Saw this on Cakewrecks and am speechless

[fshinkevich]

http://www.lehighvalleylive.com/today/index.ssf/2008/12/holland_township_family_angry.html

 

 

 

 

I don't even know how to form my own comment on this. I wrote so many things and deleted them all.

[GWOB]

:eek::eek::eek::huh::ohmy:. Wow. Just wow.

[Pretty in Pink]

I saw this earlier today. There are no words. Those poor babies.

[sweetfeet]

I don't think I've ever felt bad for a child because of their name before today.

:001_huh:

[cillakat]

I just. Wow.

 

Also speechless,

K

[Laurel]

Here's a longer article about the family.

 

I too have no words to express how I feel. Those poor children.

[elegantlion]

Here's a longer article about the family.

 

I too have no words to express how I feel. Those poor children.

 

This article was helpful. Those poor children. the parents don't think that will set them up for ridicule? Please have these parents not been to school, kids can come up with teasing for the simplest names.

 

As Forrest Gump says "Stupid is as stupid does."

 

I find it quite ironic that in the land of the free, not the "Ayrian (sp?) Nation", that they live on Social Security. That is almost icing on the cake. Got to love America. :001_huh:

[PamJH]

With absolutely no offense to the poster, I think these parents are looking for any attention they can get and we're giving it to them. I say we should end it now. Those kids are going to bear the brunt of their parents' foolishness.

[Tree House Academy]

Seriously. No, seriously? Stupid people and God bless those poor babies!

[Jenny in Florida]

Everyone else already said, "Those poor children." And that's really all there is to say. My heart hurts to know such people exist.

[hornblower]

Well, as kooky as the folks are, it raises interesting issues of freedom to raise your children as you see fit, no?

 

We had some interesting conversations about this recently as in Canada, a woman's children were apprehended by social services after she sent a dd to school with a swastika penned on her arm.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/manitoba/story/2008/07/10/swastika-child.html

 

 

I'm sure these people don't really care about their children being teased or anything else at all. Honestly, that's an odd angle to worry about. Lots of very fundamental in dress or action people on this board have children who might 'stand out' from the crowds in school or the community & be teased etc. Surely that can't be a reasonably defensible objection.

[Zelda]

Well, as kooky as the folks are, it raises interesting issues of freedom to raise your children as you see fit, no?

 

We had some interesting conversations about this recently as in Canada, a woman's children were apprehended by social services after she sent a dd to school with a swastika penned on her arm.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/manitoba/story/2008/07/10/swastika-child.html

 

 

I'm sure these people don't really care about their children being teased or anything else at all. Honestly, that's an odd angle to worry about. Lots of very fundamental in dress or action people on this board have children who might 'stand out' from the crowds in school or the community & be teased etc. Surely that can't be a reasonably defensible objection.

 

These were pretty much my thoughts. I didn't care for the overall tone of the article starting with the idea that the 3yo didn't want to say his own name and the suggestion that it might be because he didn't like it. Whatever. My kids have fairly reasonable names and often would not say them when prompted at that age. I seriously doubt that a 3yo has been able to absorb the full impact of his name or its historical implications.

 

I find the viewpoint of the parents to be disgusting but in the absence of obvious abuse (the psychologist's strange assertions to the contrary aside) what laws are they violating? I think you could plug in some home school reference for every white power reference in the article, print it alongside a picture of a child named, "William Shakespeare Jones" or "Martin Luther Stevenson", or any name that might fulfill a home school stereotype and get tons of people agreeing that the parents were perpetrating some kind of abuse on the children.

 

Just my initial reaction to the article.

[Crissy]

I'm sure these people don't really care about their children being teased or anything else at all. Honestly, that's an odd angle to worry about.

 

I agree.

 

I don't know many 7-9 year old children who understand the stigma of a name like Hitler or Himmler.

If these children are being treated poorly based on their given names, it is by adults who ought to know better.

[sweetfeet]

I agree.

 

I don't know many 7-9 year old children who understand the stigma of a name like Hitler or Himmler.

If these children are being treated poorly based on their given names, it is by adults who ought to know better.

 

I was considering their names among peers when they are adults. I think to another 7 year old it's just a name, but I can see the burden of those names as an adult seeking employment, a spouse, higher education, etc.

[beansprouts]

Disgusting!

 

And I support the right of businesses to operate according to their conscience.

