I agree with Polycarp.

If the baker is justified in declining service because he/she has bad associations with the word Hitler, or even Adolf Hitler, ( names used for ages in Austria, most carriers of which were good moral citizens) Then how about extending the net further.

Hitler is hardly the only name one could take offence at, try Khan ( popular in parts of the subcontinent )or , Attila (popular with Hungarians) or , Saddam ( popular with Palestinians ) and, of course… Mohammed .All have a bloody history.
How do you feel about denying service to bearers of these names?

Someone asked: “Since when has the right to a decorated birthday cake become a ‘human right’?"It will become a -major human rights issue- the moment someone walks into a shop, baker or otherwise, and is denied service because the owner has bad associations with the name Mohammed.

I recall a recent event in a western Sydney public school where administrators initially refused a female pupil the permission to wear a head scarf while at school. After a lot of grandstanding by HR groups & the girl, the state govt (predictably) went weak kneed and ruled in her favour .A victory for common sense/human rights/ anti-discrimination –hardly! The same school still bans other forms of head scarf’s

Well put Horus, why do some offensive things have more rights than other offensive things.

My Only point here..is NOT the specific rights or wrongs of an idea...

it is the DISCRIMINATORY application of so called 'human rights' law incldding discrimation laws.

Spikey, Horus said it all. If you run a business for the public.. then you cannot deny them service unless you have a lawful exemption.
I am not aware of any lawful exemption for a bakery on the issue cited.

The HUMAN RIGHT here is 'not to be disciminated against'....

ANTONIOS.."is it moral to promote ANY symbol of mass murder or torture or mistreatment of people?"

I say it is not 'moral'...but unless it is UNIVERSALLY illegal... then you cannot squash the swastika or images of hitler.

Universally would mean no

-Crosses (Crusades/Inquisition)
-Hijabs/Islamic clothing. (Mass murder of Jews)
-Yamulka's (genocides of Canaanites)
-Hindu temples. (Persecution of Christians right now)
etc.

Here is where the idea of 'human rights' law comes unstuck...it always ends up being a chunk of 2 x 4 in someone's hand to use against others.

If the Campbells want to offend one and all with their child naming choices.. it's up to them. (to also live with the consequences)
If Muslims want to wear Burkah's..it's up to them.

THE PROBLEM is...some see the name Adolph Hitler as bannable..but Muslims do not see Burkah's as so.

Yet to many in the community.. (specially Jews) they mean the same thing!

'No Discrimination' simply does not work.

Wecome back BOAZ_David, Polycarp has been getting a bit of a thrashing lately.

Let's see how your recycled alias fares.

"it is the DISCRIMINATORY application of so called 'human rights' law incldding discrimation laws." . Duh?.

"If you run a business for the public.. then you cannot deny them service unless you have a lawful exemption." Shallow knowledge. Lots of circumstances over-ride the Equal Opportunity Act without exemption.

For example if you refuse to open your bags when you enter a store, the storekeeper can refuse to serve you. A shopkeeper can refuse to serve unaccompanied children (must do so if it involves cigarettes or alcohol). If a customer is creating a nuisance or acting in an offensive manner or asking you to do something which is offensive to you, the shopkeeper can call the police or require the customer to leave.

I notice David that Polycarp has no opinion on my example of someone asking a cake decorator to write 'Jesus Sux' or to draw a penis. I would find that offensive and would not serve the customer with that request. And I'm 100% confident that I am within my rights legally to refuse.

You are "...not aware of any lawful exemption for a bakery on the issue cited." That's obvious - the baker doesn't need one. Just as a hotelier can refuse so serve a black, disabled, lesbian who is already too much under he influence of alcohol. Triple discrimation, on your argument. But perfectly within the law.

"...but unless it is UNIVERSALLY illegal... then you cannot squash the swastika or images of hitler." You miss the point by a mile. The baker wasn't squashing an image. He was refusing to provide it. World of difference.

And in your cake shop example, the problem is NOT "...some see the name Adolph Hitler as bannable..but Muslims do not see Burkah's as so." No one has argued that a parent can't call a child 'Hitler'. The problem is that Hitler's father wanted the shopkeeper to write the name on a cake. World of difference.

Dear Spikey....(and all)

I think the thread has become a bit blurred with all this logic etc.

All I'm saying in a nutshell is that 'Human Rights' law seems to me to be applied from a 'protection of minorities' standpoint, in which often the majority is penalized or their freedom curtailed in the name of 'human rights' which are applied in a discriminatory manner.

I could scrounge up many examles..but I think minds are fixed here :)

Seeing truth is not the same as accepting it. (hence my repeated reference to the importance of the 9th surah of the Quran :)

Annnnyway.. for your example.. I thought I responded to that.

Is it not discrimination for the Baker to withold that decoration service simply because they don't personally like it?

If you look at case law, and the actual laws.. I'm fairly confident you cannot deny a service on grouds of... a) b) c) etc.. but there are specific things mentioned.. Let's use a real world one.. ACCOMODATION.

Now..if we change the bakery into a Hotel..and the mans name is "Adolph Hitler Cambell" and he was refused accomodation because the Hotelier didn't like his name (Maybe the Hotelier was Jewish?)
Well... that is discrimination smack on. The background to these laws though..is usually something to do with the Gay lobby.. and it is sexual orientation rather than political view that is at the root of the law.

My point though..is that IF... you cannot discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation..then you also cannot discriminate on the grounds of name choice :)
Hence.. a lot of very ugly things will get by the keeper in the name of 'tolerance'.

Polycarp/BD :) no one lays a glove on me- trust me. but I'm withdrawing for now because though I've received no email to inform me..I'm pretty sure I'm officially banned (for calling Bruce Haigh an idiot)
Enjoy a BD/POLYCARP free OLO for a season :)
Grace..Peace.. blessings and cheers.

David,

Stick around and post occasionally!