Saw this on Cakewrecks and am speechless

[lionfamily1999]

Does the store have a policy regarding offensive messages on cakes?

 

If not, then they should have written the message. I mean, really, we can't write "Happy Birthday Adolf" on a cake? If the cake was black and red and the tone was sarcastic, would they have written the message?

 

The parents are ignorant, but those kids are stuck with those names and it stinks to think they may face a future where they cannot have a loving supermarket make their cake, complete with their name in big bold writing.

 

I know a Regan, Damien Christian, Rosemary, and many other kids named after questionable characters, I also know a couple of guys named Jesus. Names are.... sometimes I wonder if parents should be allowed to permanently name thier children, or if the kids should have the final say (at eighteen). That would save a lot of grief.

[Murphy101]

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.

 

Actually, it depends on the name.

If the name is ethnic and there's reason to believe that's the reason they were discriminated against, then it's not allowed.

 

Keep in mind, many people in history have changed their names for just that reason - to avoid being discriminated against.

 

At various points in our american history people have felt a need to change their first and or last names to avoid discrimination including germans, irish, and asians.

 

for example, there was a time when shops had signs that said "irish need not apply", so obviously one who wanted a job didn't introduce themselves as Shawn Calohan. Suddenly, he became John Smith so he could at least get a job.:)

[Danestress]

any of you put your child's LAST name on a birthday cake?

 

I think these parents are looking for attention and will continue to do so, using their children to get the attention they seek. They clearly set this store up for this. I'm sure the store wouldn't have thought twice about "Happy Birthday, Adolph." But no. They wanted "Hitler" in there too.

 

There is nothing that prohibits a store from choosing not to honor a request of this type. They have the right and they exercised it. Likewise, there is nothing that keeps the parents from naming the child whatever they choose. They have the right, they exercised it. Sometimes the exercise of one person's right will conflict with another. They family got the cake - just somewhere else. But of course they wanted the attention they could get out of the incident.

[Highereducation]

JMHO, but I have a problem with the name and I pity the kid who has to live with it.

 

I've worked with senior citizens for the last 25 years, and I've had the privilege of meeting people whose lives were directly affected by the horrors of WWII.

 

Where I come from, names are given to honor. If the parents want to call the kid Adolf, no problem. It is a common name. But to use the full name of someone who was directly responsible for the mass murder of so many people - innocent people, only a few generations removed - is a slap in the face to those who were lost.

 

Perhaps in a century or so, people will feel differently, I don't know. Feelings soften over time. In this case, I hope that name will never lose the impact of causing people to remember a time in history that should never be repeated.

 

What if the kid's name was purposely McVeigh, or Son of Sam, or Gacy, or Ted Bundy, or any other name that glorifies and honors someone who caused unimaginable pain to victims and their families? Would anyone condone that?

 

There's no reason the family involved in this story couldn't have just used the name Adolf on the cake. And then there wouldn't have been a story at all.

[Murphy101]

any of you put your child's LAST name on a birthday cake?

 

hitler is not the child's last name and many people do use both first and middle names

 

John Michael for example should not have to use only John if she doesn't want to.

 

But it's moot, b/c as you note they did get the cake made elsewhere. I didn't read that the issue was the use of the name adolf hitler, but that ANY of the name was objectionable? may have misread that though?

 

What if the kid's name was purposely McVeigh, or Son of Sam, or Gacy, or Ted Bundy, or any other name that glorifies and honors someone who caused unimaginable pain to victims and their families? Would anyone condone that?

 

bet you there's plenty of those out there too. Just not as well known. You'd be very surprised at how few people know who those men were.

 

There's no reason the family involved in this story couldn't have just used the name Adolf on the cake. And then there wouldn't have been a story at all.

 

Again. I didn't read anywhere that was the case. :confused: What I read was a general dislike of either name. I think there would have been just as big a stink over adolf.:001_huh:

[Michelle T]

any of you put your child's LAST name on a birthday cake?

 

I think these parents are looking for attention and will continue to do so, using their children to get the attention they seek. They clearly set this store up for this. I'm sure the store wouldn't have thought twice about "Happy Birthday, Adolph." But no. They wanted "Hitler" in there too.

 

There is nothing that prohibits a store from choosing not to honor a request of this type. They have the right and they exercised it. Likewise, there is nothing that keeps the parents from naming the child whatever they choose. They have the right, they exercised it. Sometimes the exercise of one person's right will conflict with another. They family got the cake - just somewhere else. But of course they wanted the attention they could get out of the incident.

 

No one puts their child's full name on a cake. My guess is these scum parents are looking for a ton of media attention, which they got, and are planning on bringing a lawsuit against the market for not decorating the cake.

 

I agree 100% with ShopRite, and I'd shop there myself if I lived in that area.

 

Michelle T

[fshinkevich]

Does the store have a policy regarding offensive messages on cakes?

 

If not, then they should have written the message. I mean, really, we can't write "Happy Birthday Adolf" on a cake? If the cake was black and red and the tone was sarcastic, would they have written the message?

 

The parents are ignorant, but those kids are stuck with those names and it stinks to think they may face a future where they cannot have a loving supermarket make their cake, complete with their name in big bold writing.

 

I know a Regan, Damien Christian, Rosemary, and many other kids named after questionable characters, I also know a couple of guys named Jesus. Names are.... sometimes I wonder if parents should be allowed to permanently name thier children, or if the kids should have the final say (at eighteen). That would save a lot of grief.

 

 

I'm sure the store would have been more than happy to write "Adolf" on the cake, the parents were demanding the full name, and yes stores can refuse to make offensive cakes of any nature (adult themes come to mind), at least when I was working in a grocery store.