[Crissy]

I was considering their names among peers when they are adults. I think to another 7 year old it's just a name, but I can see the burden of those names as an adult seeking employment, a spouse, higher education, etc.

 

 

Oh, absolutely! I think the parents' choice to name their children as they did is simply disgusting!

 

The fact that the child hides behind his father when asked to say his name, however, reflects on the way adults are treating them today.

[Daisy]

I'm more interested in what folks think about the grocery store's refusal to write the name on the cake? I personally think a business should have the right to decide, however, many in today's society would disagree.

 

Should a business have the right to stand their ground and not violate their personal convictions? In this case it's an aryan issue, but we've seen the same type of things from infertility doctors, photographers, and on-line dating companies who are declared discriminatory for standing by personal conviction.

 

Just an interesting discussion.

[Crissy]

I'm more interested in what folks think about the grocery store's refusal to write the name on the cake? I personally think a business should have the right to decide, however, many in today's society would disagree.

 

Should a business have the right to stand their ground and not violate their personal convictions? In this case it's an aryan issue, but we've seen the same type of things from infertility doctors, photographers, and on-line dating companies who are declared discriminatory for standing by personal conviction.

 

Just an interesting discussion.

I completely support the store's right to refuse to serve the family.

 

As a small business owner, I would never want to be told that I have to serve a group for whom I feel nothing other than disdain.

 

I'd sooner go out of business than be forced to photograph an Aryan Nation event.

[Nestof3]

Heath Campbell can't landscape or pump gas because he has emphysema, and Deborah can't waitress because she has a bad back.

 

???? As if landscaping, gas-pumping and waitressing are the only jobs in America? Also, I'm curious what has caused the emphysema. Odd.

[beansprouts]

I completely support the store's right to refuse to serve the family.

 

As a small business owner, I would never want to be told that I have to serve a group for whom I feel nothing other than disdain.

 

I'd sooner go out of business than be forced to photograph an Aryan Nation event.

 

We are business owners too, Crissy. My dh has refused to serve customers who have unethical business practices. He also would rather go out of business than compromise his integrity.

[Zelda]

I'm more interested in what folks think about the grocery store's refusal to write the name on the cake? I personally think a business should have the right to decide, however, many in today's society would disagree.

 

Should a business have the right to stand their ground and not violate their personal convictions? In this case it's an aryan issue, but we've seen the same type of things from infertility doctors, photographers, and on-line dating companies who are declared discriminatory for standing by personal conviction.

 

Just an interesting discussion.

 

Entirely up to the business and I support their decision either way. They are a private enterprise and should do as they please within the law.

[lighthouseacademy]

My husband's words: It is despicable to use a child as a pawn for your own social or political agenda.

 

Wow, I am speechless.

[fivetails]

I completely support the store's right to refuse to serve the family.

 

As a small business owner, I would never want to be told that I have to serve a group for whom I feel nothing other than disdain.

 

I'd sooner go out of business than be forced to photograph an Aryan Nation event.

 

Isn't there a difference though, between that and writing a child's name on a cake....? I don't *like* their choice of names, but the fact is - those are the actual names of the children. What would happen if this was a foreign family who's foreign language names resembled something "bad" in english? Could/should the store still refuse? It's just another example....

 

I don't know - I think it's sad that the parents chose those specific names...but, they have just as much right to use those names as whatever that actress was that called her kid "Apple" or the parents of the skier named "Picabo" (peek-a-boo) .....unfortunately, while those two are kinda cute and silly, the ones the parents in the article chose are.....something else entirely.

[PiCO]

Isn't there a difference though, between that and writing a child's name on a cake....? I don't *like* their choice of names, but the fact is - those are the actual names of the children. What would happen if this was a foreign family who's foreign language names resembled something "bad" in english? Could/should the store still refuse? It's just another example.....

 

The store can refuse whatever they want to refuse. They also refused to sell the family a cake with a space so the family could write the name themselves.

 

The family should have gone to a different store and purchased a generic cake with space to write the name themselves. Of bake the cake at home- they evidently have time on their hands. ;)

 

I think the family is using their children to get attention (why Adolf Hitler? Why not just Adolf on the cake?), and I think the news outlets are making a sensation out of a minor incident. Just leave the kids alone!

