I know...I---know..some will say same old same old... but wait..

I only heard about this from my daughter today and it struck me as a good litmus test for our 'convention against all forms of discrimination' fundamentalists.

It's also a good 'hypocrisy' test.

COUPLE DENIED BIRTHDAY CAKE FOR 3 yr old SON... who...they happened to name: "Adolph Hilter Campbell". One of their daughters is named
JoyceLynn Aryan Nation Campbell.

Clearly... the people concerned are a bit 'outthere' with the white supremacy thing.

But the point is.. if we claim 'human rights' are that we are not discriminated against for any reason of political or religous idea....

then... Houston/Canberra.....we have a ...problem.

The local bakery refused to print the childs name"Adolph Hitler" on the cake.....that.. is discimination

It's all very well to speak about 'fruitloops' who hold religious views etc..but those who hold to the strange idea of 'universal non discrimination' and support the idea of a Sikh child taking a dagger to school, a classroom, a court, or and adult (or child)taking one on a plane (Canada) would SURELY not support the blatant discrimination experienced by this family.....would they ?

Or.. are these 'tolerance' ethics as plastic and rubbery as I know they actually are.. a convenient tool in the hands of those who like to use them as a weapon of control against ideas they dislike.

Just as the Gaza protests are in reality Anti Semitic rallying points which refuse to condemn equally Hamas rockets, so is the example cited above. "Convenient/selective" discrimination, by supposedly 'tolerant' people.

What is the point of this Polycarp?

" those who hold to the strange idea of 'universal non discrimination' and support the idea of a Sikh child taking a dagger to school, a classroom, a court, or and adult (or child)taking one on a plane (Canada) would SURELY not support the blatant discrimination experienced by this family.....would they ?"

Would you have us believe that all those who subscribe to human rights philosophy advocate a boy taking a knife to school or on a plane? You have a very distorted view of what human rights are Poly but I suspect you have your own agenda.

Ask yourself if you have to extreme examples (of the ridiculous) like this to demonstrate your point what does that say about your stance on the issue of human rights. When you start debunking human rights using rational and reasoned argument we may take you more seriously.

You should know better by now Poly. You do more harm in presenting your case like this and your cause a disservice.

But this will probably fall on deaf ears.

Hi Polycarp.

The bakery did well.

Im really glad they did what they decided to do because somewhere it might just remind a few that Auschwitz, Belsen and Treblinka were real places... that people were shot and buried in long trenches, gassed and then burnt in those wicked ovens because of Mr. Hitler.

Many in the present generation think they know it all...but not much if they deny the Holocaust.

Their choice to ignore what occured or make light of it shows that it can happen all over again.
God bless the Jewish people to remind them.

The fact that their children seem to have been taken off them shows that sense and caring still prevails.

Polycarp,

The store has denied similiar requests from
the Campbells over the last two years, including
a request for a swastika.

"We reserve the right not to print anything on
the cake that we deem inappropriate. We
considered this inappropriate."

That is the store's business prerogative.
Same as some hotels do not allow shorts
and thongs, inappropriate behaviour, or dress,
smoking, et cetera.

It is not discrimination, and certainly
does not deserve to be placed under the
umbrella of 'human rights.' As Pelican rightly
points out - your credibility suffers when you
indulge in threads such as this.

Foxy, well said. The thread takes completely immaterial issue and correlate spuriously to human rights. It is equally the right of the cakeshop owner to determine if it accepts. and what basis it is that Poly is arguing the shopowners action as constituing discrimination. It is clear that the refusal is not against a person.

Since when has the right to a decorated birthday cake become a "human right?"

A UN vote on whether simple access to food was a basic Human Right was recently voted down by the USA, so what are human rights anyway?

You just had to throw in the "Gaza protests are in reality Anti Semitic rallying points which refuse to condemn equally Hamas rockets" which shows that the preamble was just a convenient lauchpad.

I was impressed however, by the way you managed to have a go at both Sikhs and Muslims at the same time.

In the case of protests, I would have thought that freedom of speech was at least a basic democratic right but it's you who are re-classifying it into some sort of quasi-religious statement by one group while simultaneously denying another group their right to food and medicine.

Then again, it's typical of zealots to demand standards from others that they just can't live up to themselves.