 

And while I agree that it's wrong to treat a 3yo differently for something that is not his fault and has no control over, I also think the store has the right to not compromise their beliefs. They were willing to offer alternatives. I think the parents better get used to accepting them.

 

And I even disagree with it not being abusive in nature. There are plenty of people who name their children after their beliefs, put up symbols in their homes, and teach their children according to their beliefs. This however seems to be crossing a line. Imagine if I forced my child to walk around with a giant scarlet letter - a badge of shame - basically forcing my child to be shunned by the community. Would that be considered abuse? I hope so, and I don't see much difference here. If these parents wanted to prove a point so badly they should have changed their own names. They are old enough to know the consequences, this child has no voice.

 

When I read this article I immediately thought of the story someone posted earlier where the child was taken from the home for the swastika, and I wonder if these parents got themselves into more than they bargained for by bringing attention to their cake story. I don't think I agree with the children being taken away, that often results in more problems but hopefully they get some parenting classes or something. I wonder if they even know the true history of what they are teaching their kids, if they REALLY believe in it or it's just the "cool" thing to do in their crowd.

[beansprouts]

Does the store have a policy regarding offensive messages on cakes?

 

If not, then they should have written the message. I mean, really, we can't write "Happy Birthday Adolf" on a cake? If the cake was black and red and the tone was sarcastic, would they have written the message?

 

My understanding is that the parents wanted the cake to say "Happy Birthday Adolf Hitler", and not just "Happy Birthday Adolf". The issue is not them simply wanting a birthday cake for a three year old, it is about them wanting to force an unwilling party to paste offensive political ideology on a birthday cake. The whole "They can't even make a birthday cake for a three year old" line is passive-aggressive bull$hit.

 

It is the parent's fault, that they chose to make their children political pawns for their warped ideology. Any fall-out the children experience because of the parent's decision is on the PARENT'S heads, not ours. But like much of humanity, they want the right to live their lives as they choose, but take no responsibility for the consequences of their choices.

 

I wonder how many would feel differently if the baker had been a holocaust survivor?

[fshinkevich]

bet you there's plenty of those out there too. Just not as well known. You'd be very surprised at how few people know who those men were.

 

 

I'm sure there are, and I bet there are plenty more "Adolph Hitlers" and there is the difference. These people are going above and beyond to prove a point, probably try to sue the store for money, and using their kids to do it. We are not talking about an adult here choosing to have his full name on the cake and not getting it, or an adult wanting the attention from the media or an adult suing the store.

[fivetails]

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.

 

Yes. :) .....as much as any other child, anyway. Why not? It's his name. I didn't say *I* personally like the name (I don't) (nor did I say that I like the choice his parents made in giving him that name - and I don't)....but if the store makes cakes with other children's names on them, and has no problem doing so, then yes I think they should have made the kid his cake and put his name on it, same as they would do for any other customer.

 

 

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.

 

Glad to hear he did get a cake.

 

I never said anyone should 'sue' anyone else. ;)

 

I just said that he should be able to have his name on a cake just like any other kid. It's just a cake.

 

(the racist undertones or such and the family's beliefs and whatever all else is a different kettle of fish and I do feel terrible for the kids tagged with those names because of how *others* will treat them...I'm just speaking about a cake with some icing)

 

eh, it's all good. everybody has different opinions on stuff and that's what makes the world go tick. :)

[beansprouts]

Yes. :) .....as much as any other child, anyway.

 

Your answer seems to leave room for the possibility that no child is entitled, has rights to, or owed a cake from ShopRite, and it is the store's discretion as to whom they will serve. ;)

 

I can't help but wonder by what authority they can claim "rights" to a birthday cake (or anything else for that matter...)

[fivetails]

Does the store have a policy regarding offensive messages on cakes?

 

If not, then they should have written the message.

 

Would that sort of policy even really apply though? The name ITSELF isn't offensive. The actions of a man who bore that name were........know what I mean? *thoughtful*

 

*******

 

This sort of thing sure gives people a lot to think about though. Some else (several someones) mentioned about parents being able to raise their children with the beliefs and such that they choose......it's a sticky point sometimes eh? How/where - or should? - we draw the lines? We may disagree strongly with someone's point of view - but....???...They may disagree just as strongly - or more so - with ours....

 

What's that saying or whatever ...something like "I may not like what you are saying, but I will defend your right to say it" .....something like that....

 

okay, my nose is cold and I have cookies to make. Luckily, nobody wants me to write on them. :tongue_smilie:

[OnTheBrink]

I know you didn't say they should sue, I think I actually read that some place else.

 

Anyway, I agree the child deserves a birthday cake; I just don't think ShopRite was required to make it. And, I think the parents are class A idiots for doing this to their child. I sorta hope they grow up to work for the NAACP.

[coffeefreak]

:cursing:

TAKE THOSE KIDS AWAY!!!!!!

 

ARGH!!!

 

I edited this to clarify, I looked at the pictures on the link. I am horrified that these three children are being raised in a house like this. UGH! It's horrible!

[fivetails]

Yes. :) .....as much as any other child, anyway.

 

Your answer seems to leave room for the possibility that no child is entitled, has rights to, or owed a cake from ShopRite, and it is the store's discretion as to whom they will serve. ;)

 

I plead the 5th. Wait, I'm Canadian - I prolly can't do that. Too much American tv. :tongue_smilie:

 

 

:D

[coffeefreak]

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.

 

You're right. What I object to is using children as pawns! It just makes me sick when parents USE their children. It makes me sad.

