except google never forced you to use their products. You are free to boycott it and/or develop a better one (maybe more privacy oriented) if you don't like it.

government always forces you to do what they think is best for you without letting you the freedom to decline.

Jesus was pro-freedom, and he was anti-big-government. His principles are moral ones, and were never intended to be forced onto people. Charity stops being charity when the government forces people to give.

Tell ya what, I'll boycott The Blaze.

Who, other than The Blaze, was interested in hiring her before? If, as you noted earlier, this was happening to a respected journalist would we be worried about whether they'd still have an audience at the end of it?

I mean, I get that you're trying to be even-handed and fair and wotnot and ye, worse things will always happen to better people...but i mean... Karma tho? I got in the shower this morning and then remembered I had no shampoo. WEEP FOR ME. Let it not be said that I should take my plight in context!

Exactly, Redsky, my thought exactly. We should all boycott those pesky cancer awareness groups because some people dont ever get cancer and some people live fairly long in spite of getting it. Should I be using that sarcasm button or what?

There are many biasing factors that current scientists must deal with. Consider the sad state of such "sciences" as criminal bite analysis, or shoeprint analysis, or even fingerprinting. Poor results come from huge external pressures to come to the "right" conclusions, regardless of the truth.

One boycotts hysteria by refusing to become hysterical, and refusing to parrot hysterical claims, even if it seems socially or professionally advantageous.

What exactly do you mean when you say "...it is one of the greatest threats to science in the modern era"?

Also, what are the other great threats to science and how does one boycott climate hysteria? I'm curious about your resolve and the lengths you have gone or plan to go in your boycott.

If you're serious about the evil fossil fuel industry, boycott fossil fuels. Go ahead, show us how it's done.

That's a good reason to boycott wool. If it's all profit driven they will find other ways to make their product.

For example we've got yeast now which grows dairy milk identical to cows milk, thanks to an increasing market of people who refuse to buy milk from dairy farms.

I'm certain if enough people put pressure on the wool industry then someone innovative will take advantage and make some kind of device that grows wool without the sheep.

So we can have our cakes and eat them too in the long run, just by slightly altering our purchasing habits in the short term.

That's a pretty big can of worms you're opening there newt.

Do you REALLY want to make it ok for people to legally discriminate for any reason?

You'd be comfortable with shops refusing services to gays or non-caucasians or atheists or insert-your-own-prejudice-here?

"Awww, but we could boycott them!"

So, a libertarian market solution then? Those don't work. Because as soon as you allow a business to be racist or homophobic or whatever, you will have racist, homophobic assholes queueing up to support them.

Sorry, but you don't get to impose your values on your customer (regardless of whether your values are good or evil). Unless what you're being asked to do is actually illegal (and that includes hate speech, so asking a baker to make a KKK cake would cover that), you suck it up and do your job.

If you want to make a political point in your business, there are other ways to do it. Source your materials through fair trade. Tell this moron Trump supporter that the profits from his t-shirt are going straight to Hillarys campaign fund.

In normal circumstances, I would agree. These were/are not normal circumstances.
He sought out a store that would be the most hostile to his request intentionally with the hope that they would do something like this, no question about that.
In a more perfect world, I would mostly agree (except it literally IS their business). This is far from a perfect world.

It's a trap, because most liberals are against allowing businesses to deny service to those they dislike for religious/political reasons, even though they would really like to mimic them. That means that denying him service plays into their hands even more than making a snide subliminal addition to the interior of the shirt. This is the catch 22 they have put themselves in, where there's no good option.
I think they should be allowed to refuse service to anyone for any reason....but those they refuse are allowed to make a public stink about it and 'boycott' (like this guy would have had they refused to make a shirt).

Liberal Redneck tells off Am Family Assoc Target boycott has been added as a related post - related requested by bareboards2 on that post.

Liberal Redneck tells off Am Family Assoc Target boycott has been added as a related post - related requested by bareboards2.

*related=http://videosift.com/video/Liberal-Redneck-tells-off-Am-Family-Assoc-Target-boycott

Once this guy gets a name for himself, won't need to link videos.

Watch this guy. He rocks.

