The Wow I Can't Believe That News Story Thread

[Frownland]

Not once you look past the surface though.

Basically this discussion comes down to which of these you think is more valuable: Freedom to discriminate as you please or freedom from unjust discrimination. I think that the latter does a lot more for equal rights than the former.

[Trollheart]

Originally Posted by [MERIT]

Say someone is paying you to build them a house. They ask you to build a rape dungeon with murals of little kids getting fucked and puppies and kittens getting tortured.

By your standards, you have no right to say no to them.

You sort of don't though, because then you're judging someone by your own moral standards, and for all you know, this could be getting built for, say, a documentary, film or other innocent purpose. And even if it isn't, if that was a valid reason for refusing, what would happen to all the poor dominatrixes in America and elsewhere? Should they have to build their own dungeons?

Originally Posted by [MERIT]

I say yes. The law says no. And froundland says whatever the law says.

Originally Posted by [MERIT]

No, again, my argument is that you don't have the right to someone else's labor. I don't know how I can make that any more clear.

In this case, the doctor would have most likely signed a contract with his employer, stating that he he cannot refuse service, so this is a moot point.

If you sign a contract to do something and then break that contract, then you should be fired.

Originally Posted by [MERIT]

I'm not saying that he SHOULD refuse, I'm saying that he should have the RIGHT to refuse.

You have heard of the Hippocratic Oath, I assume?

[[MERIT]]

Originally Posted by Trollheart

You have heard of the Hippocratic Oath, I assume?

As a doctor who takes an oath [enters into a contract], they should have to abide by it, or cease practice.

As a private citizen who HASN'T entered into a contract, they are free to do as they please, within reason [Non-Aggression Principle].

[Trollheart]

Originally Posted by [MERIT]

As a doctor who takes an oath [enters into a contract], they should have to abide by it, or cease practice.

As a private citizen who HASN'T entered into a contract, they are free to do as they please, within reason [Non-Aggression Principle].

Are you literally trying to have it both ways then? You're saying they should be bound, as ALL doctors are, by the Hippocratic Oath, but that they should also have the right to refuse if they don't agree with the race/politics/sex of the person to be treated???

[Frownland]

Originally Posted by [MERIT]

As a private citizen who HASN'T entered into a contract, they are free to do as they please, within reason [Non-Aggression Principle].

NAP is a good starting point but using it as the sole basis for morality is pretty erroneous since it allows for a lot of amoral behaviour.

[[MERIT]]

Originally Posted by Trollheart

Are you literally trying to have it both ways then? You're saying they should be bound, as ALL doctors are, by the Hippocratic Oath, but that they should also have the right to refuse if they don't agree with the race/politics/sex of the person to be treated???

No, because they CHOSE to enter into a contract. It wasn't FORCED upon them.

I'm saying that if they CHOOSE to take the oath, they should, by all means, abide by it.

If for some reason they are in a medical practice where they didn't have to swear some kind of oath or enter into some kind of contract [be they a privately owned and operated medical institution], then they can do what they want, within reason.

It's about freedom. Not discrimination. Plain and simple. You can spin it to fit whatever agenda pleases you the most [not you personally TH, people in general], but that doesn't change what it is.

[[MERIT]]

Originally Posted by Frownland

NAP is a good starting point but using it as the sole basis for morality is pretty erroneous since it allows for a lot of amoral behaviour.

So does a lot of things, if abused. Certain religions say that it's okay to own slaves or force yourself sexually upon children. Anything can be taken to the Nth degree and abused if you elaborate enough.

[Frownland]

Originally Posted by [MERIT]

No, because they CHOSE to enter into a contract. It wasn't FORCED upon them.

I'm saying that if they CHOOSE to take the oath, they should, by all means, abide by it.

If for some reason they are in a medical practice where they didn't have to swear some kind of oath or enter into some kind of contract [be they a privately owned and operated medical institution], then they can do what they want, within reason.

Offering your services to the public is a similar type of oath. You're not compelled to own a business if you don't like how you're required to operate so business owners have a lot of options if they don't like what they're being "forced" to do (like treating one customer the same as another even if you're jealous that his husband is cuter than your wife).

It's about freedom. Not discrimination. Plain and simple. You can spin it to fit whatever agenda pleases you the most [not you personally TH, people in general], but that doesn't change what it is.

It is about discrimination, repeating that it isn't doesn't make that so. What you're arguing for is the superiority of the freedom compared to discriminate to the freedom from unjust discrimination. If you value oppression above equality, then fine, but don't try to dance away from that when it's clearly what's motivating your reasoning.

Are you familiar with the concept of a social contract?

Originally Posted by [MERIT]

So does a lot of things, if abused. Certain religions say that it's okay to own slaves or force yourself sexually upon children. Anything can be taken to the Nth degree and abused if you elaborate enough.

What? Limitations are not the same as abuses.

NAP is very often used as an absolute barometer for morality, so I guess that could be considered abusing it. Why do you do that?

[Chula Vista]

Brass tacks man. Your analogies just keep getting more and more out there.

And Hawk, the argument doesn't hold up. The USA has laws regarding discrimination, both in the public and the business sectors.

You want to open a business in this country and call it your own? OK. You still have to abide by laws - local, state, and federal. You want to profit off of our free market system? Cool. But you have to play by the rules to cash in.

You can not discriminate based on sexual orientation.

Basic human rights 101.

[Frownland]

Besides for "freeeeedom", what do businesses lose when they're not allowed to discriminate against customers? What do individuals lose when they are discriminated against? Which one of those is the bigger or more important loss?