[Murphy101]

You're right. What I object to is using children as pawns! It just makes me sick when parents USE their children. It makes me sad.

 

ah but we can't say that for sure can we?

I mean if the parents really are just idiots then it's highly likely they simply named their children according to their likes and really didn't give it any more thought than that.

No different than a catholic naming a child Ava Marie. They aren't "using" their child or trying to turn their child into a "pawn" - they are simply naming thier child according to their like/belief?

 

Tho I do see your perspective to some degree. I just noted on the bell ringing thread that I dislike seeing children do it for the same reason I dislike seeing some guy using his kids for his car dealership in a commercial. (or furniture or real estate ads ...) Can't really say why it bothers me, but it really does.

 

interesting....

[coffeefreak]

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* ?

 

You know what, I bet it would never come to issue, because they would just chuck the application! They've done studies that show you're name means EVERYTHING in getting your app/resume past the initial screening. Those poor Children (especially Adolf) will have a hard time succeeding unless they drop their middle names.

 

I know that's a little off topic, but you made me think of yet another way these parents have hurt their children. I don't have anything against the name Adolf, it's the Hitler after it that they so proudly display. If little Adolf puts his full name on an app, there are plenty of businesses that will put that app in the trash.

[Aubrey]

The thing about this child's name is that it is forcing something on society. The parents are using other people's sense of obligation toward a child to force an openness to the name & a blind eye toward the actions the name has come to represent.

 

And then we start to question our pov. We realize that someone else might be equally offended by names like Elijah or Peter. We realize that *we* don't want to be discriminated against for whatever our beliefs are & that we want to maintain our own rights to raise our dc in the way that we think are best, & so we hesitate to call the choice this set of parents has made "wrong."

 

We waffle w/ statements like, "It's not what *I* would have chosen, but..." I've been reading this thread all morning, grappling w/ the same thing, making the same remarks to my sleeping dh, lol.

 

But what it comes down to, imo, is this: we are afraid to call *anything* right or wrong any more. Choices are only right or wrong to individuals, not in & of themselves. There's something deep w/in us that WANTS to call this choice--naming children after a mass murderer--WRONG, but...to call this choice wrong & another choice right is to draw moral lines, & we've been taught that we can't do that. It's offensive & unfair.

 

But let's remember what Adolf Hitler did. He murdered thousands of people. He took children from their mothers. He forced people to strip naked in front of each other, experimented on them, tortured them, & quite nearly wiped out an entire race.

 

The Campbells did not name their 3yo Adolf Hitler because they liked the ring of it. They named him after the man for the same reason we name our children after heroes & loved ones: they wanted to emulate & perpetuate the ideals represented by the name. Whether or not we agree on the many pressing moral/ethical issues at hand today, we do still believe together that murder is wrong. Therefore, calling the acts against this 3yo child by his parents both wrong & abusive is fair, imo.

 

I realize that such reasoning could eventually be twisted to call the things we do to our children wrong & abusive, but if evil people gain power, they won't *have* to call what we're doing wrong & abusive. And if good people are in power, they'll be able to tell the difference between right & wrong.

 

Ok, I'm going to get some sugar before I get any crazier.

[Murphy101]

You know what, I bet it would never come to issue, because they would just chuck the application! They've done studies that show you're name means EVERYTHING in getting your app/resume past the initial screening. Those poor Children (especially Adolf) will have a hard time succeeding unless they drop their middle names.

 

hmm, I guess I'm a bit more cynical.

I really don't think it'd matter if his middle name were Hitler or not.

Adolf, Aryan, and Hinler as first names would probalby be enough.

The middle names just mean instead of just tossing it in the trash, they'd probably rip it up first.

[beansprouts]

You know what, I bet it would never come to issue, because they would just chuck the application! They've done studies that show you're name means EVERYTHING in getting your app/resume past the initial screening. Those poor Children (especially Adolf) will have a hard time succeeding unless they drop their middle names.

 

I know that's a little off topic, but you made me think of yet another way these parents have hurt their children. I don't have anything against the name Adolf, it's the Hitler after it that they so proudly display. If little Adolf puts his full name on an app, there are plenty of businesses that will put that app in the trash.

 

I hadn't thought of this and you are probably right. If I saw Adolph Hitler on an application I would assume it was a joke, and chuck it.

[lionfamily1999]

I'm sure the store would have been more than happy to write "Adolf" on the cake, the parents were demanding the full name, and yes stores can refuse to make offensive cakes of any nature (adult themes come to mind), at least when I was working in a grocery store.

 

And I even disagree with it not being abusive in nature. There are plenty of people who name their children after their beliefs, put up symbols in their homes, and teach their children according to their beliefs. This however seems to be crossing a line.

 

They are old enough to know the consequences, this child has no voice.

 

When I read this article I immediately thought of the story someone posted earlier where the child was taken from the home for the swastika, and I wonder if these parents got themselves into more than they bargained for by bringing attention to their cake story.

Okay, so those stores do have offensive cake writing policies. Then they would have the right to deny anyone a cake with offensive writing on it.

 

Whether or not Adolf Hitler is an offensive NAME is most definitely a matter of opinion. I'm sure there are people that find the name 'Christian' offensive. Whenever we draw lines, my beliefs and oddities are okay, but yours are just wrong, we make it possible to end up on the other side of that line. Someone earlier posted Barrack Hussein Obama's name as an example. Should a store be allowed to deny him his middle name on a cake because someone may consider it offensive?

 

Granted, private enterprise, it is their right to deny service, period.

