The 'RIGHT' here..is that of not being discriminated against.

I also note that those who suggest the Campbells don't have a right to not be discriminated against, due to their naming choices, also consider this a trivial and spurious issue.

Adolph Hitler is a name associated with brutality, mass murder, abuse of captive women and chidren.

"Mohammad" is also such a name. Why are people selective about who we pick on?

These people HAVE the 'human right' NOT to be discriminated against.

They definitely have a legal case against the bakery and the state which has now taken the children into care.

Soooo...its a 'business choice' for the Bakery but NOT a 'business choice for the Philip Island Bretho camp? (Hyyyypocrisy)

COMPARE. That story is in today's Herald.. along with this!

"A PUSH to ban customers wearing Muslim garb or hooded tops in shops and banks has outraged religious, political and business leaders."

Ohhhhh.... I get it, 'good moral people' are 'outraged' by a call to ban a symbol of hate, evil, genocide, child sexual abuse, domestic violence and war to extend territory... (which any Islamic symbol is when you scratch the surface)

but they are not in the slightest bit outraged by discrimination against a family which names their children after a high profile person/movement which indulged in the same things?

HYPOCRISY in the extreme! Absolute shallow, spineless hypocrisy.

The only crediblity at stake here..is that of those who simply cannot see their own double standard.

Pelican..I'm totally amazed that you cannot see how 'discriminating' against non Sikh's by allowing Sikhs to carry otherwise illegal weapons onto planes is an outrageous contradiction of the whole concept of human rights? Why should one persons religious 'right' be allowed to endanger and offend and outrage non Sikhs on a plane?

Don't people have a RIGHT to feel safe? Would you feel safe in a plane next to a Sikh who carried a large Kirpan... specially when you don't know if that person is truly a Sikh?

Polycarp “The local bakery refused to print the childs name "Adolph Hitler" on the cake.....that.. is discrimination”

I have mixed feelings on this.

I agree the actions of the bakery are discriminatory.

However, I would suggest we are all entitled to determine what we find intolerable and provided we respond in a non-participative manner, then so be it. The bakery are at liberty to decline doing the work but they would not be at liberty to prevent the customer seeking an alternative baker.

If it had been me, I would have taken the money and pocketed the profit, what do I care that someone wants to write “Adolph Hitler “ on a cake? Anymore, than if I were a chef and someone wanted their filet mangion done “extra well” with a fried egg on it, I do not have to consume it or live on with their bad taste / ignorance.

I have said before, accepting peoples’ right to express views which we may consider stupid, misguided and even dangerous is the better option to pushing such views underground, where they merely fester in the dark dank places and become excuses for ideas of martyrdom and worse.

I reckon he's got a point. I'm a bit fuzzy on what the difference is. I mean if a private bus company decided to not allow black passengers that would be frowned upon.

So what is the criteria? Obviously race and sex and religion cant be discriminated against, but names can. What if a cake company decided they would not sell any 'Mohammed' cakes?

Maybe if you're a private company not selling an essential service you can do what you like?

All this human rights stuff is very rubbery to me

Typical Porkycrap troll, in which he demonstrates yet again his total lack of understanding of human rights. Unsurprising though that he'd choose to defend some neo-Nazi child abusers in an effort to make his point - whatever it is.

"Pelican..I'm totally amazed that you cannot see how 'discriminating' against non Sikh's by allowing Sikhs to carry otherwise illegal weapons onto planes is an outrageous contradiction of the whole concept of human rights? Why should one persons religious 'right' be allowed to endanger and offend and outrage non Sikhs on a plane?

Don't people have a RIGHT to feel safe? Would you feel safe in a plane next to a Sikh who carried a large Kirpan... specially when you don't know if that person is truly a Sikh?"

It is interesting how you distort the meaning of another poster when you can provide no rational argument yourself Poly.

I was in fact arguing against anyone carrying knives on a plane as you well know, pointing out that this example has nothing to do with human rights as you narrowly define them.

Poly I am totally amzaed that you don't believe in human rights. "thou shalt not kill" - surely the right to life is one human right you believe in Poly.

Rights is sometimes a nebulous concept - does the baker have a right to say no to a client if he finds something offensive? Does the customer have a right to have his cake baked even if it is offensive to the baker?

I would think discrimination could be argued on both sides particularly if the baker was Jewish so this example you have proposed provides no meaningful addition to a larger debate on human rights.

Can you not see that Polycarp?

The UN is full of contradictions when it comes to human rights. Unborn babies are exempt from human rights in their eyes so that women can have sex with whomever they want without any responsibility. Many supporters of 'human rights' are really only interested in their humanistic dogma.

I ran into someone from Oxfarm the other day. They wanted me to sign a petition to reduce pollution in Australia by 40% by 2020. I asked the girl how does she propose this might happen. Predictably she had no idea.