Grocery Store Refuses to Say Happy Birthday Hitler

[Ex-Cyber]

I can claim 9th amendment and it would be covered.

As far as I can tell, the most that advances your argument is that it's possible for such a right to exist without it being enumerated in the Constitution. I don't see how the Ninth Amendment guarantees a right to arbitrarily refuse service any more than it guarantees a right to false advertising.

[Quzar]

A name is a name. It's not the kids fault his parents are f**ked up. I he wants his name on a cake, he should get it.
That's like a barber saying he wont trim up your toothbrush mustache, because it's associated with a genocidal maniac. I'm sure there were people with the Hitler name before he committed any of those atrocities as well. What did they have to do after that, change their names?

Actually yes, after the war many people with the surname Hitler changed it in order to avoid persecution. Once I saw where it was (Holland Township is in South Pennsylvania) it all made sense.

Also, as to the myth of refusal of service is not a myth. Unless the person is of a 'protected class' and is being discriminated against due to that, there is no protection. Protected classes include races, genders, religions, the disabled, and in some cases age. For instance though, rollerbladers are not a protected class, which is why it's fine when a shop doesn't allow you to enter wearing them.

[Ex-Cyber]

Also, as to the myth of refusal of service is not a myth. Unless the person is of a 'protected class' and is being discriminated against due to that, there is no protection. Protected classes include races, genders, religions, the disabled, and in some cases age. For instance though, rollerbladers are not a protected class, which is why it's fine when a shop doesn't allow you to enter wearing them.

It's not as simple as saying that a business has the "right" to refuse service to "anyone" or "for any reason", though, which is typically what is claimed. Also, your comments only address the limitations of federal law. State and local law is different. For example, California has its own Civil Rights Act which has been interpreted much more broadly:

In addition to the particular forms of discrimination specifically outlawed by the Act (sex, race, color, etc.), courts have held the Act “prohibit[s] discrimination based on several classifications which are not specifically enumerated in the statute.” (Gayer v. Polk Gulch, Inc. (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 515, 520.) These judicially-recognized classifications include unconventional dress or physical appearance (In re Cox (1970) 3 Cal.3d 205, 217-218), families with children (Marina Point, Ltd. v. Wolfson (1982) 30 Cal.3d 721, 736-741), homosexuality (Rolon v. Kulwitzky (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 289, 292), and persons under 18 (O’Connor v. Village Green Owners Assn. (1983) 33 Cal.3d 790, 794).

So I still say that the notion that there's some especially distinct right to deny service for arbitrary reasons is a myth.

[Quzar]

In california. Even there what that does is simply expand the number of protected classes, it does not say that any sort of discrimination is not allowed. Persons with unusual names is still not a protected class, nor my example of rollerblader (unless some crafty lawyer were to shoehorn that into 'unconventional dress').

I'm not saying 'they have a right to refuse service', it's more that most people do not have a right to not be refused service.

[Ex-Cyber]

In california. Even there what that does is simply expand the number of protected classes, it does not say that any sort of discrimination is not allowed.

Yes, but since the law can be interpreted as protecting classes not explicitly mentioned, then there can be no comprehensive list of protected classes; any business owner who decides to throw someone out based on personal prejudices rather than business reasons does so at the risk of becoming a precedent.

I'm not saying 'they have a right to refuse service'

That's the idea that I was initially responding to and called a myth. More specifically, that they have a right to refuse service for any reason.

it's more that most people do not have a right to not be refused service.

Right. I guess my point is that it's not a cut-and-dried thing, but a complex issue that depends on federal, state, local, and/or common law. Neither the customer nor the business owner has some inviolable general right to demand something from the other.

[pavelbure]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,479904,00.html

Young 'Adolf Hitler' and Two Sisters Removed From Home

Wednesday, January 14, 2009

By Sara Bonisteel

AP

Dec. 16, 2008: Heath Campbell, left, with his wife Deborah and son Adolf Hitler, 3, pose in Easton, Pa.

A 3-year-old boy named Adolf Hitler and his two Nazi-named younger sisters were removed from their New Jersey home last week and placed in state custody, police said.

Adolf Hitler Campbell and his sisters, JoyceLynn Aryan Nation Campbell and Honszlynn Hinler Jeannie Campbell, were taken from their Holland Township, N.J., home on Friday by the state's Division of Youth and Family Services (DYFS), Sgt. John Harris of the Holland Township Police Department told FOXNews.com.

Their father, Heath Campbell, is expected in court Thursday in Flemington, N.J., in connection with the case.

Kate Bernyk, a spokeswoman for the DYFS, said confidentiality laws barred her from commenting on the case or even confirming that the Campbell children were involved.

"DYFS has their reasons and they normally don’t release any information, so we kind of have to go on faith with them," Harris said. Police were not told what the agency was investigating.

"I’ve dealt with the family for years and as far as the children are concerned, I have never had any reports of any abuse with the children," Harris said. "As far as I know, he’s always been very good with the children."
Related

*
Stories
o Little 'Adolf Hitler' Denied Birthday Cake at New Jersey Grocery Store

Speaking generally, Bernyk said the state's "decision to remove a child is based on the safety and well being of the child and the risk to that child, and that decision is made in conjunction with the courts and the county family court judge."

The Campbells made national news last month when a ShopRite supermarket refused to sell them a birthday cake with Adolf Hitler's name on it. The story generated a slew of angry Internet chatter.

Forensic psychologist N.G. Berrill said naming a boy Hitler could be considered child abuse.

"Part of it is the infantile nature of the parents’ behavior," Berrill said. "You can name your dog something weird, but they think they’re making some kind of bold statement with the children, not appreciating that the children will have separate lives and will be looked at in a negative light until they’re able to change their name. It is abuse."

Last year, a New Zealand court removed a 9-year-old girl from her parents in order to change her birth name: Talula Does The Hula From Hawaii. In that country, officials do not deem a name abusive unless it causes serious bullying.

Heath Campbell told the Easton-Express Times last year that he named his son after Adolf Hitler because he liked it and "no one else in the world would have that name."

A paper to be published in March in Social Sciences Journal by economists David E. Kalist and Daniel Y. Lee of Shippensburg University found that unpopular first names, when mixed with factors like a disadvantaged home life, can increase the tendency toward juvenile delinquency.

Lee told FOXNews.com that Adolf and Hitler were not names they looked at for the study.

"Hitler most likely would be an unpopular name in the sense that not many people name their children with a name [like Hitler], but we didn’t particularly look at particularly bad names like that," he said.