 

I don't know - I think it's sad that the parents chose those specific names...but, they have just as much right to use those names as whatever that actress was that called her kid "Apple" or the parents of the skier named "Picabo" (peek-a-boo) .....unfortunately, while those two are kinda cute and silly, the ones the parents in the article chose are.....something else entirely.

 

BTW, the skier Picabo Street is named after a town in Idaho. I always like that name.

[PiCO]

We are business owners too, Crissy. My dh has refused to serve customers who have unethical business practices. He also would rather go out of business than compromise his integrity.

 

Good for him! I have "fired" customers myself, just for being jerks. If I let obnoxious customers bother my good customers, my good customers will leave. (I do ask them to behave first.)

[Melinda in VT]

The store can refuse whatever they want to refuse. They also refused to sell the family a cake with a space so the family could write the name themselves.

 

Actually, according to the article in the OP, the store did offer to sell the family a cake on which the parents could write the name:

 

The Campbells turned down the market's offer to make a cake with enough room for them to write their own inscription and can't understand what all of the fuss is about.

[beansprouts]

Isn't there a difference though, between that and writing a child's name on a cake....? I don't *like* their choice of names, but the fact is - those are the actual names of the children. What would happen if this was a foreign family who's foreign language names resembled something "bad" in english? Could/should the store still refuse? It's just another example....

 

I don't know - I think it's sad that the parents chose those specific names...but, they have just as much right to use those names as whatever that actress was that called her kid "Apple" or the parents of the skier named "Picabo" (peek-a-boo) .....unfortunately, while those two are kinda cute and silly, the ones the parents in the article chose are.....something else entirely.

 

I see no difference in this case especially. The people named their children according to their convictions. They have the right to name their kids anything they want, and we have the right not to participate in celebrating their choices or affirming their convictions.

 

The store is running a business, and the purpose of a business is to make money. It is not in the best interest of the business to offend its customers. Sometimes decisions have to be made in which one unreasonable person does go away mad, so the rest of the customers are not offended. Even if there was no conscientious decision made here, there certainly may have been a PR one. A business has the right to make these kind of choices.

 

And the rest of the world needs to realise that they are not owed anything.

[beansprouts]

The Campbells turned down the market's offer to make a cake with enough room for them to write their own inscription and can't understand what all of the fuss is about.

 

This last part is complete Bull. They know exactly what all the fuss is about.

[Highereducation]

Stores can refuse service to people who are not wearing shirts or shoes, so why can't they refuse something on an ethical basis? Like someone else pointed out, they are a private enterprise, and they are fully within their rights to set their own policies as far as refusing customers, so long as their actions are not discriminatory. IMO, even a brilliant legal mind would have a hard time going the discrimination route on this one.

 

I'd be curious to see just how old this kid gets to be before he wants to change his name .... sort of like that poor kid who was named Tallulah-Does-the-Hula-in-Hawaii, or whatever it was, although of course this kid's name is in another realm entirely.

[PiCO]

Actually, according to the article in the OP, the store did offer to sell the family a cake on which the parents could write the name:

 

The Campbells turned down the market's offer to make a cake with enough room for them to write their own inscription and can't understand what all of the fuss is about.

 

Thanks for clearing that up- I misread it.

 

In that case, the store bent over backwards for them.

[fivetails]

The store can refuse whatever they want to refuse.

 

well....I don't know. What about the example I gave of a foreign name that resembled a word in english that we consider offensive? (I'm remembering a news story I heard years back here)......

 

(could the same store refuse to *hire* someone with that name, I wonder?)

 

 

 

 

The family should have gone to a different store and purchased a generic cake with space to write the name themselves.

why? Little Jacob Jones or Madison Lynn can have their names (both first and middle if there is room) on a cake...so why can't this child? Because the store owner didn't like it?

 

 

Of bake the cake at home- they evidently have time on their hands. ;)

oh they may very well - I don't know anything about them...

 

I think the family is using their children to get attention (why Adolf Hitler? Why not just Adolf on the cake?), and I think the news outlets are making a sensation out of a minor incident. Just leave the kids alone!

Yeah they might very well be. Quite likely, in fact. News outlets as well.

 

But.....it IS the child's name. Why should the child be treated any differently than little Joshua James or Katie Ann?