 

Should the state, or an government agency, have the power to decide what's in a name? Should children named after perfumes, cars, and web sites be removed because of a name? Don't we teach our kids, a rose by any other name would smell just as sweet? Don't we teach them not to judge a book by its cover? Should the government have the power to dictate names?

Would that sort of policy even really apply though? The name ITSELF isn't offensive. The actions of a man who bore that name were........know what I mean? *thoughtful*

 

*******

 

This sort of thing sure gives people a lot to think about though. Some else (several someones) mentioned about parents being able to raise their children with the beliefs and such that they choose......it's a sticky point sometimes eh? How/where - or should? - we draw the lines? We may disagree strongly with someone's point of view - but....???...They may disagree just as strongly - or more so - with ours....

 

What's that saying or whatever ...something like "I may not like what you are saying, but I will defend your right to say it" .....something like that....

 

okay, my nose is cold and I have cookies to make. Luckily, nobody wants me to write on them. :tongue_smilie:

:iagree:

:cursing:

TAKE THOSE KIDS AWAY!!!!!!

 

ARGH!!!

 

I edited this to clarify, I looked at the pictures on the link. I am horrified that these three children are being raised in a house like this. UGH! It's horrible!

See above.

My understanding is that the parents wanted the cake to say "Happy Birthday Adolf Hitler", and not just "Happy Birthday Adolf". The issue is not them simply wanting a birthday cake for a three year old, it is about them wanting to force an unwilling party to paste offensive political ideology on a birthday cake. The whole "They can't even make a birthday cake for a three year old" line is passive-aggressive bull$hit.

 

It is the parent's fault, that they chose to make their children political pawns for their warped ideology. Any fall-out the children experience because of the parent's decision is on the PARENT'S heads, not ours. But like much of humanity, they want the right to live their lives as they choose, but take no responsibility for the consequences of their choices.

 

I wonder how many would feel differently if the baker had been a holocaust survivor?

They did not ask for Mein Kampf (sorry spelling police). They did not ask for a swastika, they did not ask for the Nazi manifesto. They asked for a NAME. Their child's name. It's not even as though they requested a cake to celebrate the birthday of the Adolf Hitler, they wanted a cake for their kid. The fall-out these kids will experience will also be the result of people telling their kids it is OKAY to treat them different or blame them for a name they did not get to choose. The fall-out will also be on the hands of those that treat these kids according to their names, rather than their character.

 

Again, free enterprise, if the store reserves the write to refuse messages on any grounds, then fine. However, putting so much into the name of a child, allowing the folly of the parents to dictate the treatment of the children, is wrong. And, giving the government or any government agency the right to decide what names are good enough and what names are bad or constitute abuse is, imo, opening the door for the government to tread all over our rights, as USA citizens.

[coffeefreak]

ah but we can't say that for sure can we?

I mean if the parents really are just idiots then it's highly likely they simply named their children according to their likes and really didn't give it any more thought than that.

No different than a catholic naming a child Ava Marie. They aren't "using" their child or trying to turn their child into a "pawn" - they are simply naming thier child according to their like/belief?

 

Tho I do see your perspective to some degree. I just noted on the bell ringing thread that I dislike seeing children do it for the same reason I dislike seeing some guy using his kids for his car dealership in a commercial. (or furniture or real estate ads ...) Can't really say why it bothers me, but it really does.

 

interesting....

 

:lol::lol::lol:

 

As soon as I posted I KNEW someone was going to call me out on that!

 

And, You're right, I think the same thing. I know people who think my children are pawns because I homeschool. SIGH, I get mad at people like this, and then I have to remember this is what living in America is all about. We are free to make our own choices and raise our kids as we see fit. I don't like the decisions these parents make, and I think it's horrible these kids are subject to this. However, I know if I try to take away their rights to raise their children this way, my rights will be taken away too.:glare: It's not simple, is it?

 

FWIW, I hate the local commercials with kids too:D

[Murphy101]

The thing about this child's name is that it is forcing something on society. The parents are using other people's sense of obligation toward a child to force an openness to the name & a blind eye toward the actions the name has come to represent.

 

really? accepting that a child has such a name means we can't see that someone with the same name did horrid things? I just don't get that at all. history doesn't change just because someone else has the same name.:confused:

 

so we hesitate to call the choice this set of parents has made "wrong."

 

But what it comes down to, imo, is this: we are afraid to call *anything* right or wrong any more. Choices are only right or wrong to individuals, not in & of themselves.

 

hmm, it's calling everything relative basicly.

 

hmmm.. I'm usually not scared to call wrong wrong. Tend to get a lot of flack for it even. I do think it's wrong to name a kid Adolf. But poor taste and being wrong aren't illegal. Yet. And the majority fot he time it's not considered abuse either. Yet.

[beansprouts]

Again, free enterprise, if the store reserves the write to refuse messages on any grounds, then fine. However, putting so much into the name of a child, allowing the folly of the parents to dictate the treatment of the children, is wrong. And, giving the government or any government agency the right to decide what names are good enough and what names are bad or constitute abuse is, imo, opening the door for the government to tread all over our rights, as USA citizens.

 

I didn't realise anybody was saying this. I was arguing for the rights of private citizensto run their businesses as they see fit. With right comes responsibility. In the case of the store, they suffered the consequence of a lost sale.

 

The parents also have the right to name their children as they see fit. With that right comes responsibility and concesuences. In this case the consequence was having one store unwilling to put the name on a birthday cake. Yet they are unwilling to accept the consequence for their choice. That is what I don't get. :confused:

 

My children also have names that clearly identify their faith. I understand that some will not like their names and may even judge them and me because of this, and I have accepted this as a possible consequence. If I ever run into a store that will not put my kids' name on a birthday cake, I will spend my money elsewhere. Then the store, who had the right to refuse to serve me, will suffer the consequence of losing that sale as well as any future business.

