Let's just go all the way with this discrimination stuff

Isn't it discriminatory for a business not to be open when people want it open? I would think for time in memorial people have been very frustrated over those unthoughtful, bigoted, uncaring, racist, sexist, misanthropic business owners who dare to have business hours. Don't they know that when they close, they are discriminating against all who want in while they are closed? They should be put to DEATH for their insensitivity to mankind!

I mean if we are going to just defecate on everyone's freedom of association, let's be comprehensive in our application.

"A better plan is to change the culture".

We used to have a one-word term for this, and it was abhorred by freedom-loving types, like Objectivists pretend to be..."brainwashing".

The best and most benign example from the past century (translation: the one example I can use that won't get me inundated with indignant, hateful replies) is the war on tobacco.

See, I don't really care what people believe... so long as they come to their beliefs on their own, without having beliefs imposed on them by media, government, and others who lust for power over the human mind.

EDIT:
oops... there's another example I can use, mostly because the campaign has been far less successful... "Climate Change" / Environmentalism.

I'm preternaturally opposed to the use of terms like "homophobia, islamophobia, etc." being used to stifle debate.

The baker story has NOTHING to do with being afraid of gays. It has everything to do with marriage having a definition for thousands of years and vocal minority demanding a change of that definition, AND property rights.

If a store owner doesn't want to serve a customer for any reason whatsoever, that should his/her right, PERIOD!

Totally disagree. She makes several baseless assumptions and makes many false claims that demonstrate she has no clue how discrimination actually works.

Racist/Prejudiced businesses would go bankrupt.
** There is no evidence to support this theory. It is pure, baseless speculation. The claim that the entire populace would be so outraged that they would refuse to buy anything from the business is a theory with no factual evidence behind it. A certain percentage of the population would be enraged enough to boycott the business, sure, but the masses would probably largely be indifferent, and the bottom line of the business would not be negatively impacted. In some cases, being racist or prejudiced could actually make a business MORE profitable, if the general population is racist as well. A restaurant in Orange County, California that didn't serve black people would find no shortage of customers.

Speaking of the baseless assumption that discrimination automatically leads to bankruptcy, a few months ago I saw a story about a lesbian couple that was turned away when they tried to buy a wedding cake at a particular bakery (exact same situation as was being discussed in the previous topic, but a different bakery and a different couple). When word got out that the bakery had discriminated against the couple, the bakery's customer base increased by quite a bit. There were so many bigoted, homophobic people in that area that the bakery's discrimination was seen as a positive by the general population, and helped to increase the owner's revenues. The lesson? The free market does NOT, in fact, eliminate discrimination automatically.

Law doesn't change culture.
** This is totally untrue. Law has a tremendous impact on culture. Anything which is illegal is stigmatized as evil. Most people make no distinction between legality and morality, and they base their views of the second on the status of the first. A big reason racism was so bad before before the Civil Rights Movement was because it was legally required and enforced by law. If you give something a legal sanction, you give it a moral sanction, and thereby allow it to flourish. Legality and morality cannot be separated in the eye of the public.

No body should be forced to provide a service for another person.
** Actually, if they're a business owner and they're providing service to the general public, yes they should. A business owner can control almost every aspect of his business, but he cannot choose his customers. As for the hypothetical example she uses at the end where members of the Westboro Baptist Church come into a business owned by a gay person and the gay business owner has to provide them service, I suppose yeah, he would. Religion is, after all, a legally protected status under the Civil Rights Act of 1964. But if that's the price for equality, then so be it.

Now keep in mind that although the gay business owner could not kick them out simply because they're members of the Westboro Baptist Church, he COULD kick them out if they started shouting, causing a ruckus, and/or harassing other customers. There is no legal protection for disruptive behavior.

She says that a better plan is to change the culture and make it more accepting of diverse people, but what she fails to realize is that the fact that bigoted business owners have to keep the their bigotry a secret is proof that such change has already occurred. It shows that such views are not accepted.

Ultimately, eliminating bigotry is not possible, so instead we have to settle for creating a society in which it is stigmatized and punished. That's the only way to keep it under control.