 

 

BTW, the skier Picabo Street is named after a town in Idaho. I always like that name.

oh cool, I didn't know it was a town. Heh - I'm named after a city myself.;)

 

 

 

By the way, lest anyone get me wrong here - I'm not saying that I like the names they chose for the children, or that I agree with their apparent racial beliefs etc etc etc etc ......cuz I don't. They do have the right to believe whatever they choose to believe, but it's unfortunate & sad that they decided to express those beliefs through the names of their children. Nonetheless, this was a birthday cake for a child and I think that kid deserves to have his cake just like Joshua, Katie, Madison, or Jacob.

Edited December 16, 2008 by fivetails

[Pamela H in Texas]

The Campbells said they wanted their children to have unique names and didn't expect the names to cause problems.

 

The Campbells are either liars or dumb as rocks.

[beansprouts]

well....I don't know. What about the example I gave of a foreign name that resembled a word in english that we consider offensive? (I'm remembering a news story I heard years back here)......

 

(could the same store refuse to *hire* someone with that name, I wonder?)

 

I have never seen a foreign name that would meet this criteria.

 

They can also ask a prospective employee to cut their hair, shave their beard and dress in a way that is presentable to the customers.

 

That is... so far we still have that right... :confused:

Edited December 16, 2008 by beansprouts

[Saille]

I'm more interested in what folks think about the grocery store's refusal to write the name on the cake? I personally think a business should have the right to decide, however, many in today's society would disagree.

 

Should a business have the right to stand their ground and not violate their personal convictions? In this case it's an aryan issue, but we've seen the same type of things from infertility doctors, photographers, and on-line dating companies who are declared discriminatory for standing by personal conviction.

 

Just an interesting discussion.

 

:iagree:

 

The idea that someone might be legally obligated to pen "Happy Birthday Adolf Hitler" on a cake still leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

 

I agree that it's a bid for attention...and somewhat irrational. He regrets having racist sentiments forced on him, but he named his kids after prominent Nazis? That makes no sense.

 

When I worked with emotionally disturbed kids, I had a disproportionate number of white students whose parents were white supremacists. I'm sure this had much more to do with the extreme level of hatred required to choose such a path than about any specific ideology, but it was clearly not healthy for the children involved.

[fivetails]

well....I don't know. What about the example I gave of a foreign name that resembled a word in english that we consider offensive? (I'm remembering a news story I heard years back here)......

 

(could the same store refuse to *hire* someone with that name, I wonder?)

Yes, and yes.

 

They can also ask a prospective employee to cut their hair, shave their beard and dress in a way that is presentable to the customers.

 

That is... so far we still have that right... :confused:

 

There's a difference between maintaining a presentable appearance for work and a person's name though. The store would seriously have the right to refuse to hire someone based on their *name* ?

[Nestof3]

Cigarette smoking is the main cause of emphysema, and also a deficiency in some protein. Not sure why that matters, tho, unless you're making an additional judgement on the man.

 

Well, if you bring something on yourself like that, you shouldn't be collecting disability. I wonder if he's still smoking? So, call me judgmental.

[Pamela H in Texas]

The parents were saying that they didn't want to force their beliefs on the kids, but they most certainly are and they are going to get society to back it up. Those kids are going to be filled with hate because other people will mistreat them, or at least not treat them well, because they have names that inspire strong negative feelings.

 

As for the grocery store? Well, I think it was reasonable for them to try to compromise between their concerns and the child's rights. And I think this kid is gonna need to learn to compromise. His name badge when he works at Wal-Mart is probably going to say Adolf, not Adolf Hitler. Though they don't have any trouble with the cake, I think they may have more trouble with a young man with Adolf Hitler on the name badge as he walks around their store as their employee.

[sleepy]

The Campbells are either liars or dumb as rocks.

 

I vote for option #2.

[beansprouts]

There's a difference between maintaining a presentable appearance for work and a person's name though. The store would seriously have the right to refuse to hire someone based on their *name* ?

 

I don't know the law, and it is difficult to discuss this without examples. I can understand a store not wanting an employee to represent their business while Adolph Hitler is printed on their name tag. If the prospective employee is not willing to compromise to meet the dress code requirements set by the store, then the employer has the right to decide they are not the best person for the job.

 

The world doesn't owe him a job any more than they owe him a birthday cake.

Edited December 16, 2008 by beansprouts

[beansprouts]

Cigarette smoking is the main cause of emphysema, and also a deficiency in some protein. Not sure why that matters, tho, unless you're making an additional judgement on the man.