[beansprouts]

hmm, it's calling everything relative basicly.

 

hmmm.. I'm usually not scared to call wrong wrong. Tend to get a lot of flack for it even. I do think it's wrong to name a kid Adolf. But poor taste and being wrong aren't illegal. Yet. And the majority fot he time it's not considered abuse either. Yet.

 

I was considering a comment about "relativism". When everything becomes relative than nothing is true, and if nothing is true, than we have nothing to stand on....

 

...and the poor little boy STILL isn't entitled to a birthday cake :lol:

[Aubrey]

poor taste and being wrong aren't illegal. Yet. And the majority fot he time it's not considered abuse either. Yet.

 

Whoa. I didn't say anything about illegal! I just think we should be able to call these parents' actions wrong w/out feeling guilty about such strong language.

 

The first part of your post, I didn't really understand. I do think that naming a child after an infamous mass-murderer & demanding that other people see the child & not the name *is* a way of forcing the ideals of the man upon "nice" society.

 

It's like a jr high joke. Name a kid some cuss word & watch a sweet old librarian struggle between two urges--one, to be nice to children, the other, to refrain from using such language.

 

I realize that "it's just a name." But one could say the same about cuss words, after all, they're just words.

[Pretty in Pink]

It is my understanding that the family asked for the child's first, middle and last name on the cake. Who does that? All three of their children have offensive names. The names were chosen to reflect the parents' convictions of white supremacy.

 

It's my understanding that there is at least one Jewish employee employed in that particular bakery and that this person lost family during the holocaust. The market went above and beyond IMO by offering them a cake with blank space in which they could write their child's name.

[fshinkevich]

 

Whether or not Adolf Hitler is an offensive NAME is most definitely a matter of opinion. I'm sure there are people that find the name 'Christian' offensive. Whenever we draw lines, my beliefs and oddities are okay, but yours are just wrong, we make it possible to end up on the other side of that line. Someone earlier posted Barrack Hussein Obama's name as an example. Should a store be allowed to deny him his middle name on a cake because someone may consider it offensive?

 

 

 

 

Again, this name is not just Adolf, it's Adolf Hitler. Barrack Hussein Obama is not the same as Saddam Hussein. And it's clear that these parents idolize Adolph Hitler, it's not a case of simply liking the name.

 

The state should be involved, imo. This is not just a case of a name. This isn't belief in a religion or a right to homeschool. This is forcing a child into a lifetime of terrible situations - some as simple as a birthday cake, and some have the potential to be dangerous.

[beansprouts]

*Cindy mischevously considers naming her next child creatively to see how the supermarket bakery responds. After all a Jacka$$ *is* just an animal, and besides that it is her child's name..*

 

:lol:

[Highereducation]

Years ago, when a friend of mine was in elementary school, the teacher came up with the idea of each student dressing up as a historical figure and wearing the costume to school for the day.

 

My friend's parents dressed him up as Adolf Hitler.

 

I have no idea what their reasoning was. At the time, he was very young and did not understand the significance. He showed up at school and was promptly sent home.

 

Certainly freedom of expression could be argued here, BUT I would say it comes down to a matter of what is generally acceptable as tasteful and what is not.

 

Adolf Hitler is a person who brings up a lot of pain, suffering and darkness for a lot of different ethnicities.

 

I am of German descent myself. Being horribly nearsighted and having a heart defect would have classified me as an unwanted citizen under his regime. The very freedom of expression and freedom of speech that we are debating in this thread - in fact, the very freedom to exist - would not have existed in Hitler's Utopia.

 

Yes, the parents in this article have the right to name their children what they want. Here in this country, they have it.

 

On the other hand, the Shop-Rite also has the right to reject doing something that it finds offensive, and that other customers of the store would find offensive.

 

The risk of offending people with that name was a risk the parents assumed when they chose it.

[beansprouts]

The state should be involved, imo. This is not just a case of a name. This isn't belief in a religion or a right to homeschool. This is forcing a child into a lifetime of terrible situations - some as simple as a birthday cake, and some have the potential to be dangerous.

 

I think we part ways here. I hate it, and I agree with you that these poor children being raised in an environment of true hate, and will have a rough road ahead of them. But as I look at my own country, I see the definition of "hate" more and more encompassing any understanding of absolute truth and that scares me. Unfortunately, in order to preserve freedom for all we have to allow some people to make bad choices.

[5knights3maidens]

Did you look at their 8 pic. photo gallery? I don't believe they are idiots. They know exactly what they are doing. If the child's name was Adolf that's fine but Adolf Hitler is not. Someone said something about Barack Hussein Obama's name on a cake..fine... but, if it said Barack 'Saddam' Hussein Obama, that would be different. This family has a thing for Nazi's just by looking at those few pictures....

My dh said this child and his siblings, will probably grow up to be hateful because of what will be said to him/them AND what is being taught in the home. Very sad.

[coffeefreak]

*Cindy mischevously considers naming her next child creatively to see how the supermarket bakery responds. After all a Jacka$$ *is* just an animal, and besides that it is her child's name..*

 

:lol:

 

:smilielol5::smilielol5::smilielol5:

[Pamela H in Texas]

But what it comes down to, imo, is this: we are afraid to call *anything* right or wrong any more. Choices are only right or wrong to individuals, not in & of themselves. There's something deep w/in us that WANTS to call this choice--naming children after a mass murderer--WRONG, but...to call this choice wrong & another choice right is to draw moral lines, & we've been taught that we can't do that. It's offensive & unfair.

