reports the AP:
Deborah Campbell, 25, said she phoned in her order last week to the ShopRite. When she told the bakery department she wanted her son's name [Adolf Hitler Campbell] spelled out, she was told to talk to a supervisor, who denied the request.
Karen Meleta, a spokeswoman for ShopRite, said the Campbells had similar requests denied at the same store the last two years and said Heath Campbell previously had asked for a swastika to be included in the decoration.
"We reserve the right not to print anything on the cake that we deem to be inappropriate," Meleta said. "We considered this inappropriate."
The Campbells ultimately got their cake decorated at a Wal-Mart in Pennsylvania, Deborah Campbell said....
The Campbells' other two children also have unusual names: JoyceLynn Aryan Nation Campbell turns 2 in a few months and Honszlynn Hinler Jeannie Campbell will be 1 in April.
Heath Campbell said he named his son after Adolf Hitler because he liked the name and because "no one else in the world would have that name." He sounded surprised by all the controversy the dispute had generated....
Yeah, right, surprised.
Thanks to Prof. David Wagner for the pointer.
Related Posts (on one page):
- Young Adolf Hitler Campbell and Sisters Taken into State Custody:
- "Cake Request for 3-Year-Old Hitler Namesake Denied,"
It kinda bugs me that my wife and I have two kids and these people have three. I feel as if we are falling behind.
Fifteen minutes of fame.
I feel very sorry for their children.
But seriously, I wonder how common "Hitler" is as a last name, and whether Hitler families with beloved (and benign) ancestors named "Adolf" feel the need to avoid using the name for their children?
I don't think even non-Hitler families name their children "Adolf" these days.
Yes, yes, I know. Private entity, blah blah blah.
But is it really legal to discriminate in providing services to the public (to a three year old!) because you don't like the potential customer's name? (could the store deny services to all African-sounding names, for instance?)
How is 'inappropriate' defined? According to the beliefs of the store owner (what if the store owner considers homosexual celebrations inappropriate-for real world examples, see the photographer in Arizona, see Match.com)? The community at large? The community of media folks who would potentially publicize the incident (i.e. 'Adolf Hitler' is probably inappropriate to them, while 'African sounding names' isn't)?
I realize that the answer to my question is almost certainly 'yes, it is legal' (but be honest about what it is: "yes, it is legal to deny services to a three year old because you don't like his name"). But I'm suggesting that this pat answer is only possible because more than 99% of us are offended by 'Adolf Hitler,' whereas far fewer are offended by 'African sounding names' and 'homosexual events/conduct.' Similar constitutional questions (denying services to minorities, to women, to homosexuals) have very little to do with the constitution (or with some kind of Platonic ideal of freedom and equality), and far more to do with the particular % offended by the person/s in question.
Sk
You beat me too it! This could get to be fun. How about a baker who is also a physicist who refused to put "E= m c^3" on a cake because it just offends his sense of scientific accuracy.
Not sure this applies as "these days" but the actor known as A Martinez was born in 1948 and I understand that the 'A' is for 'Adolf'. And there is a lineage of "Adolph Coors"....Google search shows "Adolph Coors VI" the most enumerated in this line.
Was idly looking through the Social Security Death Index and found that there are only eleven Hitlers listed in the US as having died since the Social Security ADministration started keeping track. All except one are listed as having been born well before WWII. (Not surprising since only dead people are listed and someone born in 1940 is still only 68) Nine of the eleven had Social Security cards issued in Ohio and five of those last reported address was in the town of Pickaway, Ohio. This most likely means they were all one extended family.
None were named Adolf
I don't think even non-Hitler families name their children "Adolf" these days.
"Hitler" is one spelling variant of the name that I think is most commonly presented as "Hiedler," and I believe that Adolf Hitler's surviving/extant family changed their names to "Hiedler" after WWII; I wouldn't be surprised if most other Hitlers did the same. Variants of "Adolf" show up among Spanish speakers - Adolfo Carrion, e.g. - although my father, who practiced immigration law among other things, was once in the awkward position of representing a gentlemen whose parents had bestowed upon him the name "Adolfo Gitler [Surname]".