 

*Shrugging* He has the right to smoke if he wishes.

 

...And I have the right not to have to pay the huge medical bills incurred by his poor choices... :D

[Murphy101]

Well, as kooky as the folks are, it raises interesting issues of freedom to raise your children as you see fit, no?

 

We had some interesting conversations about this recently as in Canada, a woman's children were apprehended by social services after she sent a dd to school with a swastika penned on her arm.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/manitoba/story/2008/07/10/swastika-child.html

 

 

I'm sure these people don't really care about their children being teased or anything else at all. Honestly, that's an odd angle to worry about. Lots of very fundamental in dress or action people on this board have children who might 'stand out' from the crowds in school or the community & be teased etc. Surely that can't be a reasonably defensible objection.

 

:iagree:

 

 

These were pretty much my thoughts. I didn't care for the overall tone of the article starting with the idea that the 3yo didn't want to say his own name and the suggestion that it might be because he didn't like it. Whatever. My kids have fairly reasonable names and often would not say them when prompted at that age. I seriously doubt that a 3yo has been able to absorb the full impact of his name or its historical implications.

 

I find the viewpoint of the parents to be disgusting but in the absence of obvious abuse (the psychologist's strange assertions to the contrary aside) what laws are they violating? I think you could plug in some home school reference for every white power reference in the article, print it alongside a picture of a child named, "William Shakespeare Jones" or "Martin Luther Stevenson", or any name that might fulfill a home school stereotype and get tons of people agreeing that the parents were perpetrating some kind of abuse on the children.

 

Just my initial reaction to the article.

 

:iagree:

 

I think the worst thing about this entire article is the way anyone would treat another, esp 3 yr old children, simply because of their name. It's a birthday cake. What's wrong or unethical about writing in icing "Happy Birthday Hitler!" if that's the child's name?

 

If the business doesn't want to, that's there right I suppose.

 

Adolph is actually a VERY old and traditional name, (huh, looked it up and it means majestic wolf) that ONE person made yucky. If this couple found they liked it, they shouldn't be called abusive for using it. If we never use names associated with the wrongs of past people, we need to stop using Alexander, Ted, Al, Henry, Mary, and more.

 

Aryan Nation, well I don't agree with that either, but many people would choose something similiar for african or asian ancestry. Why is that okay?

 

Again, I absolutely don't agree with the whole Nazi theme they have going and would agree with the dumb as rocks theory, BUT that's not abuse in and of itself. I think the way other adults are treating those children is far worse than what the parents named them. Shame on those who should treat little children better than that. I don't care what their name is. If anything a name like that means those kids need a heck of a lot more understanding and kindness.

[Lakeside]

What's wrong or unethical about writing in icing "Happy Birthday Hitler!" if that's the child's name?

 

If the business doesn't want to, that's there right I suppose.

 

Adolph is actually a VERY old and traditional name, (huh, looked it up and it means majestic wolf) that ONE person made yucky. If this couple found they liked it, they shouldn't be called abusive for using it. If we never use names associated with the wrongs of past people, we need to stop using Alexander, Ted, Al, Henry, Mary, and more.

His name isn't just Adolf. It is Adolf Hitler. There is a big difference.

 

Aryan Nation, well I don't agree with that either, but many people would choose something similiar for african or asian ancestry. Why is that okay?

 

Aryan Nation isn't just about heritage.

[OnTheBrink]

why? Little Jacob Jones or Madison Lynn can have their names (both first and middle if there is room) on a cake...so why can't this child? Because the store owner didn't like it?

 

But.....it IS the child's name. Why should the child be treated any differently than little Joshua James or Katie Ann?

 

By the way, lest anyone get me wrong here - I'm not saying that I like the names they chose for the children, or that I agree with their apparent racial beliefs etc etc etc etc ......cuz I don't. They do have the right to believe whatever they choose to believe, but it's unfortunate & sad that they decided to express those beliefs through the names of their children. Nonetheless, this was a birthday cake for a child and I think that kid deserves to have his cake just like Joshua, Katie, Madison, or Jacob.

 

Are you seriously saying the kid is entitled to a cake from ShopRite? That that particular store was somehow obligated to make him a cake? Really? I don't think so. I fully support the store's decision and if I lived near there, I'd shop there now simply because of it.

