Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Strife26]

No, I saw this on the news... Fox granted, but it seemed pretty clear they weren't poor and uneducated/retarded. I'm pretty sure they were neo nazis.

But does that make denying the cake right?  No.  That falls back to political discrimination.  And given that restaurant segreation isn't allowed based on race (private business, but open to public), I don't see why a store should be able to segregate or even outright deny service based on political affiliation.

Because it's their store. It's no different than Toady coming and locking this thread, for any reason he felt like. If it's going to hurt their livelihood, then they have a right to refuse this. One could claim that threads have been destroyed unjustifiably (which is outside of the scope of this discussion), but that doesn't change the fact that it's the right of a business to restrict what they do.

[cowofdoom78963]

Just becuase they have the right doesnt mean its right.

[Eidalac]

Aren't swastikas quite prominent in Buddhism? Or is it another Eastern religion? At the risk of sounding like I'm generalising.

It's a Buddhist symbol that's found all over Asia.  In Japan, it's all over maps, since it's the symbol used for Temples.  The Nazi's tried to use it as part of the whole ancient master race thing (and were dumb enough to do it backwards).


At anyrate, for me, making a big deal over the matter just shows that we have, collectively, chosen to give that name, and the ideology associated with it, Power over our lives.

It would be better if we could just ignore it like the crap it is.

[LegoLord]

Just becuase they have the right doesnt mean its right.

Besides, First amendment grants you the rights of freedom of religion, political affiliation, and press.

No, I saw this on the news... Fox granted, but it seemed pretty clear they weren't poor and uneducated/retarded. I'm pretty sure they were neo nazis.

But does that make denying the cake right?  No.  That falls back to political discrimination.  And given that restaurant segreation isn't allowed based on race (private business, but open to public), I don't see why a store should be able to segregate or even outright deny service based on political affiliation.

It's not really denying it based on political affiliation so much as denying it based on the fact that it's the name of a man in world history who they don't want to be linked to in any way. It's based on a man, not a political party.

And the guy I had been quoting was talking like the fact that they were neo-nazis was what qualified them for being denied cake.

[Enzo]

And so what if they are neo-nazis?  That doesn't mean that the cake should be denied.  "Normally, we'd make a cake with the name Adolf on it, but since you follow this political belief, we're gonna say screw you."  This gives me the impression that they are willing to act on political discrimination.

You know, I bet if I showed up to a neo-nazi rally with a cake that said "Jews and homosexuals are awesome", they wouldn't let me in. This gives me the impression that they are willing to act on cake discrimination.

Yes, refusing to write something on a cake is stupid. Saying you're being discriminated against for your beliefs, when your beliefs are based around discrimination? More stupid.

Also, I agree with what Strife just said.

[Footkerchief]

Because it's their store. It's no different than Toady coming and locking this thread, for any reason he felt like. If it's going to hurt their livelihood, then they have a right to refuse this. One could claim that threads have been destroyed unjustifiably (which is outside of the scope of this discussion), but that doesn't change the fact that it's the right of a business to restrict what they do.

This is an oversimplification.  Public businesses have not had the legal right to arbitrarily refuse service since 1964.

Besides, First amendment grants you the rights of freedom of religion, political affiliation, and press.

More oversimplifications.  The first amendment prevents the federal government (and, as of more recently, state governments) from infringing on those rights.  It doesn't say a thing about what businesses can do, and AFAIK has never been interpreted to imply such a right.

[LegoLord]

And so what if they are neo-nazis?  That doesn't mean that the cake should be denied.  "Normally, we'd make a cake with the name Adolf on it, but since you follow this political belief, we're gonna say screw you."  This gives me the impression that they are willing to act on political discrimination.

You know, I bet if I showed up to a neo-nazi rally with a cake that said "Jews and homosexuals are awesome", they wouldn't let me in. This gives me the impression that they are willing to act on cake discrimination.

Yes, refusing to write something on a cake is stupid. Saying you're being discriminated against for your beliefs, when your beliefs are based around discrimination? More stupid.

Also, I agree with what Strife just said.

