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

That is the concept of a ‘common carrier’ for which the USA has laws and UK likewise (as far back as 1830)
Whilst not a common carrier, certain provisions could still apply to the bakery

Re http://www.cybertelecom.org/notes/common_carrier.htm
The USA rules
“For centuries, common carriage principles have played an important role in the infrastructure services of transportation and communications. They intended to guarantee that no customer seeking service upon reasonable demand, willing and able to pay the established price, however set, would be denied lawful use of the service or would otherwise be discriminated against... The prohibition on unreasonable discrimination is the most important component of the common carrier obligation.”

“Refusal to carry” (aka justifiable discrimination) applies only when there is physical danger involved or when the contract would be in the facilitation of an illegal purpose.

The UK rules are pretty much the same except better worded, having been written in 1830.

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/RevisedStatutes/Acts/ukpga/1830/cukpga_18300068_en_1

I would suspect any bakery, offering its services to the “world at large”, would be subject to a similar legal obligation against discriminating in the supply of services.

First my eye sees the well-known repeated...Then the self-deprecation: "I know...I---know..some will say same old same old... but wait.."

Then comes the UPPER CASE misleading trivia headline: COUPLE DENIED BIRTHDAY CAKE FOR 3 yr old SON...

And my heart sinks...ITS POLYCARP! At it again!

What does he want this time? To get us all to feel sorry for a guy who names his kids Adolph Hitler and Aryan Nation and can't get the local baker to write them or the swastika on a birthday cake.

Not because that's offensive to community standards - and to the cakeshop people - but...WAIT FOR IT...because it offends Poly's sense of 'human rights'. It's DISCRIMINATIOn, he wails.

To cap it all off, Polycarp wants us to believe that this moral twerp - the Nazi - provides us with a good 'hypocrisy' test. How ironic, knowing as we do (because Polycarp has told us repeatedly) what he thinks of 'human rights'.

To make his hypocritical point even more hypocritical Polycarp reintroduces his tired old story about 'dangerous' karpans and in the flicker of an eyelid he's got the Gaza crisis sorted out too. Oh, the power of a good local baker to clarify one's sense of morality!

I really should exercise more DISCRIMINATION when I choose which OLO threads to read. Sometimes with Polycarp I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

Plucky... au contraire..I DO believe in human rights.. but the kind I believe in are like this "No Hamas Rockets/No Israeli bombs"...see it?

BALANCE... surely you have been around long enough to know what is behind a lot of what is termed 'human rights'? Surely?

They are applied in a very discriminatory manner by activists and activist Judges. They usually promote minotities at the expense of majorities.

I am NOT defending this morons name choice for his son.. I think its ugly, sick and could even be called child abuse. That's not my point.

My point is.... DISCRIMINATION based on selective understanding/application of laws about discrimination, by those who shout the loudest about TOLERANCE....

The Word "Tolerance" is often a weapon..a tool..in the vocabulary of people with a very negative agenda toward other Australians or citizens of their country.

It is used like 'Homophobia, Islamophobia' to seek to marginalize the views and persons of those not sharing the particular view.

In fact.. it could be said that many pushing this agenda are CHRISTAPHOBIC.....

If this bloke chose stupid and insulting names for his kids.. it doesn't matter..unless he breaks a law it's up to him.....

People name their children "Mohammad" knowing full well that this mad did despicable things including mass murder and mutilation of prisoners.. condoned rape of newly captive women... so I see absolutely no difference between a child named 'Mohammad' and one named "Adoph Hitler Campbell"

Do you? if so....why so?

The bakery discriminated against this man. They were not under any legal exemption as the Philip Island Bretho's are. The gar bar in Collingwood discriminated against straights.. no legal exemption there either.

More for Plucky.....

You said:

"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."

Cols statement of the law helps clarify this situation. But no.. it cannot be argued that even if the baker was Jewish that he/she experienced discrimination. Insult maybe..but not discrimination.

The Universal Declaration on Human Rights says:

Article 2.

* Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.

Article 3.

* Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

Article 2 is abundantly clear...that you canNOT discriminate against someone on the basis of their political ideas. OR... their naming choice for their children which might reflect those political ideas.

Article 3 relates directly to the feeling of safety on a Canadian plane which has an 'armed' Sikh or 3 on it.

NOW..that we've arrived at a point of clarity.. we can focus on the important core issue....which is...

The UN declaration is unworkable, contains inherent contradictions and is plain silly.

REASONS.

It does not take into consideration the 'human rights/political views' of one party which specifically declare that another person or class of persons should be destroyed.

What it SHOULD say is this.

ARTICLE 2 "Every person is entitled to the rights and freedoms....blah blah.. IN SO FAR AS they do NOT call for the harm of any other human being, in any way, economic, phyisical, spiritual or emotional.

Now..IF..it said that...it would be workable and we would not have idiots who defend those who call for the destruction of other races/creeds based on their own creed. (Hamas Charter/Quran 9:30)

If it said those things.. it would immediately mean a direct challenge to Islamic political agenda's and the Hindu persecution of Christians in Orissa, not to mention that 'multi-culturalism' will be out the window in a flash.

I think I can see what question Poly is offering for debate....

Maybe it could be better asked in this context, could a person a town a country name a street Adolf Hitler St... or could a university present Hitler in the context of a freedom fighter...

What is good for the goose is good for the gander etc?

Sorry I only saw the 1st page of this thread where people were arguing the credibility of this as a debate topic...

I think this is an important question and where ever it is applied.

I think the essence of this question is the problem a lot of people have with political correctness...