 

And, from reading the comments after the news article, Walmart made the cake, so he did get his name on his birthday cake. Having a birthday cake made a store isn't a right. There are a dozen other ways to get the cake. If I go to Sam's and ask them to make me a cake with a muskrat and they tell me they can't or won't or don't do muskrats, then I have the option of going to a business who'll meet my need. I don't sue Sam's for not accommodating me. I get so tired of the entitled attitude people have, simply thinking that if they want it, they should get it, other people's thoughts or feelings be d*mned.

[Murphy101]

His name isn't just Adolf. It is Adolf Hitler. There is a big difference.

 

Aryan Nation isn't just about heritage.

 

I agree and am aware of that.

 

Doesn't matter though. You could still replace it with other names that at one time did horrible things yet are acceptable again now.

 

And make no mistake there's plenty of other ethnicities that feel the same about their skin color/culture/race as the Aryan's do. I don't personally agree with it, but it's there all the same.

 

Again, I don't agree with it.

But it's not illegal or abusive.

[Zelda]

I vote for option #2.

 

Is there an all of the above!

[Murphy101]

Are you seriously saying the kid is entitled to a cake from ShopRite? That that particular store was somehow obligated to make him a cake?

 

 

I don't know about her, but that's not my opinion.

 

It's one thing to say, "consider that this is just a 3 yr old kid who wants a b-day cake like every other kid" (my opinion)

 

and quite another to say that any store is actually obligated in any way to do it (not my opinion).

:)

[OnTheBrink]

I don't know about her, but that's not my opinion.

 

It's one thing to say, "consider that this is just a 3 yr old kid who wants a b-day cake like every other kid" (my opinion)

 

and quite another to say that any store is actually obligated in any way to do it (not my opinion).

:)

 

Yes, and after thinking about it further, the child wouldn't even have known that particular store wouldn't do the cake unless the parents made a fuss to him over it. They got a cake at Walmart for him and I seriously doubt little Adolf knew or cared where his cake came from. HOw many 3 year olds are even aware of the origin of their birthday cakes?

 

I wonder if Charm City Cakes would have made it for them??;)

[Murphy101]

oh oh !

 

along the lines of names, this reminds me of a conversation I had with someone about our president elect.

 

He said he didn't want a president with the name Hussien. Even just the middle name.

NOT because he is racist, but because that name is just too associated with a certain dictator who did horrible things in the middle east and he doesn't want THAT to be in any way tied to the image of our president esp in this time of strife with the middle east where many other countries think we are acting way too heavy handed.

 

Now, I hadn't given any thought to that! It's my understanding that name is VERY much as common as "John" is here, but to this fellow it isn't and he didn't like it. Said it shocked him that he spent time fighting in a war because of someone with that name and now he has a president with it.

 

So I wonder if Hussien is now going to be taboo in naming middle-eastern children?:confused:

 

AGAIN! I have nothing against the name myself, but found this man's perspective interesting and it came to mind after reading this thread.

[Murphy101]

Yes, and after thinking about it further, the child wouldn't even have known that particular store wouldn't do the cake unless the parents made a fuss to him over it. They got a cake at Walmart for him and I seriously doubt little Adolf knew or cared where his cake came from. HOw many 3 year olds are even aware of the origin of their birthday cakes?

 

I wonder if Charm City Cakes would have made it for them??;)

 

ah now I can tell you MY 3 yr old would! I have a 2.5 yr old little girl and she's yammering away to me right now about how she and daddy bought mashelles and chocolate and gams at walmart yesterday and why aren't we making ors in teh fireplace?!

 

translation: hey mom, I saw daddy buy those marshmellows, hershey bars, and graham crackers at walmart and I wanna know when you're going to get in gear and make us some smores in the fireplace!:lol:

[PiCO]

They can also ask a prospective employee to cut their hair, shave their beard and dress in a way that is presentable to the customers.

 

That is... so far we still have that right... :confused:

 

I'm glad we still have this right. I live in an at-will state, so I can let an emplyee go for any reason, or for no reason. (I've never done that- I always try to train people first, but it's nice to have an out.)

 

As far as customers go, a business has a right to accept of not accept people as customers. For any reason or for no reason.

 

You are not allowed to discriminate on the basis of race, religion, etc etc- I never heard name being mentioned in the list of things you can't discriminate against.