated as offensive or a foul word. He should NOT be punished for the mistakes of his parents, and he is being punished.

If someone wanted to put the name G-d or Yahweh on a cake, and the business owner was a Jew, they would refuse service. The same for the name “Allah” for a Muslim-run business. It is offensive to put these names on a cake for their culture. In the year 2008, the name “Adolf Hitler” is offensive to most people. A word doesn’t have to be a curse word to be deemed offensive.

You’re seriously comparing the names of the Deity and His great adversary - powerful among supernatural beings - to the name of a mere unsaintly human, however awful that human may have been?

The Church has rules about naming children for a reason. Although the parents are not Catholic, it was undignified for them to purposely name their child after an evil man. They also named their other child Aryan Nation.

The business has a right to refuse service for any reason. If the child suffers as a result, it is the parents’ fault for knowingly chosing a name which is offensive in the modern world with its historical context.

Though, the name “Adolf” by itself would’ve been acceptable as it has no clear connection to Hitler.

Causing scandal is one thing, it’s not a crime or illegal though. It’s not even sinful in some situations - occasionally people are too easily scandalised, or the good to be done vastly outweighs the potential for scandal.

And it surely is no sin but rather a very good deed, to honour any child’s birthday by putting that child’s name on a cake, whatever that name may be.

And it’s not a good enough reason to subject a child the humiliation and indignity of a refusing to put his FULL name on a cake just because that name is an unfortunate one. He’ll suffer enough for it in his life - it’s a shame and a sin to add to his suffering over something so petty as a birthday cake. Suck it up and give the child some pleasure for once in his life!

 

[Methodi]

And this poor child who bears the same name, and the other people who surely have born it before or after WW2 as well, are non-existent and unworthy of consideration simply because they’re not famous enough to be in the dictionary?

That child did nothing to deserve having his name treated as offensive or a foul word. He should NOT be punished for the mistakes of his parents, and he is being punished.

You’re seriously comparing the names of the Deity and His great adversary - powerful among supernatural beings - to the name of a mere unsaintly human, however awful that human may have been?

Causing scandal is one thing, it’s not a crime or illegal though. It’s not even sinful in some situations - occasionally people are too easily scandalised, or the good to be done vastly outweighs the potential for scandal.

And it surely is no sin but rather a very good deed, to honour any child’s birthday by putting that child’s name on a cake, whatever that name may be.

And it’s not a good enough reason to subject a child the humiliation and indignity of a refusing to put his FULL name on a cake just because that name is an unfortunate one. He’ll suffer enough for it in his life - it’s a shame and a sin to add to his suffering over something so petty as a birthday cake. Suck it up and give the child some pleasure for once in his life!

The child wasnt humiliated , the parents were, did U see the father on tv showing his swastica, they should be humiliated, true the children cant help what they have for parents

 

[Beachcomber]

What horrible people. That is abusive to name your children like that. And shame to Wal-mart for decorating the cake.

 

[Angels_Unaware]

The parents should be arrested for naming their child that, and the state should change the child’s name to something normal. Then maybe give him a cake with his new name on it.

This may not be an outrageous request. There was a case in the UK in the past year where a judge ordered that a child’s name be changed. The child was named Talulah Does the Hula from Hawaii

It was part of a divorce case, though, so the name issue was not why the judge became involved in the first place.

 

[JPUSC]

And this poor child who bears the same name, and the other people who surely have born it before or after WW2 as well, are non-existent and unworthy of consideration simply because they’re not famous enough to be in the dictionary?

That child did nothing to deserve having his name treated as offensive or a foul word. He should NOT be punished for the mistakes of his parents, and he is being punished.

You’re seriously comparing the names of the Deity and His great adversary - powerful among supernatural beings - to the name of a mere unsaintly human, however awful that human may have been?

Causing scandal is one thing, it’s not a crime or illegal though. It’s not even sinful in some situations - occasionally people are too easily scandalised, or the good to be done vastly outweighs the potential for scandal.

And it surely is no sin but rather a very good deed, to honour any child’s birthday by putting that child’s name on a cake, whatever that name may be.

And it’s not a good enough reason to subject a child the humiliation and indignity of a refusing to put his FULL name on a cake just because that name is an unfortunate one. He’ll suffer enough for it in his life - it’s a shame and a sin to add to his suffering over something so petty as a birthday cake. Suck it up and give the child some pleasure for once in his life!

The store is not punishing the child. The owners of the business have their right to refuse service to anything that goes against their beliefs. This child’s name is not “Adolf Hitler” by accident. The parents, by naming him, are expressing a belief that is intolerent of others. The parents knew full well what they were doing and were obviously trying to make a statement.

They knew something like this would’ve happened eventually and are using the publicity. You wouldn’t name another child “Aryan Nation” if you weren’t trying to prove something. Giving the child the name in the first place was subjecting him to humiliation and indignity.

I am not comparing God to any mortal being, I am explaining how using certain names and terms can be taboo and off-limits in certain cultures. Uttering and writing the Holy Name of God is totally unacceptable in Jewish and Muslim cultures. In Western American society, the name “Adolf Hitler” is unacceptable. This is a world where survivors of the Holocaust still live among us.

I bet you wouldn’t feel the same way if someone murdered someone you love and a person who admired the murderer felt inclined to name their child after him.

You’re acting as if the kid not getting his name on the cake will make him miserable.

Newsflash, the parents can buy one of these: http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/112XzMTAylL.AA160.jpg and write his name on the cake themselves.