 

I tried to write something similar to this but couldn't get it out right. Actually, I think it was on another thread! I think it is terribly sad that we, as a people, have so twisted "tolerance" that now everything has to be okay. And oh the names people come up with those of us that ARE willing to draw lines.

Edited December 16, 2008 by 2J5M9K

[fshinkevich]

I think we part ways here. I hate it, and I agree with you that these poor children being raised in an environment of true hate, and will have a rough road ahead of them. But as I look at my own country, I see the definition of "hate" more and more encompassing any understanding of absolute truth and that scares me. Unfortunately, in order to preserve freedom for all we have to allow some people to make bad choices.

 

I think when your beliefs put the children in danger, that's where the line needs to be drawn. Like I said before - if I hung some form of a scarlet letter on my child, would that be "my right"? To ridicule and humiliate my child in public? Because that is essentially what these parents are doing to their children. This goes beyond a simple birthday cake these kids will likely be shunned at school, in their community and exposed to hate crimes.

[beansprouts]

I think when your beliefs put the children in danger, that's where the line needs to be drawn. Like I said before - if I hung some form of a scarlet letter on my child, would that be "my right"? To ridicule and humiliate my child in public? Because that is essentially what these parents are doing to their children. This goes beyond a simple birthday cake these kids will likely be shunned at school, in their community and exposed to hate crimes.

 

Now you see, any sensible person would agree with you.

 

But history has shown that our government is not made up of sensible people, and it worrys me to have them making judgements about which ideologies are "harmful to children".

[Pamela H in Texas]

Originally Posted by fshinkevich View Post

The state should be involved, imo. This is not just a case of a name. This isn't belief in a religion or a right to homeschool. This is forcing a child into a lifetime of terrible situations - some as simple as a birthday cake, and some have the potential to be dangerous.

 

I DO consider what they named their kids to be abusive. Those kids are in a lot of danger mentally, emotionally, physically and more because of their names and it's only going to get worse as they age.

 

HOWEVER...

 

I think when your beliefs put the children in danger, that's where the line needs to be drawn.

 

I think it can't be handled legally because I do not believe you CAN draw this line. It would be a terribly slippery slope.

 

I have a number of examples, but I'm worried about offending people holding various beliefs. I'm sure if you thought about it, you could come up with concerns of various religions (Catholic, Witness, Mormon, Baptist, Pentacostal, etc...and those are just some of the Christian ones. What about the hundreds of other religions around the world?). Maybe you hold those concerns. Or maybe you know someone who holds those concerns. So where is the line?

 

Right now, in this country, people can establish and practice any belief system they wish to. Rarely does the gov't step in (and then there are questions about how Constitutional it is when they do). And for now, I think it's probably best this way.

[astrid]

ah but we can't say that for sure can we?

 

 

I don't know; I'd hazard to guess that these parents are just LOOKING for this kind of attention. Why else would they include all of the kids names on the cake? When we have a birthday cake made, we don't use all four names, (first, two middles, last.) It's just odd....like they were DARING the store to refuse.

 

I haven't read all the posts in this thread, so I'm sure someone's probably already mentioned it. It just smacks of "Go on! I DARE YA to make an issue of my kids' names!"

 

Sheesh.

Astrid

[fshinkevich]

I DO consider what they named their kids to be abusive. Those kids are in a lot of danger mentally, emotionally, physically and more because of their names and it's only going to get worse as they age.

 

HOWEVER...

 

 

 

I think it can't be handled legally because I do not believe you CAN draw this line. It would be a terribly slippery slope.

 

I have a number of examples, but I'm worried about offending people holding various beliefs. I'm sure if you thought about it, you could come up with concerns of various religions (Catholic, Witness, Mormon, Baptist, Pentacostal, etc...and those are just some of the Christian ones. What about the hundreds of other religions around the world?). Maybe you hold those concerns. Or maybe you know someone who holds those concerns. So where is the line?

 

Right now, in this country, people can establish and practice any belief system they wish to. Rarely does the gov't step in (and then there are questions about how Constitutional it is when they do). And for now, I think it's probably best this way.

 

Well I think the line is drawn exactly how you stated. Those names put the kids in danger. Maybe you are a member of the KKK - disgusting imo but thats their right. But when you start dressing your kid up in a white cape and taking them out to burn crosses on peoples lawn, that puts them in a potentially dangerous situation.

 

If they were simply teaching their children to worship Aldoph Hitler, I would think is was disgusting and wrong and consider abuse in my opinion, but not worthy of state interference. However, by giving the children those names AND insisting on using the full name they are opening the children up to harmful sitations. Thats where someone needs to step in and be a voice for the child.

[riada]

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.

:iagree: This is exactly what I was thinking. As an adult their names will cause much unnecessary stress for them. Simply signing up for utilities will become an issue. No phone company will place a phone line in the name of Adolf Hitler without first showing proof of identity. So what most can simply do over the phone they won't be able to do. I am hoping they will find a nickname or shorter form of their names to help them along in life.

 

Imagine as an employee answering a phone, "good morning, ---business name---, Adolf Hitler speaking". I'm not thinking businesses would appreciate that.:glare:

[fshinkevich]

I don't know; I'd hazard to guess that these parents are just LOOKING for this kind of attention. Why else would they include all of the kids names on the cake? When we have a birthday cake made, we don't use all four names, (first, two middles, last.) It's just odd....like they were DARING the store to refuse.

 

I haven't read all the posts in this thread, so I'm sure someone's probably already mentioned it. It just smacks of "Go on! I DARE YA to make an issue of my kids' names!"