That is a meeting, and this is a forum.  Not a business.  Business are not supposed to discriminate based on beliefs.  That just makes you more like the discriminatory beliefs.

And I don't agree with the idea that the bill of rights should only apply to the government, unless there is an actual, physical threat that gives the non-government group a good reason to deny something from the bill of rights.  The government should not only not deny those rights, it should be protecting them.  If it doesn't, it does very little good.

[umiman]

You could make that case if it was say, a car dealer refuses to sell a luxury car to neo-nazis, since the shopkeeper doesn't want to be politically affiliated with them but the argument here is that the birthday cake is for the kid, who so happens to bear the name Adolf Hitler.

Denying a kid a birthday cake simply because his idiot parents named him after someone in the past (who happened to be a genocidal megalomaniac) is pretty retarded. That's like denying you the right to go pick up your kid from school because your name so happens to be the same as a sexual predator who died decades ago or a hospital denying your mother the right to get treatment because her name is the same as someone who used to run a torture camp in Spain a century ago. Like the article mentions, they wouldn't have had a problem if the kid's name was Jesus Christ.

The kid is three. He doesn't know jack shit. Give him his cake. When he gets old enough to make educated decisions and decides, "man, I'm so damn awesome that my name is Adolf Hitler. I love Hitler and he had the right idea!", then you can decide to deny him his name on a cake.

[Footkerchief]

The kid is three. He doesn't know jack shit. Give him his cake. When he gets old enough to make educated decisions and decides, "man, I'm so damn awesome that my name is Adolf Hitler. I love Hitler and he had the right idea!", then you can decide to deny him his name on a cake.

No, they can do it right now because they are not discriminating against a protected class.  Right now.  No cake.

Additionally it's hardly "retarded" for Wal-Mart to protect their corporate image.  They don't want to be known as the company who provides cake for all the neo-Nazis.

[LegoLord]

The kid is three. He doesn't know jack shit. Give him his cake. When he gets old enough to make educated decisions and decides, "man, I'm so damn awesome that my name is Adolf Hitler. I love Hitler and he had the right idea!", then you can decide to deny him his name on a cake.

No, they can do it right now because they are not discriminating against a protected class.  Right now.  No cake.

And still no one pays any attention to what cowofdoom said:  "Just because they have the right doesn't make it right."  I think that applies more to the big business than the little couple, for reasons I have already stated.

[Footkerchief]

And still no one pays any attention to what cowofdoom said:  "Just because they have the right doesn't make it right."  I think that applies more to the big business than the little couple, for reasons I have already stated.

What?  It's not "right" for Wal-mart to avoid tarnishing their image?  How unsavory must a customer get before it's "right" to deny them service?  Is it always wrong if it might deprive a child of cake?

[Enzo]

So...no one's deciding to go with the Portal reference? Fair enough.

This is just a really confusing discussion. I feel like I should be taking a side, but who should I be backing? The people denying children cake, or the neo-nazis? Can I take a third option?

[LegoLord]

"Oh my gawd, Wal-Mart made a cake for a three year old that says Adolf Hitler!  Uh, it was for a kid named Adolf, and the parents asked for it . . . but, uh, they're still evil for making it!"

I really can't imagine a strong argument against Wal-Mart based on making a cake to order.  It's not like Wal-Mart designed the cake - the parents did.  For other things they've done, maybe.  But really, providing good customer service to everyone sounds much better to me than denying someone service because they're worried about their image.

[Lord Dakoth]

And if the US starts discriminating against Democrats, then we can finally have our very own LCS!

Don't think THAT'S going to happen. But if it does, I'll be expecting the French to stop going on strikes.

[Footkerchief]

I really can't imagine a strong argument against Wal-Mart based on making a cake to order.  It's not like Wal-Mart designed the cake - the parents did.  For other things they've done, but really, providing good customer service to everyone sounds much better to me than denying someone service because they're worried about their image.

It doesn't matter whether you can imagine a strong argument.  Wal-mart is not worried about people making strong arguments, they're worried about reporters turning the "Wal-Mart caters to Nazis" blurb into a PR nightmare.  Also, answer my question about when it's okay to deny service to customers, assuming protected class is not an issue.