 

[Lee_M]

‘Adolf Hitler’ is a name, and a name of a few real persons. The name itself is not an obscenity or foul language, neither is a picture of a swastika an obscenity or foul language - if these were accompanied with other, more directly hateful speech then they might be, in context. But a child’s birthday cake is not such a context.

By your logic historians wouldn’t be able to use his name combined with pictures of swastikas, in books, because to do so would be ‘an obscenity’ or ‘foul language’. And businesses would be justified in refusing to accept for publication books that contained AH’s name combined with pictures of swastikas, or could be prosecuted for doing so, on the basis that that combination constituted ‘obscenity’ or ‘foul language’.

How can you defend this family’s actions for something that is so horrible. Are you not aware of the history behind Adolf Hitler, and Heinrich Himmler? Are you not aware of what the Aryan Nation is? Again your argument about free speech doesn’t hold ground? Freedom of Speech is protection from the government. It doesn’t give me the right to come in your house and say awful things to you. You have a right to tell me to get out of your house. It is the same with private businesses. I don’t have the right to go into someone’s business and demand they do something that they find offensive. And yes, the name Adolf Hitler and pictures of swastikas are offensive to many people.

Have some respect for the families of the dead or victims of these two horrible creatures. I can’t believe that you are so insensitive to not be able to see how this episode can be very offensive to people. I am very sorry for the children named after these monsters. But I am more sorry for the families who have been destroyed by these two horrible monsters.

Just as I don’t think doctors should be forced to perform abortions or pharmacists issue morning after pills, I don’t think private busineses should have to submit this a-hole’s demands for a cake.

 

[LilyM]

In Western American society, the name “Adolf Hitler” is unacceptable.

Adolf Hitler, Adolf Hitler, Adolf HITLER!

In modern Australian society we have aboriginals among us who as little as 40 years ago, as children, were forcibly removed from their parents and horribly abused in mission schools and other institutions run by various Christian denominations, but mostly Catholic.

They may somewhat justifiably and completely understandably, feel mighty aggrieved against those institutions, not to mention against Catholicism, or indeed Christianity in general.

Does that mean, if someone was abused by nuns and opened a cake shop, and I wanted a cake from them, to celebrate with a friend who was entering the convent, that they would be right in refusing to put a picture of a nun, or write the word ‘sister’, on that cake?

No, they’d be acting totally unreasonably to refuse, even if they had the legal right to do so. And furthermore punishing my friend who had nothing to do with the abuse they may have received.

You’re acting as if the kid not getting his name on the cake will make him miserable.

Newsflash, the parents can buy one of these: http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/112XzMTAylL.AA160.jpg and write his name in icing themselves.

They shouldn’t have to. The name they’ve given their child, while offensive, is not mortally sinful or blasphemous or a swear or curse word - or do we no longer have a right to offend other people?

If being offensive is so bad then that store had better watch out - I think far more people would be offended at the idea of treating a child with less than the utter respect and care for its feelings that a child deserves, however unfortunate his name, than would ever be offended at them writing the name of Adolf Hitler on a cake!

 

[irishpatrick]

A private business can refuse business.

 

[LilyM]

A private business can refuse business.

I don’t doubt it. As I pointed out, it doesn’t mean that they’re in any way REASONABLE to refuse to do so in this instance.

The two (legally OK behaviour and reasonable or good behaviour) don’t always run together, and sometimes are totally contrary to each other.

 

[Lee_M]

By your logic historians wouldn’t be able to use his name combined with pictures of swastikas, in books, because to do so would be ‘an obscenity’ or ‘foul language’. And businesses would be justified in refusing to accept for publication books that contained AH’s name combined with pictures of swastikas, or could be prosecuted for doing so, on the basis that that combination constituted ‘obscenity’ or ‘foul language’.

It’s one thing to educate people on history. It is another thing to name your children after evil men and name another child after a neo-nazi organization. Again, they can name their child whatever they want, but they need to be prepared for the consequenses of doing so.

 

[JPUSC]

They shouldn’t have to. The name they’ve given their child, while offensive, is not mortally sinful or blasphemous or a swear or curse word - or do we no longer have a right to offend other people?

If you’re going to be throwing around terms like “mortally sinful” which is exclusively Catholic, then here’s what the Church says:

The present (1983) Code, Canon #855, legislates that parents, godparents and pastor are to see to it that the name given is not foreign to Christian sensibilities.

The law forbids a name offensive to Christians.

Your example about wrongs committed by some Catholics cannot be compared to a man who exterminated millions of people out of pure hatred.

 

[LilyM]

It’s one thing to educate people on history. It is another thing to name your children after evil men and name another child after a neo-nazi organization. Again, they can name their child whatever they want, but they need to be prepared for the consequenses of doing so.

So? Lots of people out there think Christianity is evil, that the Catholic Church is the whore of Babylon (or at least incredibly wrongheaded as a worldly institution), and are mightily offended by its very existence.

I suppose then we need to just suck up the consequences of the fact that they do so and blithely accept anyone who treats us in an undignified way for our Catholicism?

 

[LilyM]

Your example about wrongs committed by some Catholics cannot be compared to a man who exterminated millions of people out of pure hatred.

Talk to atheists and folks of other non-Catholic and non-Christian faiths about the crusades or the Inquisition and see if some of them don’t compare Catholics as a group, and the Catholic church as an institution, to Hitler and Nazism!

Some go further and directly link the two by directly attributing Hitler’s hatred of Jews to his having been raised Catholic.

We have a right to hold our Catholic beliefs nonetheless, and to insist on others giving at least a minimum of courtesy to us in regard to them, even if they find them offensive, no? So why are we exempt from extending that same minimum courtesy to others?