 

Sheesh.

Astrid

 

Of course they were. Not only that but how many people actually give the FULL names of someone or something they idolize? I mean I know it happens, but for the most part people tend to symbolize something - like "Apple" is not "Green Apple" or "Fuji Apple". Adolph would have been plenty, if they simply wanted to honor their believes. They are on an agenda and using their kids to do it. I cannot even imagine the person filling out the birth certificate. Then again, I'm sure they have seen everything.

[Murphy101]

Whoa. I didn't say anything about illegal! I just think we should be able to call these parents' actions wrong w/out feeling guilty about such strong language.

 

ah-ha! then we are in agreement there! I agree it's wrong and feel no guilt at all about it!:)

 

The first part of your post, I didn't really understand. I do think that naming a child after an infamous mass-murderer & demanding that other people see the child & not the name *is* a way of forcing the ideals of the man upon "nice" society.

 

hmmm, I guess there we part ways. I think a name (actually words in general) is powerful too. I just don't think it wipes off history.;)

 

Again, this name is not just Adolf, it's Adolf Hitler. Barrack Hussein Obama is not the same as Saddam Hussein. And it's clear that these parents idolize Adolph Hitler, it's not a case of simply liking the name.

 

hmm, the irony here is that's nothing more than being politically correct. Someone might be far more racist and actually be a huge supporter of Saddam, yet because they "only" use the name Hussein and not Saddam Hussein - that's different?

 

If the very same couple had named their child Adolf Joseph, THAT would be okay? (never mind how horrible Joseph Stalin was or that maybe they are proud that grandpa Joseph was a decorated SS soldier?)

 

Again, I really don't get this logic that the combination says more. I think it speaks to them being less PC, but if the names hadn't been combined I don't think that would be any indicator at all of a lesser Nazi attitude.:confused:

 

The state should be involved, imo. This is not just a case of a name. This isn't belief in a religion or a right to homeschool. This is forcing a child into a lifetime of terrible situations - some as simple as a birthday cake, and some have the potential to be dangerous.

 

Wow. Are you really saying we only have the right to raise our children as we see fit if it's happy and safe?

 

I totally disagree. Far too often doing what is right and good is danged dangerous and unpopular and puts one in terrible situations. And I'd still raise my kids to do it!

 

 

I think when your beliefs put the children in danger, that's where the line needs to be drawn. Like I said before - if I hung some form of a scarlet letter on my child, would that be "my right"? To ridicule and humiliate my child in public? Because that is essentially what these parents are doing to their children. This goes beyond a simple birthday cake these kids will likely be shunned at school, in their community and exposed to hate crimes.

 

wow.

maybe interracial couples shouldn't have children b/c the children could be the target of hate crimes? Maybe I should go to jail because I've taught my children to publicly make the sign of the cross, makring them publicly as Catholics and opening them up to ridicule. OH wait! they already get flack on occassion simply because of how many siblings they have!

 

I really can't believe anyone thinks a child should be removed from their parents because at some point they will be ridiculed, shunned, or exposed to hate crimes. Good grief, would any of us be able to keep our kids or have been able to stay with our parents growing up!?

 

history has shown that our government is not made up of sensible people, and it worrys me to have them making judgements about which ideologies are "harmful to children".

 

if the parents were being physically abusive, that's one thing.

To say the parents should have their children removed because they are opening them to public ridicule is wrong. The irony is that the public that one is scared of ridiculing those children would be exactly who got the care of them?:001_huh:

[Zelda]

The thing about this child's name is that it is forcing something on society. The parents are using other people's sense of obligation toward a child to force an openness to the name & a blind eye toward the actions the name has come to represent.

 

And then we start to question our pov. We realize that someone else might be equally offended by names like Elijah or Peter. We realize that *we* don't want to be discriminated against for whatever our beliefs are & that we want to maintain our own rights to raise our dc in the way that we think are best, & so we hesitate to call the choice this set of parents has made "wrong."

 

We waffle w/ statements like, "It's not what *I* would have chosen, but..." I've been reading this thread all morning, grappling w/ the same thing, making the same remarks to my sleeping dh, lol.

 

But what it comes down to, imo, is this: we are afraid to call *anything* right or wrong any more. Choices are only right or wrong to individuals, not in & of themselves. There's something deep w/in us that WANTS to call this choice--naming children after a mass murderer--WRONG, but...to call this choice wrong & another choice right is to draw moral lines, & we've been taught that we can't do that. It's offensive & unfair.

 

 

Well, there are several European states in which this would never be allowed to happen because the government can declare your name choice illegal. I suppose we could just adopt that system too. :glare:

[beansprouts]

Well, there are several European states in which this would never be allowed to happen because the government can declare your name choice illegal. I suppose we could just adopt that system too. :glare:

 

I think this half should be Marlin Jr. and this half should be Coral Jr.

From: Finding Nemo

 

We could have an interesting discussion about what happens to individuality once the government starts dictating what we can name our babies...

Edited December 16, 2008 by beansprouts

[Murphy101]

If they were simply teaching their children to worship Aldoph Hitler, I would think is was disgusting and wrong and consider abuse in my opinion, but not worthy of state interference. However, by giving the children those names AND insisting on using the full name they are opening the children up to harmful sitations. Thats where someone needs to step in and be a voice for the child.

 

hmm, so according to you...

 

They can teach their child their faith (let's presume they do worship Hitler) and that's wrong but not worthy of state interference. But if they actually expect their child to LIVE their faith, including being named for the founder of that faith, - THAT is when the state should get involved?