And, in the category of "people born in the US," I went to grade school with a very non-Nazi (but very Aryan) kid whose name was Adolf H______ IV, where "H____" was a very German-sounding name. Then and now I thought there was something odd about hewing quite so closely to a family tradition.
I also went to college with somebody who claimed to know four brothers whose first names were Washington, Lincoln, Mussolini, and Hitler, but I never quite believed him.
Adolfo is still very common.
At any rate, I think its legal to refuse to put a notorious mass muderers name, where it would not be legal to refuse someone because of their race. That does not seem like a very difficult line to draw.
googled it myself. Apparently it's after Heinrich Himmler. Can anybody answer me why a name that is changed that much is supposedly connected to Heinrich? Is Honszlynn some sort of German female version of Heinrich?
I'm shocked they got "Aryan Nation" right. Maybe they borrowed a dictionary for that one.
That store could operate under 3 conditions:
1) It can discriminate against whomever it wants (Adolf Hitlers, or racial minorities, or both, or neither).
2) It can not discriminate against anybody (it must accept business from whomever asks for it).
3) It can discriminate against anyone that the majority agrees it can discriminate against (currently, it can deny business to Adolf Hitlers, but not racial minorities).
You are correct that 3) is not difficult.
Sk
This is the problem with the great unwashed mass of nonlawyers. You have no idea how to even begin thinking about this question.
So, for instance, you start down the slippery slope before you have even figured out where, exactly, you are slipping from. The question is, why would it be illegal or unconstitutional to refuse to make a birthday cake with a message the birthday-cake-maker thinks is offensive? Suppose the Campbells wish to sue. What would be their theory? Once you figure that out (and the reasons why this is okay), then you can turn to the question of whether your reasoning would apply to something more offensive (like denying service to african-sounding names).
As for drawing the line: African names in general couldn't be refused because African Americans are a protected class. "Adolf Hitler" can be because war criminals and eugenicists are not a protected class.
Must be time for a cook out
The best parts of the article are where the guy denies being racist.
The second best part is the revelation that he and his wife are living on welfare because they're both "disabled." Like the real Adolf Hitler would've put up with that BS.
They didn't deny THE Adolf Hitler a cake. They denied a cake to people who agree with his politics. Are political parties a protected class?
How about the 4th condition, where they can deny service to anyone provided it's not on the basis of their membership in a legally protected class. This scenario also has the advantage of being pretty close to the state of affairs that exists in reality.
It's understandable, since Himmler is built quite sim'lar, and Goebbels has.......
What's the difference between that and 3rd scenario?
It was funny, especially the way it ended— I won't give the plot away. But here's a link.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vic_Hitler
I understand that the Fuehrer had a nephew, William Patrick Hitler, who was born in Ireland and immigrated to the United States, serving in the U.S. Navy during World War II. (Must have made for some interesting conversations on ship.) After the War, he changed his last name, which isn't too hard to understand.
He named one of his children "Alexander Adolf", but very few people give Adolf as a first name these days.
"A. Zarkov: You really underestimate the extent to which we math/physics types already grin and bear the vast innumerate masses."
I know what you mean. But I can no longer grin and bear AGW from the politicians and in some cases from the scientists like James Hansen and Michael Mann.
"As for drawing the line: African names in general couldn't be refused because African Americans are a protected class. "Adolf Hitler" can be because war criminals and eugenicists are not a protected class."
I think you might be confusing the name on the cake with the person requesting the name be written. Suppose a white person requests "Malcolm X" be written on a cake and gets refused.
Would he have the same cause for a complaint as a black person? Adolf Hitler and war criminals are not going to the bakery.
Thanks. I'm glad I had my door shut when I read that.
However, if some Adolf Hitler came in looking for a cake, I am sure they would sell it to him
Note the other kid's name includes Aryan Nation -- in celebration of their racial identity. So the answer to your question is, same theory a black American would use if the store refused a "Malcolm X Kwanza Juneteenth Smith" cake. Race discrimination.
Used to be a perfectly fine family name.
