I address that point here:
http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts/4f...

I suppose if you want to break it down into different categories, that's fine. Personally, I was kind of just lumping bias, discrimination, persecution and prejudice all together, as they really are just different manifestations of the same entity. And it is that entity to which I was referring.

But like I said, there may or may not be another place that provides the same service, and saying there always will be is a baseless assumption. Plus, that's still ignoring the fact that discriminating against someone is a violation of their basic human rights.

They seem perfectly valid to me. Care to explain why you disagree?

Well, the part about being 25 you can't really do anything about, but there's no reason you can't become a billionaire with a muscular physique. ;)

Persecution must be active. Bias or discrimination can be passive, of which this scenario is an example. And I see no problem with that. Again, if they want the service they can go somewhere else, or start their own business if they think that others also want the service.

I didn't. I took the content of the article, and your comments about it, as a whole. If that's not what you intended, I suggest that you be more specific.

Scroll down to the section labeled "Criticism" on this page:
http://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Principle_of_...

Persecution can take many forms, some active and some inactive. Sometimes persecution can even be accidental.

And I am not worried about the definitions of words so much as I am about the ideas behind the words and the concepts which they are intended to represent. Sometimes, presenting a new concept requires inventing new words or tinkering with the definition of an old one.

Potentially, yes.

"Watch your thoughts for they become words.
Watch your words for they become actions.
Watch your actions for they become habits.
Watch your habits for they become your character.
And watch your character for it becomes your destiny.
What we think, we become."
~ Margaret Thatcher

How can you respond to an article heading without inferring the article itself?

No, persecution can only be active. One must accept definitions. You cannot decide that words mean what you want them to mean.

Persecution does not require active participation. That's only overt persecution. There are many different types, some of them are in fact impassive.

If they can't find service, then they have the ability to start their own business and serve those they see fit to serve. If there is a market, they should do very well.

How is not serving someone persecution? Persecution requires an active participation. This was inactive. You can't persecute someone inactively.

From Merriam-Webster:
Persecute

1: to harass or punish in a manner designed to injure, grieve, or afflict; specifically : to cause to suffer because of belief

2: to annoy with persistent or urgent approaches (as attacks, pleas, or importunities)

Maybe, maybe not. It depends on how widespread the prejudice is in that particular area and how many people want to engage in persecution. If only a small percentage of the population wants to engage in persecution, it may be possible to work around. But if a large percentage of the population wants to persecute, working around it becomes impossible.

But regardless, engaging in persecution is a violation of an individual's rights, and therefore government is within its proper sphere of authority to protect individuals against persecution.

I don't think I have a double standard. You'll have to explain that one to me.

I do not support or believe in the non-aggression principle, as it isn't practical and would inevitably lead to logical contradictions in legal systems. In other words, it is not possible to have rational legal code banning the initiation of force, as such a ban would inherently produce an irrational legal code.

I made a topic about this a little while ago, but it didn't seem to get much attention.

Six Reasons Libertarians Should Reject the Non-Aggression Principle:
http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts/51...

The article was about an employer deciding what to offer his employees. You called that a "Christian dictatorship" seeming to believe that the employees Where am I mistaken?