:confused::001_huh:

 

Well, there are several European states in which this would never be allowed to happen because the government can declare your name choice illegal. I suppose we could just adopt that system too. :glare:

 

yes. indeed.

Personally, I'm not eager to adopt those systems either.

 

ARGH! you wanna know what ticks me off about this?

the most irriating thing is that this places good people defending idiots that name their kids like this.:glare:

sometimes free will and freedom aren't all their cracked up to be

but I'd still rather have them than not, idiots and all.:)

[fshinkevich]

ah-ha! then we are in agreement there! I agree it's wrong and feel no guilt at all about it!:)

 

 

 

hmmm, I guess there we part ways. I think a name (actually words in general) is powerful too. I just don't think it wipes off history.;)

 

 

 

hmm, the irony here is that's nothing more than being politically correct. Someone might be far more racist and actually be a huge supporter of Saddam, yet because they "only" use the name Hussein and not Saddam Hussein - that's different?

 

If the very same couple had named their child Adolf Joseph, THAT would be okay? (never mind how horrible Joseph Stalin was or that maybe they are proud that grandpa Joseph was a decorated SS soldier?)

 

Again, I really don't get this logic that the combination says more. I think it speaks to them being less PC, but if the names hadn't been combined I don't think that would be any indicator at all of a lesser Nazi attitude.:confused:

 

 

 

Wow. Are you really saying we only have the right to raise our children as we see fit if it's happy and safe?

 

I totally disagree. Far too often doing what is right and good is danged dangerous and unpopular and puts one in terrible situations. And I'd still raise my kids to do it!

 

 

 

 

wow.

maybe interracial couples shouldn't have children b/c the children could be the target of hate crimes? Maybe I should go to jail because I've taught my children to publicly make the sign of the cross, makring them publicly as Catholics and opening them up to ridicule. OH wait! they already get flack on occassion simply because of how many siblings they have!

 

I really can't believe anyone thinks a child should be removed from their parents because at some point they will be ridiculed, shunned, or exposed to hate crimes. Good grief, would any of us be able to keep our kids or have been able to stay with our parents growing up!?

 

 

 

if the parents were being physically abusive, that's one thing.

To say the parents should have their children removed because they are opening them to public ridicule is wrong. The irony is that the public that one is scared of ridiculing those children would be exactly who got the care of them?:001_huh:

 

We will have to disagree here. I think that emotional abuse is a perfectly acceptable reason for a child to be removed from a home, and I think this exposure falls into this category.

 

This goes beyond some teasing, and even bullying, that a child might be exposed to for a silly name, or a religion, or a racial background. The child is 3 and had trouble getting a birthday cake. He is going to be ostracized and possibly physically injured for the rest of his life, assuming he keeps that name. Everywhere he goes school, the dentist, getting a job, applying for college.

 

This even goes beyond teaching them to hate people - or that its ok to KILL them, because lets face, thats what Adolph Hitler thought.

 

I'm grasping here for something to compare it to, but there really is nothing comparable. I guess the best way I can put it is it is ONE thing to teach your children your beliefs, and ANOTHER to put your child in danger in order to defend your beliefs.

 

I think its "right" (used loosely) for those parents to teach their kids their hateful beliefs, and I think it would be totally acceptable for the parents to change their names and expose themselves to danger in order to defend what they think is right. I think its entirely different to expose young children to those situations to prove your point.

 

And I would feel the same REGARDLESS of those beliefs. If your belief in Christianity, Buddhism, Devil worshiping, Scientology, only eating cheese on Sundays, whatever, in any way exposes a child to DANGER than it's not ok.

[beansprouts]

ARGH! you wanna know what ticks me off about this?

the most irriating thing is that this places good people defending idiots that name their kids like this.:glare:

sometimes free will and freedom aren't all their cracked up to be

but I'd still rather have them than not, idiots and all.:)

 

Unfortunately, freedom means allowing people to be stupid.

[Murphy101]

We will have to disagree here. I think that emotional abuse is a perfectly acceptable reason for a child to be removed from a home, and I think this exposure falls into this category.

 

This goes beyond some teasing, and even bullying, that a child might be exposed to for a silly name, or a religion, or a racial background. The child is 3 and had trouble getting a birthday cake. He is going to be ostracized and possibly physically injured for the rest of his life, assuming he keeps that name. Everywhere he goes school, the dentist, getting a job, applying for college.

 

We'll have to disagree then.

 

The emotional abuse you speak of in this particuliar situation, and according to your own opinion, is not even comming from the parents. It's PUBLIC! Everywhere he goes he might be treated that way, but it won't be by his parents - it's by people such as yourself. Yet, you would take him away from those parents and give him into that same public care.

 

Where in the world is the logic in that?:confused::001_huh:

 

Aside from that obvious fact...

 

I see no point in having any beliefs, much less teaching them to our children, if we're only going to hold to those beliefs when it's physically and or emotionally safe to do so. If one believes something to be true, how safe or publicly accepted it is should have nothing to do with raising our children to believe and live it.

[Zelda]

We'll have to disagree then.

 

The emotional abuse you speak of in this particuliar situation, and according to your own opinion, is not even comming from the parents. It's PUBLIC! Everywhere he goes he might be treated that way, but it won't be by his parents - it's by people such as yourself. Yet, you would take him away from those parents and give him into that same public care.

 

Where in the world is the logic in that?:confused::001_huh:

 

Aside from that obvious fact...

 

I see no point in having any beliefs, much less teaching them to our children, if we're only going to hold to those beliefs when it's physically and or emotionally safe to do so. If one believes something to be true, how safe or publicly accepted it is should have nothing to do with raising our children to believe and live it.

 

You're awesome.