I don't think anti discrimination laws changes culture...I think it will just force some to keep their opinions in the closet... but luckily the closets are now empty to there's room for them. (I wonder when the opinions will ban together and pass a law so they can get out of the closet too....oh wait! WE ALREADY HAVE THAT ONE...it's the First Amendment!)

just so, minniepuck
merry christmas

her target audience is younger folks. she thinks a lot about her delivery and format of her videos; I don't think it's her just slamming back mountain dew. she's done presentations about her videos before either independently or on behalf of freedomworks. I like that she gets her point across succinctly. she's also a libertarian - - for me that's a plus.

anyway, I'm like you thinking of the new year. I couldn't imagine turning away any customer, but I know others that do. that's fine with me. I think they're idiots, but at least they're free idiots. if they don't want their business, I'll gladly try to earn it instead. I'm perfectly fine allowing the market--but only the market--to bankrupt a business they don't agree with for whatever reason, whether it's run by a racist or bigot, or because they sell crap.

every day, until you say no

hey cg. glad you're still hanging out here

I agree with her, but her style is freaky. I couldn't get through the whole thing.

Thinking ahead to 2014, I can't imagine doing my plans trying to make more money and trying to discriminate against certain customers. I just want more customers. I find it amazing that some businesses feel like they can reject good customers for political reasons.

George Washington Carver, Frederick Douglas-um-they were well before Jesse Owens. Only sports figures can effect significant racial change in the US? hmmm

Annoying delivery, but that aside, the argument is libertarian, not Objectivist. The question does not identify the essential characteristics or necessary standard of judgment.

It is easy enough to agree that the government should not force people into associations. That is beyond the purpose of government.

The question that derives from the long narrative of "Atlas Shrugged" is whether you should choose to sanction your destroyers, to be a party to your own destruction. When you buy gasoline and you step into the station and see a cross or a picture of Jesus, do you never shop there again. Do you refuse to shop at Cosco because the founder and CEO is a Democrat who spoke at the last DNC? Do you withdraw your sanction from Microsoft, or Apple, or Samsung for their involvement with the government?

In short, when should you discriminate on the basis of anything other than price and performance?

Those questions underlie her delivery; and she hinted at what that means for The Gulch and Objectivism. The government indeed enforced Jim Crow segregation. The color barrier was broken not by Brown v. Board - though it was important in bringing the government in line with society. The color barrier was shattered first in baseball - the American game - by Jackie Robinson. But even before that, Jesse Owens in the Olympics was the harbinger of change in America, though it was still then hard to see. The point here is that The Strike will eventually change the way American does business with the government. But that will come from within the hearts and minds of uncounted individuals long before it shows up in the halls of Congress.

See below. When are those "political reasons" the delineation of your own demise? When are you dealing with those who would destroy you?