There's a huge difference between a candidate that doesn't align perfectly with one's ideals and candidates diametrically opposed to one's ideals. You will NEVER find someone that aligns perfectly with your ideals except yourself.
If ALL candidates on the ballot are diametrically opposed to your ideals, the best solution is to write in the name of the candidate that DOES align at least mostly with your ideals, the second best idea is to simply not vote. Casting your vote for someone you think will be disastrous in order to deny someone you think will be apocalyptic is a terrible way to vote, IMO. I understand it, but I disagree with it.

If we order pizza, and the choices are limited to 4 types of mushroom pizza, or pizza with mushroom, onion, and sausage, and you are deathly allergic to mushroom, sitting in the corner and pouting and refusing to eat, while complaining to the room that they inappropriately completely excluded you from the process is the right choice.
Yes, it would be better to become more involved at the 'choose the toppings' level, but not everyone has that ability, and doing so is no guarantee of success.

If neither nominated candidate offers even some of what you want, what then?
I don't advocate not voting at all, but voting for the slightly lesser of two evils is not the only choice, supporting candidates that don't have a chance of winning THIS TIME can set up the next election so they do have a chance...it's a long game, but still better than 'boycott', and better than voting for certain disaster, even if that disaster is inevitable.
The notion that YOUR candidate is the only right choice and everyone else is being manipulated just might be reality in this instance, and not naïve in the least. Voting for someone just a step below apocalyptic seems naïve to me. If you think that the candidate is the only right choice BECAUSE that candidate is your choice, and not because they exhibit the qualities and positions you think are absolutely necessary, unlike all other candidates, then I agree, that's immature and naïve, but I don't think many made their decision that way.

Haha! First of all, they are tax avoiders, not tax dodgers. Secondly, if you don't like it, why don't you work your way up at Apple and change the company from the inside? Or become a legislator and change the law. See if you can get them to pay whatever version of "fair share" you think they "should." (We all know you won't because, if you did, you wouldn't be using a platform or a device created by companies that don't care about what you think their "fair share" of taxes should be.) But, hey, go ahead and "boycott" Apple and other companies to "protest" their failure to adopt your ideas and definitions of "fair shares." See how far that gets you. I'll continue to buy their products and support them.

And meanwhile, the vilified "millionaires and billionaires" will continue to pay far more in taxes than you ever will (currently 44% of federal taxes while the bottom 45% don't pay anything at all) -- just so we're clear on who contributes little to nothing at all and is merely a consumer/loser.

"Push back? Do you mean intentionally suppress laughter for fear of being un-PC? Heckle (thats fine BTW)? Defame? Ban? Throw stones? Chase out of town? Burn books? Worse?"

Awfully hyperbolic. You seem to think someone saying "I don't like this" is brushing up with burning books?

Because I see that as an act of free speech. Protest, boycotts, etc aren't suddenly forcing anyone to do something or preventing anyone from saying anything. It's meeting speech with more speech. The pinion of free speech principles.

But free speech has never been freedom from consequences. You can say whatever edgu thing you like but you can't expect everyone to just shut up and be fine with it.

Either you accept being edgy is going to rile people up and get you reactions or you go back to doing boring ass material. Imagining that someone not enjoying your joke is akin to a mob trying to murder you only really shows how thin skinned comedians are to any criticism. Ignore it.

And the issue of disinvitations to colleges is, again, more free speech acts. Yet somehow, unless the speech is toothless and ineffective, its a melt down by thin skinned comedians.

Look, you need to know your audience when you do a gig. You don't walk into a bar mitzvah gig and tell all your edgy antisemetic jokes then get wounded at the "PC outrage" when people get mad. Yet somehow going to a college during a rise in college activism against racism/sexism and telling your "women are shit, right?" jokes is supposed to be no issue?

And the other issue in this: colleges are viewed more and more as a services paid transaction: I'm paying thousands to this place to provide me a product. So its no wonder students feel more empowered to complain, especially when their money from activity fees is being spent on something they don't like.

Saying "you owe us $500 and we're going to use it to pay the 'Muslims are all rapists' guy to come here and talk" isn't the best way to make people feel like their money is being used with their best interests in mind.

Honestly, if you feel like protests or any act of free speech you disagree with is akin to burning books or destroying lives... Maybe you should grow a thicker skin. Everyone doesn't have to like what you say and its not some afront to your rights when they don't.