The difference is that the default situation allows you to discriminate against anyone. The majority has to affirmatively act in order to protect a specified class from discrimination.
The point of expressing it in this way is to nullify the silly slippery slope argument that goes "if you can refuse service to someone who names their kid after Hitler, soon you'll be able to refuse service to black people!" Well, somehow that's the present state of affairs, and we show no signs of sliding back up that slippery slope.
Your post is the problem with attempting to discuss ethical questions with pseudointellectual lawyers. Had you read the rest of my post, you would have noticed that 1) I acknowledged that it was legal to deny service to Adolf Hitler, and 2) the point of my post was not to discuss the legality of denying service to Adolf Hitlers, but rather the grey line between legal/ethical discrimination and nonlegal/nonethical discrimination.
Admittedly, that second point was somewhat subtle- I suppose its excusable for you to have missed it (fortunately, several other commentators were sharp enough to avoid your mistake, and were able to address the real issue. See posts by Cwuestefeld and A. Zarkov).
"You have no idea how to even begin thinking about this question."
And you have no idea how to get past the beginning of the question.
Sk
please tell me why denying services to someone with an african sounding name would be more offensive? I fail to see any difference in the principle, whether the name be german or african or chinese, in denying someone services based on their name. If i'm white and i deny a white man services because i don't like him for whatever reason, then that is absolutely no different than if i deny a black man services for the same reason as i would have the white man. Implying that because someone has an african sounding name REEKS of hypocrisy.
Implying that because someone has an african sounding name and being denied services ranks as more offensive positively REEKS of hypocrisy
Ain't it a bitch? I know exactly what you mean. It's like all those unwashed lawyers beginning to think about economics.
Out of all the hypothetical names here I think Juneteenth would not be that bad as a middle name for a girl.
I completely agree. I know just enough about economics to know that i) I don't understand economics, and ii) "law and economics" is a load of crap.
Sk,
So: you pose a legal question (whether it's "really legal"), veer off into the meaning of "inappropriate," (referring not to any legal argument, but to the store's reason for declining to make the cake), acknowledge the probable answer to "your question," i.e., your legal question, and finish off with speculation about the possibility that widely-shared social norms enable the assumed legal answer, and posit that "other constitutional questions" are decided similarly.
Now where exactly is the "ethical question" you were attempting to discuss? I don't blame you, really. I could easily have said something similar before I went to law school. You simply don't realize the extent of your ignorance. Sorry.
SK, I'm a non-lawyer (an engineer actually, so probably worse), but I'm curious by your suggestion about ethics. Is it unethical to deny preparing a cake for a 3 yr old, because his parents named him after a mass killer, who killed based on the concept of eugenics? After all, the parents seem to support eugenics by their adoration of Hitler and the Aryan Nation. By the Campbell family's ethics, it seems reasonable to treat the offspring just like the parents.
Tom R: thank you for the link... the laughter felt good after a busy Thursday.
In Pennsylvania? Pretty unlikely.
Let's say Shop-Rite does make the cake that reads 'Adolf Hitler Campbell' and even draws in the swastika that they requested.
The Campbells take a picture of the cake, post it to their website, and put up a big caption reading, "Look at what we got Shop-Rite to make for us!"
Who could sue Shop-Rite then?
Yup, it's just EXACTLY like the store is taunting him. Exactly the same. They're like a bully taunting a three-year-old, because they don't want to make a cake with "Adolph Hitler" written on it. I saw this same comparison right off, but you totally beat me to it.
Where do you come down on the request to have a swastika added to the cake? What is the store like for refusing to do that? I'm thinking maybe they're like Pol Pot. Because he would never do that either.
Also, I would like to equate "Hussein" and "Adolph Hitler."
Note the other kid's name includes Aryan Nation -- in celebration of their racial identity.
Their ethnic identity is violent incarcerated felon? Oh, wait; that's Aryan Brotherhood. Never mind.
I would prefer to live in a nation where you could refuse me service because you think my hair is funny, my name is insulting, or my religion is evil, than one where cake-makers are legally obligated to put "Happy Birthday, Adolf Hitler" on a cake, for what it's worth.
