I don't think that economic coercion should be a tool used to enforce compliance with a political agenda.

Evidently pk22 missed Dr E's post (and numerous articles elsewhere) about the original title for Mackey's piece, and how it was changed by the WSJ editors. If pk22's big problem with the editorial is the title, it's time for a re-think.

I think you've grabbed an orange out of the apple bin, Jason. Being black isn't a political position.

I think that all the various reasons for choosing not to patronize a business are not equally legitimate. And basing it on the perceived views of the owner or, worse, just the CEO seems to me the same thing that liberals would object to if the tables were reversed.

Well, I guess that is one way to look at it: if one suggests that all of this “entitlement” will be done with “no new taxes!!!” and if there is something inherently and obviously wrong with a “government takeover” of health-care reimbursement. I say: tax away! Put my $730/month (for private health 'insurance') to taxes and give me some reasonable non-employer options, without pre-existing clauses, and without the ability to drop me without due cause… prevent me from bankruptcy if I happen to need to spend a week in the ICU…

…and

Mackey: “While all of us empathize with those who are sick, how can we say that all people have more of an intrinsic right to health care than they have to food or shelter?

“Health care is a service that we all need, but just like food and shelter it is best provided through voluntary and mutually beneficial market exchanges. A careful reading of both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution will not reveal any intrinsic right to health care, food or shelter. That's because there isn't any. This “right” has never existed in America.”

…this is the meat of the rebellion, I believe. Food and shelter arguments seem a little far-fetched to me, but they come up often. And it's a little odd that he'd bring up the food argument as his food prices are anything but accessible to all, although I understand the costs of the “green” methods. The current health care situation is not a “voluntary and mutually beneficial market exchange”, or there wouldn't be any discussion currently. You don't have thousands of Americans showing up at charity health clinics if the system is mutually beneficial to all.

There are a lot of things that a careful reading of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution will not reveal. It's not about what we're legally bound to do or about what “right” supersedes another right, it's about what we, as American people, can do for other Americans. It's about the absolute shame we should have as a nation regarding the percentage of income spent on health-care services, and about how bankruptcy is the financial outcome for many who have the audacity to get sick.

http://www.lneilsmith.org/smithandwessonmustdie…
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Shot+Dead+-+How+C…
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_…

They were actually driven out of business. Did you comment on that boycott? Probably not.

The responsible thing to do would be to shadow every public appearance the CEO makes in a state that allows you to openly carry a firearm, and ostentatiously loiter and preen with your gun and ambiguously threatening t-shirt or sign. This should happen over and over and over again. It's just as legal as a boycott and I see no earthly reason why the CEO should feel at all intimidated by a campaign like that.

And I am told that Democrats are the open-minded party of tolerance and serious debate.

The CEO can believe whatever the hell he wants. But when he pens an article with discredited right-wing, Frank Luntz talking points, he can and should expect some backlash.