He hears the baker say "I'm not putting that name on the cake".
Kid cries.
Parents who give their kids horrendous names are morons who aren't putting the best interests of the kids first. But a 3 year old doesn't know the historical connotations of his name. He only knows that the store is saying his name is so terrible that it can't be on his birthday cake. Why would a store want to make a 3 year old feel bad on his birthday?
People made fun of my name when I was growing up. (My mother thought it would be a fantastic idea to name me after some Russian ballerina. The name is a variation of a more common name many American women are given, but the variation is ... difficult.) They made fun of my last name, too. Rest assured that I've vowed that if I ever have children, they will have intuitively pronounceable names.
Anyway, I got over the hurt feelings if not the irritation. This kid will too. (Probably after years of therapy, in his case.)
But he's a three year old. What are the odds he was even paying attention to the big people's conversation? Also, I think you assume malice where discomfort would do. But who knows? Maybe the cake decorator is Jewish.
Not meaning to get overly personal here, but did someone insult one of your kids recently or something? Because it seems like you're taking this pretty personally.
I think a better analogy is a hairdresser refusing to shave "Hail Hitler" into someone's hair with the clippers.
The kind of nation you, or any of us, would like to live in is irrelevant. Nowadays our black robed kings decide these things for us.
Everyone asks me if he was named after Kaiser Wilhelm II..... I actually just chose Wilhelm because I like the etymology and mythic connections of the William cognates and it is just a less common variant which is actually closer to what we might see in the English meaning of the roots.
Note that Adolf is a pretty cool name too, though if I were to name a kid that I would probably choose the Ibero-Gothic (and hence modern Spanish) adaptation, Adolfo, just to avoid the association with Hitler.
Then there is the Old English version: Aethelwulf
I am fairly sure that if he was named Adalwolf Reich Campbell, nobody would have objected to putting his name on the cake.....
But most kids don't want their full names, just their first names.
Have your ever shopped at a WalMart? Some of the staff would not know who Adolf Hitler was. Yes there are people that ignorant.
Esp. if you ordered chocolate mousse ....
No reason to bring the kid into it. If the store doesn't want to put the name "Adolf Hitler" on the cake, the parents could have quietly bought a freaking icing tube for, what, $3 and done it themselves. Or go to Walmart. Instead, they are narcissistic enough to run to the media and subject the whole family to national ridicule.
So one of their kids is named "Adolf Hitler" and another is named "Aryan Nation." The father admits he was brought up by German immigrants who told him not to mix with people of other races. He is also apparently fond of wearing a pair of boots that once belonged to a German soldier during World War II. But of course they're not racists...
Calmom, to me, your sense of causation is off track. Who is responsible for the kid being denied the pre-made cake? Who's responsible for the long road trip, being dragged in and out of various stores trying to get a pre-made cake?
Why didn't the parents ... bake a cake themselves? Or decorate their own cake?
This is like my personal sense of responsibility and right and wrong. If someone tries to do me a wrong, and I say "no", and then that someone is angry, who is responsible for that anger?
Better than "Hitler", or worse?
(I was sore tempted to so name my son, but my wife's threat to kill me presented itself as objective evidence that the name has become just too sullied. :-] )
I'm great. I have mass. And I'm a nonlawyer. But I'm washed.
How do I fit into this scenario?
... to William Patrick O'Hitler?
I'll bet a lot of the prospective customers of the pharmacists mentioned earlier consider their mates to be of poor genetic stock; could the pharmacists refuse service because they don't want to support a eugenicist?
For all, but esp. for you:
ObFriendsReference
I would not want my store to be associated with neo-nazis, aryan nation, or any other violent, separatist organization. I live in a part of the country where the KKK have some presence and maybe I'm just a bit sensitive about such things. I would not shop in an establishment that I thought promoted those ideals.
As was earlier pointed out, if it became known that my store put "Happy Birthday Hitler" and a swastika on a cake, I'd consider that a sign that my days in business were numbered.
When Malcolm X sets up death camps and murders thousands of people in a reign of terror, you let me know. Until then, in my hypothetical cake store, Malcolm X Campbell gets a fabulously gay cake and little Adolf gets a blank spot and a tube of goo.
p.s. Don't make political statements out of your children. Morons.
Hmmmm. I don't think Malcolm X is that great an example. He was a racist idiot who, given the opportunity, would have loved to see every white person disappear. I think you would find that there are alot of folks who would stop visiting your cake shop there as well (of all colors). I know we could debate that all over the place, but that is my take. X was an @$#&*(%^$)
A much better example would have been MLK, in my opinion.
I couldn't agree with you more with regards to children. I don't care about your political leanings, right, left, neither of the above....... Using your kids to make political statements is moronic in the extreme.
My only hope for these particular kids is that they become incredible proponents of racial harmony. That would be a kick in their parent's rear-ends, no?
On the other side of the coin, punishing the kids for something their parents did to them (stupid names being one) isn't right, either. You would be pushing them right into the very thing you are trying to keep out of the picture, imho.
But I hear you....... you have to punish the kids if the community is going to punish you, right?
And note that "Lucifer" was the name the Romans gave to the planet Venus when it appeared as the morning star. The alternate name in Latin (borrowed from the Greek) was Phosphorus. This was opposite the name "Hesperus" for Venus appearing as the evening star.
Don't forget magic squares!
(I have seen magic squares turn up in the oddest places. The same magic square that was earlier associated with Saturn, and which Arturo Perez-Reverte associated with Lucifer in his novel "El Club Dumas" also appeared for no good reason and with no explenation in a book on IT management: "Slack" by Tom DeMarco.)
One option would be to say "Here is what we can do for you. First and last name only. No Swastikas or anything like this. We don't celebrate war crimes here, but will make reasonable accommodations for your kid."
Note this is eventually a business decision and nearly every solution to the problem caries with it the possibility of losing business. I don't see a lot of legal problems either way, but the possibilities of boycott etc are bigger issues.
He has three kids - all boys and all under 6-years-old.
Gustav Adolf
Hannibal
Julius
To my knowledge, he has never had a problem getting their names on birthday cakes, even though there are certainly some less-than-savory aspects to all three of these historical generals/kings.
Parents in Hong Kong sometimes pick the weirdest names for their kids. I had one male student (secondary level) whose name was "Penis". I used to pronounce it with a short e and accent on the second syllable (ie to rhyme with 'finesse'). I don't know how it was pronounced in his home.
The icing on the cake (har har) is that his family name was ... 'Lo'. I kid you not.
Maybe at some point. But by the end of his life he had renounced racism of any kind, contributing in no small part to the NOI rift that got him assassinated. I agree that MLK would be a much better example, but though I'd call it a bridge too far, you could almost make the case that Malcom was a martyr for the same cause as Martin.
So his name was Lo Penis? That is pretty funny. However, it isn't without other parallels in Europe. One of the old Icelandic heroes is named "Volsung" which means something like "Son of the horse phallus."
Also, Ima Hogg is a real name.
How many people today even would know which Gustav Adolf a name might refer to? It would be like assuming the kid named Peter was named after Peter the Great of Russia, right?
As for Hannibal: These days how many people would think the kid was named after the fictional serial killer?
And Julius.... It isn't that much of a stretch to assume the guy could be named after someone other than Caesar. However, I know a guy (I kid you not) from South America whose name is Julio Caesar.
I'll bet there's a not insignificant number of people to whom "Julius Caesar" would mean an orange drink and a salad.
"But by the end of his life he had renounced racism of any kind, contributing in no small part to the NOI rift that got him assassinated."
About a year before he died Malcolm X had this to say about the assassination of JFK:It seems to me that you're trying to rehabilitate an illiterate pimp, drug dealer and petty criminal. To say the least, I find the attraction some people have for Malcolm X to be a little strange.
Could be worse. They could have named their kid Felix Sulla....
The statement you quoted was from 1963. The travels that triggered his epiphany on race didn't begin until after he left the Nation of Islam in March 1964.
You can believe it you want to that his rejection of NOI's racism didn't aggravate the rift leading to his assassination. But this is from the same Wikipedia article you quoted: