Should doctors be allowed to withhold medical care to gays/lesbians?

[doG]

Considering that the medical centre isn't obliged to provide medical care to anyone and they are totally free to close up whenever they feel like it, yes.

 

Actually hospitals in the U.S. are currently required by law to treat anyone that shows up at their emergency room needing treatment. Should that law be revoked?

[Pangloss]

As I said earlier in the thread, there's a clear moral difference between emergency medical care and optional medical services.

[Sayonara]

True, but making that the basis of preferential treatment ignores the importance of the "optional medical service" to the customer.

 

Why should one group of people be assured that their feelings and desires will be accommodated, while another group has to go without?

[doG]

I wonder what would happen to the health insurance premiums for those that couldn't get routine, non-emergency care? They would obviously become a higher risk to the insurance company. What effect would that have on hiring practices in the area if it cost employers more to cover their non-Christian employees?

[Pangloss]

True, but making that the basis of preferential treatment ignores the importance of the "optional medical service" to the customer.

 

Why should one group of people be assured that their feelings and desires will be accommodated, while another group has to go without?

 

Well, that was why I made the suggestion of having the government take actions to balance the scales, as it were. For example, the government could hire a doctor to come into a community and provide abortion services, if the local providers won't do so. (This already being an actual problem, mind you, and arguably not even an "optional" service -- clearly a very important one.)

 

I don't think that even pushes it into the domain of "separate but equal", either, because you'd do it as incentive and benefit rather than actual government pharmacies, etc.

[john5746]

I thought this article from 1999 was pertinent to this issue

 

http://www.reason.com/news/show/31073.html

 

 

Not that he set out to do so. The Bush-sponsored Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) doubtless was chosen as a mom-and-apple-pie substitute for such indigestible religious dishes as abortion. It was patterned on a federal law that passed Congress almost unanimously in 1993, only to be struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court on federalism grounds in 1997. The modest aim of RFRA is merely to "restore" the traditional legal standard for protection of religious liberty that existed before Employment Division v. Smith, a 1990 case in which the Supreme Court concluded that the First Amendment does not require states to accommodate the ritual use of peyote.

 

But RFRA, similar to legislation that has been approved or is being considered in about 20 other states, would not merely create a religious exception to drug laws. It would establish a principle that could entitle religious landlords, employers, and service providers to ignore laws that bar discrimination against gays, lesbians, and other minorities if those laws conflict with religious doctrines.

 

The legal problem boils down to two large questions: First, must the government show a "compelling interest" before it can enforce laws that place a "burden" on the free exercise of religion? (Bush's bill says yes.) Second, what counts as a burden, and which interests are compelling?

 

But in Thomas, 9th Circuit Judge Diarmuid O'Scannlain held that the plaintiffs, Christian landlords in Alaska who sought to exclude unmarried couples from their buildings, had asserted other "colorable" claims along with the free exercise claim--namely, the free speech right to express a preference for married couples and a property right to select tenants. Taking Scalia at his word, O'Scannlain applied the compelling interest test. He concluded that the state of Alaska did not have a compelling interest in protecting unmarried couples from landlords who for religious reasons refuse to rent to them.

 

The Supreme Court struck the federal RFRA down in 1997, finding that it exceeded Congress' power to regulate state and local government. The RFRA coalition then turned its attention to the passage of state legislation. By the end of 1998, five states, including Illinois and Florida, had their own RFRA laws. In addition to Texas, RFRA legislation has been introduced in more than a dozen other states.

 

In their eagerness to hop aboard the USS Religious Freedom, politicians have not been paying much attention to where it's headed. As the Supreme Court realized, once judges start scrutinizing every law that burdens religion, looking for a compelling interest to justify it, they are forced to compare apples to oranges, worldly ends to spiritual imperatives. Is a state's desire to forbid discrimination against certain groups compelling enough to outweigh an individual's sincere religious abhorrence of fornication, homosexuality, heretical faiths, or interracial marriage? How are courts to determine which religious beliefs or practices are genuine? Why recognize the use of peyote by Native Americans but not, say, the use of marijuana by Rastafarians? And might the policy of granting religious exemptions to people of certain faiths run afoul of the First Amendment's Establishment Clause?

[ParanoiA]

You are wrong. Denying certain groups of people access to services DOES do immediate and direct harm which can be observed' date=' as well as long term and indirect damage to the individual and the community.

 

Your lack of imagination in considering what that might be, or lack of perceptiveness in witnessing it first hand, is entirely beside the point. All you have there is an argument from ignorance.[/quote']

 

"Lack of imagination" is exactly what's required for government in this case. The government, to me, should be a cold, clinical entity that only enforces objectively based and interpreted law - to promote order, security and a framework for the free society to operate freely within. This means a society that is free to discriminate against gay people, or child molesters, or no one, or everyone - whatever free choice leads each person so long as they commit no physical harm or damage to anyone.

 

"Lack of imagination" is code for how it's not fair that I sell food to John but not to Fred. You see that lack of selling food as damage - I don't. Food is available all around and one is perfectly free to hunt and gather and trade as one wishes - why should others be required to trade with Fred just because he lacks the imagination on how he can obtain food. The fact that he can ONLY think of "grocercy shopping" would suggest a lack of imagination on his part, or society's, not mine.

 

I'm not the one who decided it would be really cool for humans to depend on each other so much and for so long that individually we don't know how to get food or resources any differently than the status quo. That was a result of personal choice.

 

Consider this: if discrimination in services and business does no harm, why is it legislated against? Do you think nobody has had this conversation before? Do you think it is just there to "restrict freedom" or police your thoughts?

 

Discrimination is legislated against to assimilate the minority. Seriously, think this out: Most laws, not always, but generally are formed by a majority support. Discrimination already had to be worked out by society - whether you like or not, my point is more or less reality - free society had to think it was wrong before the people they elected could make it wrong by law. At that point, you're sweeping up the minority that doesn't agree, forcing them to comply.

 

The horrible consequence to sweeping up the minority haters, is that now you establish a precedence - the power of the government to subjectively determine rules of behavior as good or bad is now legitimate.

 

I have posited that it is this power that enabled slavery. Slavery couldn't have been sanctified unless governments gave themselves the power to judge one man over another by purely subjective means - moral and ethical conclusions.

 

Why do you support the same principles that allowed an institution like slavery to exist - government supported and perpetuated?

 

I'm sorry, but I look to that as a lesson that was supposed to have been learned. I think most took from it that we were hypocrites and weren't judging others fairly - I took from it that we weren't supposed to be judging each other in the first freaking place.

 

I don't see what the relevance is of your actions in your home as far as the legislation against discrimination by service providers goes.

 

(Unless of course you run a business from home and have some kind of raging ~ism.)

 

Because my house and my business are both property that I paid for' date=' thank you very much. But just because I decide to trade bread from one of them, suddenly I have to have my right of choice stripped because other people don't have the imagination to get bread any other way than from me?

 

Again...I'm struck by your own words:

 

Why should one group of people be assured that their feelings and desires will be accommodated, while another group has to go without?

 

 

 

 

 

That has nothing to do with the thread whatsoever and is not a requirement of the law we are discussing. I think you might be getting a bit muddled up with the issues in the OP and your own personal beliefs.

 

No, it has to do with the principle that what you own is your property to use as you wish and it shouldn't matter if you live in it or sell bread out of it. It's still yours. And if you're going to say a business has to give everyone access then why not practice some consistency and say the same of your house? Why is it that you have no problem with someone being racist with their house and only letting "certain people" come in to visit - but you don't with a business? Their "lack of imagination" on how to collect resources obligating others again?

 

"A winner" is a colloquialism for a good' date=' solid, internally consistent idea. The winning part is not meant to imply popularity but stability.

Sorry, I should not have assumed you would know this.[/quote']

 

Don't assume anything. I argue many things from scratch. And so far, I'm dependent on consistency - I'm quite consistent in my application of individual choice. I don't dream up pragmatic excuses to override right and wrong - I just stick with what I believe is right. So, you're wrong in helping the government to continue to legislate morallity. Just because it just so happens to agree with yours, doesn't make it a good idea. The slave owners liked it that way too.

 

Why should one group of people be assured that their feelings and desires will be accommodated, while another group has to go without?

 

Exactly. Which is why the government should not be making that decision - society should. Free society. Feelings and desires are not government domain. So there is no "right" or "wrong" in the eyes of goverment. Funny that you're not consistent with this principle.

[iNow]

I'm not the one who decided it would be really cool for humans to depend on each other so much and for so long that individually we don't know how to get food or resources any differently than the status quo. That was a result of personal choice.

Actually, it may have had more to do with the way our eyes moved to the front of our skull through years of evolution and how our ability to see behind us was negatively impacted as a result of those slow changes (which conferred greater advantage in other areas/needs). Hence those that had others to "watch their backs" out survived those that did not, and cultures of shared/common good became a greater evolutionary advantage over any personal abilities. Just thought I'd share that little nugget of info. A nice post along these lines over at Not Exactly Rocket Science today.

 

http://scienceblogs.com/notrocketscience/2008/08/selfless_monkeys_find_personal_reward_in_helping_others.php

 

 

 

Because my house and my business are both property that I paid for, thank you very much. But just because I decide to trade bread from one of them, suddenly I have to have my right of choice stripped because other people don't have the imagination to get bread any other way than from me?

Couldn't the government take both away from you? Don't you actually pay THEM to use that land, despite your assertion that it's "yours?" Aren't they the actual owners and don't they get to dictate what happens? (not that I agree this should be the case, just that I'm pretty sure it is).

Edited August 26, 2008 by iNow

[ParanoiA]

I guess, at the end of the day, we, collectively, are going to have to descide what is, and what is not, acceptable. if we do this through govournment and legislature then we can at least assume we're going to get some semblance of consistancy with our codified principles. if we each choose individually then we'll end up living in a society where we've agreed that discrimination is wrong, but do it anyway, which is just dumb (at least, that's what we had in the UK before anti-discrimination laws). granted, we could allways end up being legislated to do something that genuinely is immoral, but that's a fair risk imo (and there's more risk in the 'fiercely individualistic' way), and the sacrifice of 'free choice' is a neccesary one to prevent harm, as it is in many other cases.

 

I would agree it's a fair risk, ONLY, if it took the hand of government to make society treat each other equally. But it doesn't. As I've said, laws implicitly come from the majority opinion held by society, so the hand of government does not "lead" society but rather "follows" society - or more to the point, the majority of it. So laws are just covering a minority of those that don't agree with the majority - so the risk is far too great, the violation of principle far too dear, in my opinion.

 

Whether we like it or not, we already leave it up to society to decide what is and what isn't discriminated against. Keeping it off the law books is my concern, so we don't repeat abominations like slavery and so the classes, sexes, races, and etc can all bond together from mutual appreciation and gain, creating a much healthier relationship than the one we've enjoyed from forced integration via the sacrifice of basic personal property rights.

 

And so we don't become hypocrites, ourselves, to posterity.

 

Actually' date=' it may have had more to do with the way our eyes moved to the front of our skull through years of evolution and how our ability to see behind us was negatively impacted as a result of those slow changes (which conferred greater advantage in other areas/needs). Hence those that had others to "watch their backs" out survived those that did not, and cultures of shared/common good became a greater evolutionary advantage over any personal abilities. Just thought I'd share that little nugget of info. A nice post along these lines over at Not Exactly Rocket Science today.

 

http://scienceblogs.com/notrocketsci...ing_others.php[/quote']

 

Ha, nice article. Thanks for the nugget.

 

My particular point was more along the lines of humans engaged in such a market of trade that other humans begin to depend on that trade market and begin to abandon their previous methods of gathering. After a while, nobody uses any other method than that method - but it was never legislated, it was all done in the context of free choice.

 

There's no law that says there must exist a grocery store. There's no law requiring housing to be built. All of this stuff happens in the free market of free choice. So, people freely choose to try capitalizing on resources by engaging in trade like food, housing and so forth - again, individuals choosing to do this. No one was legislated to do business with them, they were left on their own to drum up traders.

 

Now, after this free market takes shape, we're legislating the dynamics of it? The market itself is a very creation of individual choice - choosing to even exist in the first place.

 

If access to business and service is a right, then why are they allowed to go out of business?

 

Seriously, if we're going to say that my business doesn't have the right to discriminate, claiming that it's "life threatening" or some such nonsense - then why do I have a right to close my doors rather than comply? The fact that I don't have to comply, suggests a loophole in the logic.

 

As Maynard would say "Let's go diggin'...."

 

Couldn't the government take both away from you? Don't you actually pay THEM to use that land, despite your assertion that it's "yours?" Aren't they the actual owners and don't they get to dictate what happens? (not that I agree this should be the case, just that I'm pretty sure it is).

 

I'm not sure, technically, but I'm quite sure you're right realistically. They are the owners, but I'm not sure of your point. The property was traded to my ownership without condition other than the laws of the land, which is dictated by a republic in which I am a member. I'm not actually arguing that they shouldn't dictate law to me, I'm only arguing how they make the laws that they dictate.

 

I've got this crazy notion that they should not codify morality into our laws, but to instead let society deal with the variables and challenges of moral behavior and restrict law to direct violations of freedom. That doesn't not mean the freedom to business with someone who doesn't want to do business with me - that means the freedom to do business with who does want to do business with me, like prostitution, gambling, gay pride organization, labor union, whatever....

 

So theoretically if the only hospital in town is the Baptist Medical Center and it chooses to only provide services to Christians then everybody else in the community can just do without or move somewhere else?

 

Yes. If there's no hospital at all what do they do?

 

Everytime you question whether a business should be allowed to discriminate, consider its very existence. The fact you're ok with overriding their liberties enough to demand they do business with those they don't wish to, but not ok with overriding their very right to exist, then you have to question your reasoning.

 

If I can refuse to cooperate with your law by going out of business altogether, then how sound is the reasoning you're using to justify the law in the first place?

 

If it's so threatening and important that I serve everyone in my business, then it ought to be so threatening and important I'm not allowed to shut down at all.

 

That's what makes it hard to see indiscriminate access to my business as a "right" - when I can eliminate that right by simply refusing to even get out of bed.

[john5746]

As I've said, laws implicitly come from the majority opinion held by society, so the hand of government does not "lead" society but rather "follows" society - or more to the point, the majority of it.

 

Not quite true - we have a constitution and the court system will go against public opinion to uphold it. Also, people always complain that politicians don't represent them or the public anyway.

 

don't repeat abominations like slavery.

 

That's what a pursuit of profit only will get you. It took a war between governments to stop it - not the free market

 

Now, after this free market takes shape, we're legislating the dynamics of it? The market itself is a very creation of individual choice - choosing to even exist in the first place.

 

1) Government(the people) provide all sorts of public systems that create a society where this "free" market can happen. Try starting a business in a war-torn part of Africa - you will need to provide your own security, infrastructure, etc.

 

2) Individuals choose to benefit themselves, that is why society has laws. Free markets mimic evolution, which can be effective, but ruthless.

 

So, after all of the blood and sweat of people have been paid to build a nice foundation for markets you want to just let people come and act like its free? Bullshit! If they want to act like a little god, they can go and build their own society from the ground up.

[doG]

That's what makes it hard to see indiscriminate access to my business as a "right" - when I can eliminate that right by simply refusing to even get out of bed.

 

But you don't have a "right" to open your business in the first place. It is a privilege, a privilege granted to you via a business license issued to you by the government, a government "by the people, of the people and for the people". That means "all of the people", not just some of them. Why do you think its OK for you to expect "all of the people" to issue you a business license to open a business at all if you're going to pick and choose which people can and cannot utilize your business?

[ParanoiA]

Not quite true - we have a constitution and the court system will go against public opinion to uphold it. Also, people always complain that politicians don't represent them or the public anyway.

 

The court system interprets the constitution so public opinion is irrelevant in any case. The creation of a law is generally, but not always, supported by the majority. It is, at the very least, a function of pluralism and carries the mood of the society as a whole. Legislators are elected by a majority vote, and pass laws using a majority voting system - so while its technically possible a law could get passed that nobody but those legislators wanted, it isn't very likely and certainly isn't the case with most laws in this country.

 

That's what a pursuit of profit only will get you. It took a war between governments to stop it - not the free market

 

It took governments and free market to create it in the first place. In reference to my quote, abominations like slavery got government endorsement.

 

1) Government(the people) provide all sorts of public systems that create a society where this "free" market can happen. Try starting a business in a war-torn part of Africa - you will need to provide your own security, infrastructure, etc.

 

But again, you're lumping business in with homestead. That same security and infrastructure is necessary for building neighborhoods and policing them too - if that's going to be your qualifier to limit individual choice from the market, then why not the home?

 

I just don't agree with the partition.

 

2) Individuals choose to benefit themselves' date=' that is why society has laws. Free markets mimic evolution, which can be effective, but ruthless.

 

So, after all of the blood and sweat of people have been paid to build a nice foundation for markets you want to just let people come and act like its free? Bullshit! If they want to act like a little god, they can go and build their own society from the ground up.[/quote']

 

No, after all of the blood and sweat of people have been paid to build a nice foundation for markets I want to let them use those markets as they choose, seeing as how they chose to build them in the first place. Moreoever, I want to keep my government from passing moral judgement on others. Business or homestead. They have a bad track record for it.

 

But you don't have a "right" to open your business in the first place. It is a privilege, a privilege granted to you via a business license issued to you by the government, a government "by the people, of the people and for the people". That means "all of the people", not just some of them. Why do you think its OK for you to expect "all of the people" to issue you a business license to open a business at all if you're going to pick and choose which people can and cannot utilize your business?

 

For the same reason Hooters, Exclusive Golf Clubs and hospices pick and choose which people can or cannot utilize their business.

 

"All the people" also govern the land my house is on. Why should "all the people" grant me a plot of land, purchase it, if I'm going to pick and choose who can utilize it?

 

It's a false partition and I'm just not buying it. Just because I start "trading" out of it, suddenly all these exceptions start flying out of the woodwork. It's either ok to discriminate or not - cherry picking freedom always happens when people don't like the way others are using their freedom. Well it wouldn't be "cherry picking" if they didn't know they were crossing the line - they just figure it's for "noble" reasons, so it's ok.

Edited August 26, 2008 by ParanoiA
multiple post merged

[doG]

For the same reason Hooters, Exclusive Golf Clubs and hospices pick and choose which people can or cannot utilize their business.

 

Hooters doesn't pick and choose their customers, the law does. Exclusive Clubs are just that, clubs, not businesses. I'm not aware of any hospices being picky beyond limiting their services to those that can pay for them.

 

"All the people" also govern the land my house is on. Why should "all the people" grant me a plot of land, purchase it, if I'm going to pick and choose who can utilize it?

 

You have a "right" to buy and own land. It's what you can do with that land that is limited and you cannot just do whatever you want with it. What you may do with it is a privilege granted you via the zoning the government, i.e. the people, will let you have on that land.

 

It's a false partition and I'm just not buying it. Just because I start "trading" out of it, suddenly all these exceptions start flying out of the woodwork. It's either ok to discriminate or not - cherry picking freedom always happens when people don't like the way others are using their freedom. Well it wouldn't be "cherry picking" if they didn't know they were crossing the line - they just figure it's for "noble" reasons, so it's ok.

 

There's no false partition. Much of what you assume are rights are actually privileges granted you by the people. We the people decide what you may do with your land, what kind of business you may open or operate on it and what credentials and procedures you must have and maintain for that business.

 

Back on the specific topic of health care, do you think it's OK for medical students that wouldn't be medical students at all if it weren't for the student loan from the government, er uh I mean people, to enable themselves via money from the people to become doctors and then provide services only to the people they choose? Should we the people, we the taxpayers, limit whom may get those loans to those that are willing to provide service to everyone since we the people cannot limit those very loans based on religion, gender, race, creed, ethnicity, etc.? Shouldn't it be a two way street?

[Sayonara]

"Lack of imagination" is exactly what's required for government in this case. The government, to me, should be a cold, clinical entity that only enforces objectively based and interpreted law - to promote order, security and a framework for the free society to operate freely within.

And that's exactly what they are doing.

 

No matter how many times you call this subjective law-making, the fact remains that prejudice and discrimination cause objectively verifiable and clinically predictable harm to individuals, groups, and communities.

 

This means a society that is free to discriminate against gay people, or child molesters, or no one, or everyone - whatever free choice leads each person so long as they commit no physical harm or damage to anyone.

The only reason you can make this statement and have it be commensurate with the views you state that you hold is because you have a ridiculously narrow idea of what "damage" means.

 

FYI, it is by definition not possible to discriminate against everyone.

 

"Lack of imagination" is code for how it's not fair that I sell food to John but not to Fred. You see that lack of selling food as damage - I don't.

It's not the "lack of selling food" that is the damage. It's the subjective denial of access to the service which causes the damage, yes, but the damage itself cannot be unilaterally quantified because it will differ depending on the circumstances.

 

Food is available all around and one is perfectly free to hunt and gather and trade as one wishes - why should others be required to trade with Fred just because he lacks the imagination on how he can obtain food. The fact that he can ONLY think of "grocercy shopping" would suggest a lack of imagination on his part, or society's, not mine.

You are trying to make a round peg fit in a square hole here. Clearly Fred is not free to roam about the countryside hunting for pasta bows, teabags, vacuum cleaner filters, a better cellular deal, life insurance, or orthodontic treatment.

 

I'm not the one who decided it would be really cool for humans to depend on each other so much and for so long that individually we don't know how to get food or resources any differently than the status quo. That was a result of personal choice.

The fact of the matter is that we do now live in a civilisation which centres around a service economy, and it is not right to exclude some people from accessing it because someone doesn't like them very much. Nor is it right to come up with ludicrously tortured reasoning to try and justify it.

 

Discrimination is legislated against to assimilate the minority.

No, it is legislated against because some people - despite the best efforts of the rest of us - just don't get why it is the wrong thing to do.

In the case of the legislation we are discussing in this thread, it might just as well apply to whites as to blacks (as some previous posts have discussed). I would hardly call that "assimilating the minority".

 

To accept your proposal one also has to disregard age and gender discrimination, although I can see how you personally would forget about those seeing as your posts have so far pretty much been a monument to your own worldview.

 

Seriously, think this out: Most laws, not always, but generally are formed by a majority support. Discrimination already had to be worked out by society - whether you like or not, my point is more or less reality - free society had to think it was wrong before the people they elected could make it wrong by law. At that point, you're sweeping up the minority that doesn't agree, forcing them to comply.

I don't think this is always the case, but I don't really see how it changes matters for either of us.

 

The horrible consequence to sweeping up the minority haters, is that now you establish a precedence - the power of the government to subjectively determine rules of behavior as good or bad is now legitimate.

I think you need to qualify "subjectively determine" there. Laws are not passed by some system of lucky dip.

 

I have posited that it is this power that enabled slavery. Slavery couldn't have been sanctified unless governments gave themselves the power to judge one man over another by purely subjective means - moral and ethical conclusions.

So what? The systems may be vaguely comparable, but they are not the same. Even if they were, that does not make the system "bad" per se, it simply means it can be used to ends which we may find either beneficial or unconscionable.

 

Why do you support the same principles that allowed an institution like slavery to exist - government supported and perpetuated?

Blatant strawman. Kudos on not getting Godwin's Law invoked though.

 

I'm sorry, but I look to that as a lesson that was supposed to have been learned. I think most took from it that we were hypocrites and weren't judging others fairly - I took from it that we weren't supposed to be judging each other in the first freaking place.

The lesson that most people learnt from slavery was that all people, including their individual aspirations and dreams, are of equal value and worth. Which seems to be somewhat at odds with your demands to have the right to discriminate.

 

Because my house and my business are both property that I paid for, thank you very much. But just because I decide to trade bread from one of them, suddenly I have to have my right of choice stripped because other people don't have the imagination to get bread any other way than from me?

As someone pointed out, you cannot just "sell bread". Businesses are subjected to rules which are themselves subject to change. Anyone starting up a business should know this, and if they do not then they cannot blame society for their lack of preparation.

 

Again...I'm struck by your own words:

(Why should one group of people be assured that their feelings and desires will be accommodated, while another group has to go without?)

When you start up a business you are effectively buying into society's service provision. You are no longer acting as an individual as such. Whether you are a family butcher or the president of a credit company, you are still acting as an interface between the customer and the service. You simply have no right to interfere with their access to the service because of your own personal problems.

 

No, it has to do with the principle that what you own is your property to use as you wish and it shouldn't matter if you live in it or sell bread out of it. It's still yours. And if you're going to say a business has to give everyone access then why not practice some consistency and say the same of your house?

Because that is either a stupid comparison or an intellectually dishonest strawman, without any rational basis. That's why.

 

Let's make this perfectly clear: the vast majority of laws relating to businesses exist to ensure that service providers deliver what they promise at a fair price, in transactions which threaten neither the economy nor the the customer.

 

One's home is not generally set up as a profit-driven public service, so the simple act of "living in a house" does not attract such stern supervision.

 

Give up the rubbish comparison, please, before my eyes start to bleed again.

 

Why is it that you have no problem with someone being racist with their house and only letting "certain people" come in to visit - but you don't with a business?

I have a problem with people being racist anywhere, in point of fact. But we are not discussing laws against people barring group x from their houses.

 

Although incidentally you might be interested to know that in the UK, you can conceivably commit a racially aggravated public order offence while being in your own house, which would be recorded and investigated as a hate crime. I am pretty sure there will be similar legal circumstances in the US.

 

Their "lack of imagination" on how to collect resources obligating others again?

FFS, it's not a lack of imagination. It's a cost-benefit result which comes from the hopelessly one-sided choice which society has constructed for us over many centuries.

 

Don't assume anything. I argue many things from scratch. And so far, I'm dependent on consistency - I'm quite consistent in my application of individual choice. I don't dream up pragmatic excuses to override right and wrong - I just stick with what I believe is right. So, you're wrong in helping the government to continue to legislate morallity. Just because it just so happens to agree with yours, doesn't make it a good idea. The slave owners liked it that way too.

If you genuinely think that it is right to protect your own interests (and not even good interests, but very petty ones) no matter the cost to others, then I genuinely feel sorry for you. Human civilisation would seem to be marching forward faster than you can keep up.

 

Your repeated allusions to people with a better sense of fair play than yourself being like "slave owners" are laughable, but also tiresome. They are also likely to offend people. Kindly give it up.

 

 

Exactly. Which is why the government should not be making that decision - society should. Free society. Feelings and desires are not government domain. So there is no "right" or "wrong" in the eyes of goverment. Funny that you're not consistent with this principle.

Rubbish. One of the fundamental purposes of a government is to maintain public order, so that individuals are capable of pursuing happiness. If they are allowing discrimination to go unchecked then they are failing their citizens on at least one front.

[halogirl]

honestly, although doctors will probably be allowed to switch out with someone due to their discrimination, but if you think about it, its just plain rude. when they became doctors they decided to spend their lives helping people. if they decided not to help a homosexual based on their own beliefs, then their going against their purpose, also last time i checked, their religeons said that they personally could not be attracted to the same sex, none of them said that they would be damned for helping a homosexual. in fact if thier religeons are correct wouldn't that make them the better person for being a decent human being, rather then (using christianity as an example) trying to do god's job. seriously it really is just an attempt to push one's beliefs on another person, people do this in hopes of convincing that person that they are in the wrong, not to help them.

it pays to be decent to others, especially if you're a doctor.

[Pangloss]

I thought this article from 1999 was pertinent to this issue

 

http://www.reason.com/news/show/31073.html

 

John I thought that looked interesting but I'm afraid I got kinda lost in the legalese. Do you think you could maybe boil it down for us?

 

honestly, although doctors will probably be allowed to switch out with someone due to their discrimination, but if you think about it, its just plain rude. when they became doctors they decided to spend their lives helping people. if they decided not to help a homosexual based on their own beliefs, then their going against their purpose, also last time i checked, their religeons said that they personally could not be attracted to the same sex, none of them said that they would be damned for helping a homosexual. in fact if thier religeons are correct wouldn't that make them the better person for being a decent human being, rather then (using christianity as an example) trying to do god's job. seriously it really is just an attempt to push one's beliefs on another person, people do this in hopes of convincing that person that they are in the wrong, not to help them.

it pays to be decent to others, especially if you're a doctor.

 

It's a good point to keep in mind, and one I think we all basically agreed on here (but well said!).

Edited August 27, 2008 by Pangloss
multiple post merged

[john5746]

John I thought that looked interesting but I'm afraid I got kinda lost in the legalese. Do you think you could maybe boil it down for us?

 

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act which had support from both parties, passed on the federal level, but was struck down by the Supreme Court. State governments then adopted similar acts with Texas under Bush being one of them. This article warns of the implications of these acts - that they are too subjective and may result in discrimination.

 

It would establish a principle that could entitle religious landlords, employers, and service providers to ignore laws that bar discrimination against gays, lesbians, and other minorities if those laws conflict with religious doctrines.

 

And it did both in an Alaska case and could have allowed discrimination in the case presented in the OP.

 

... O'Scannlain applied the compelling interest test. He concluded that the state of Alaska did not have a compelling interest in protecting unmarried couples from landlords who for religious reasons refuse to rent to them.

Edited August 27, 2008 by john5746

[ParanoiA]

honestly, although doctors will probably be allowed to switch out with someone due to their discrimination, but if you think about it, its just plain rude. when they became doctors they decided to spend their lives helping people. if they decided not to help a homosexual based on their own beliefs, then their going against their purpose, also last time i checked, their religeons said that they personally could not be attracted to the same sex, none of them said that they would be damned for helping a homosexual. in fact if thier religeons are correct wouldn't that make them the better person for being a decent human being, rather then (using christianity as an example) trying to do god's job. seriously it really is just an attempt to push one's beliefs on another person, people do this in hopes of convincing that person that they are in the wrong, not to help them.

it pays to be decent to others, especially if you're a doctor.

 

I couldn't agree more.

 

Hooters doesn't pick and choose their customers, the law does. Exclusive Clubs are just that, clubs, not businesses. I'm not aware of any hospices being picky beyond limiting their services to those that can pay for them.

 

They pick and choose who gets hired to work there - they are picking and choosing who gets to "utilize" their business. I don't know of any non-profit golf clubs and hospices only take the dying even though they probably have the facilities to nurse some people back to health - but no, they only take the dying.

 

These are, of course, reasonable objections because we all happen to agree. If we didn't agree, then you'd propose overriding their rights to specialize. One day we probably won't agree, and that is exactly what the people will likely do - force business to give up yet more rights so the people can make them behave how they want. After all, they're not people, they're businesses...they don't matter. Just a bunch of profiteers.

 

You have a "right" to buy and own land. It's what you can do with that land that is limited and you cannot just do whatever you want with it. What you may do with it is a privilege granted you via the zoning the government, i.e. the people, will let you have on that land.

 

There's no false partition. Much of what you assume are rights are actually privileges granted you by the people. We the people decide what you may do with your land, what kind of business you may open or operate on it and what credentials and procedures you must have and maintain for that business.

 

What you're arguing here is the origination of "rights" and by your logic here we don't have any. Everything is just a privilege nodded by the group. So why quote the constitution or get all bent out of shape about congress declaring war?

 

The reason why is because the idea of "rights" and the power of government has already been negotiated and recorded into contract called the constitution. I'm simply arguing the principles codified in that agreement between the people. I'm taking the concepts developed in that contract and arguing for their relevance and reverance. One of those concepts is "rights".

 

If we're going to have such a thing as "rights" and individual choice and free will, then I'd prefer it be consistent. I do not agree with the people's rationale to demand what kind of business I can operate on my land, or really anything that happens on my land unless it causes direct harm or consequence to them or their land. Like polluting a river, or burning your lawn.

 

I don't even understand where the people get that authority, in a philosophical sense to feel they can decide what I do with my land without any direct damage to qualify. I would never presume my neighbor should live up to MY ideas of business and fairness even if there's a hundred of me and only one of him.

 

Back on the specific topic of health care, do you think it's OK for medical students that wouldn't be medical students at all if it weren't for the student loan from the government, er uh I mean people, to enable themselves via money from the people to become doctors and then provide services only to the people they choose? Should we the people, we the taxpayers, limit whom may get those loans to those that are willing to provide service to everyone since we the people cannot limit those very loans based on religion, gender, race, creed, ethnicity, etc.? Shouldn't it be a two way street?

 

Nice segway. I was hoping this would come up. Well, my libertarian tendencies lead me away from student loads from the government, but there are other scenarios as well that will garner a response of some kind from a government entity.

 

I do agree that the government should have a "position" on discrimination - where the government employee base must respresent the position of "the people" for matters not involving rights, and judgement and so forth. This is going to be a functional consequence of who we elect in office and should represent the people. So, I have no issues with our government "aid" mirroring a moral and ethical code. We, the people, should always require fair and decent statesmen that would also demand staff and policies that are not discriminatory in any way. In that sense, the government will use a moral code set. But I vehemently disagree with using a code set to judge and restrict other citizens' range of rights.

 

The key here is restriction. The government having an "opinion" is fine, but to legislate that opinion into punishment and consequence is wrong.

 

No matter how many times you call this subjective law-making, the fact remains that prejudice and discrimination cause objectively verifiable and clinically predictable harm to individuals, groups, and communities.

 

And so does lack of college education for the people - but when does it become a "right"? There are plenty of rotten things we can do to each other that isn't healthy for us or our communities but we're still free to do them.

 

Consider this: You don't have a right to not be offended. You don't have a right to be liked. Likewise, I am not obligated to talk to you, or even be nice to you in any way. I am perfectly free to offend you, so long as I don't harrass you. With that in mind, tell me again how "prejudice and discrimination cause objectively verifiable and clinically predictable harm to individuals, groups, and communities" while still recognizing those rights I mentioned above.

 

Remember, I can cause harm to the community and discriminate freely, for a big part, using rights I have right now.

 

The only reason you can make this statement and have it be commensurate with the views you state that you hold is because you have a ridiculously narrow idea of what "damage" means.

 

FYI' date=' it is by definition not possible to discriminate against everyone. [/quote']

 

Because we are free to damage one another. I can call you a whore to your face and there's nothing you can do about it. I am free to hate and spout it all I want. So long as I am careful not to "harass" you. We already "damage" one another by any subjective metric so if that's the case you have a lot of restriction still left to put in place.

 

The laws we have were generated by this intolerance that people use their freedoms against the majority's point of view. Too bad. Truth is, we can discriminate in all kinds of ways that aren't reparable by law. So, what I see is huge cherry picking effort to engineer society at the expense of our civil liberties.

 

Best to let society do that for themselves, since that's the natural order in the first place. Leave government to look at objective harm - like beating people, harassing them, burning crosses in their yard, blocking their path...etc.

 

It's the subjective denial of access to the service which causes the damage, yes, but the damage itself cannot be unilaterally quantified because it will differ depending on the circumstances.

 

This is the heart of my point about rights. You have to demonstrate a right to access the service in the first place, in order to logically conclude damage by restricting that right. Well, if you have a "right" to access the service, then why is that service provider free to close their doors altogether and service no one at all? If it's a right, then how does that stand?

 

Because it isn't a right. We make believe it is, and rationalize that it is, so we can then conclude "damage" and then interfere out of "nobility". It couldn't until that leap was made. It was personal choice that opened the doors of that business, not a legislated right to that business by the people.

 

You are trying to make a round peg fit in a square hole here. Clearly Fred is not free to roam about the countryside hunting for pasta bows, teabags, vacuum cleaner filters, a better cellular deal, life insurance, or orthodontic treatment.

 

Yes, Fred is free to do without all of these things. They are not a right. I don't have a right to a vacuum cleaner. I have a right to roam and search for a vacuum cleaner and find someone who will trade stuff with me for it. No one has a right to stop my search or block my path on my search.

 

The fact of the matter is that we do now live in a civilisation which centres around a service economy, and it is not right to exclude some people from accessing it because someone doesn't like them very much. Nor is it right to come up with ludicrously tortured reasoning to try and justify it.

 

There's no justifying it. It's not ok to discriminate. It's not ok for the government to have an "opinion" on moral behavior and then legislate it - no matter how much all of us agree with this opinion. That's all I'm saying. The consequence would be relatively transparent. No one is going to commit financial, capitalist suicide by promoting any kind of discrimination. The only exception being racist organizations, like the KKK or black panthers, which are already in operation even under our subjective law structure.

 

No' date=' it is legislated against because some people - despite the best efforts of the rest of us - just don't get why it is the wrong thing to do.

In the case of the legislation we are discussing in this thread, it might just as well apply to whites as to blacks (as some previous posts have discussed). I would hardly call that "assimilating the minority".[/quote']

 

Yes, it's difficult for those of us who don't want to repeat the shame of slavery to watch the rest of you, despite my best effort, follow the same logical path to that end.

 

I don't know why it's so hard for people to grasp the idea that government endorsed prejudice, never feels like prejudice at the time. Do you really think the southern slave drivers thought they were wrong? Do you not get that they believed they were morally right?

 

With that information alone, it should be sufficient to drive home the point that you cannot trust your own judgement - you cannot trust society's judgement of moral behavior - enough to legislate it. We have to recognize that we are very likely to commit more horrible shame for posterity to live down if we continue to legislate morality.

 

I can't be anymore clear than that. Just like stupid people don't know they're stupid, we also can't trust that we'll correctly detect discrimination in ourselves. It must, therefore, in my opinion, never be legislated or put into legal authority. That requires an investment in objective measurement, again, in my opinion.

 

____________________________________________________

 

And with that, I'm worn out. I might come back later and grab some key points, or if anybody feels left out or thinks I've "dodged" a good point, feel free to send me a private message, or call me out here in the thread. But you guys are wearing me the hell out.

 

To be clear, I am not advocating racism or sexism, or any other ism. I believe society already decides what is considered discrimination and what is not - it already decides what is acceptable and what is not. When it becomes law, it does so because the majority already agrees - not because the majority needs to be lead in the proper direction.

 

So law, to me, only serves to force the minority opinion to obey. It doesn't teach them they're wrong. It doesn't compell them to change their mind, it only forces them to behave like 'x'. Anyone who knows my mantra knows that I'm a big believer in hands off persuasion.

 

Persuade them, and then not only will they change "access to services" but they will also make many other changes in their life - changes that involve interpersonal relationships, community service and aid - things that can't be legislated, even today.

[Sayonara]

To be honest ParanoiA, I am worn out too (although it has more to do with just getting in from work than the thread). Your latest post though has left me somewhat confused as to whether you are opposed to the idea of society rejecting discrimination per se, or the idea that this rejection be mediated by government

[ParanoiA]

To be honest ParanoiA, I am worn out too (although it has more to do with just getting in from work than the thread). Your latest post though has left me somewhat confused as to whether you are opposed to the idea of society rejecting discrimination per se, or the idea that this rejection be mediated by government

 

Ah, I'm not only "unopposed" to the idea of society rejecting discrimination, I'm advocating that society reject discrimination, feircly. My central theme from the very beginning is that this rejection never be done by government force - law.

 

And my reasoning for that is based on the assumption that moral codes and ethics are an ever evolving, changing construct that is retarded by static law. And, by natural consequence of ever changing human values, has historically proven to be as guilty of perpetuating a discriminatory practice as erradicating one. And to me, the greatest sin we could commit is to endorse a discriminatory practice in legislation - even if we didn't mean to, even if we meant well. I don't think we can trust our present notions of values to be the same in the future, so law can only serve against us.

 

I reject discrimination in my personal life by rejecting the haters. I lost a friend, a neighbor, because he didn't respect my offense to his epithetical references to black folks. He also had issues with homosexuality - actually stated proudly that he would reject his own son if he came home "queer". I laughed at him over this, asked him if he was afraid it was contagious, but it's really not funny. I don't want this language used around my kids, and I don't want to hear it myself. As cliche as it sounds, our kids really are our future. And I want them to experience and interpret the world from a biased free perspective - as much as is possible, anyway.

[doG]

They pick and choose who gets hired to work there - they are picking and choosing who gets to "utilize" their business.

 

In what way? I visited various Hooters and encountered people of all types working there including some with waiters. I also never encountered them screening whom may or may not eat there so who is it that doesn't get to utilize their business.

 

I don't know of any non-profit golf clubs and hospices only take the dying even though they probably have the facilities to nurse some people back to health - but no, they only take the dying.

 

Just because a club has a bank account does not make it a public business. I'm a member of a local rocket club and we usually have a balance in the bank from year to year but we don't file any taxes on it either.

 

Aren't hospitals in the business of nursing people back to health? Can you name any hospices that prevent terminally ill patients from returning to regular medical treatment if their condition improves? Just because they provide a service for the terminally ill does not qualify their service as discriminatory. Do you think barber shops discriminate against bald people too?

 

What you're arguing here is the origination of "rights" and by your logic here we don't have any. Everything is just a privilege nodded by the group. So why quote the constitution or get all bent out of shape about congress declaring war?

 

Much of it is a privilege. Do you think you have a "right" to drive on public roadways without a license? No, you do not. You apply, you test to show your proficiency to operate a vehicle safely without endangering others and then you are granted a privilege to use the roads with a drivers license with can be taken away from you at any time that your use of that privilege violates the rights of others.

 

Business licenses work the same way. You cannot just device you want to hang up a shingle that says you're a doctor and start seeing patients. You must demonstrate an appropriate course of education and demonstrated proficiency to be granted the privilege to practice as a doctor.

 

The reason why is because the idea of "rights" and the power of government has already been negotiated and recorded into contract called the constitution. I'm simply arguing the principles codified in that agreement between the people. I'm taking the concepts developed in that contract and arguing for their relevance and reverance. One of those concepts is "rights".

 

Rights like those enumerated in the 14th Amendment?

 

Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights. Ratified 7/9/1868. Note History

 

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States' date=' and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.[/quote']

 

Do notice that the Constitution specifically calls your citizenship rights "privileges". Where the law says that a licensed business cannot discriminate against protected classes or groups of people then you cannot just decide that your liberty trumps the law. That's exactly what the doctors in this case did. California has a law on the books that specifically prohibits businesses from discriminating the way these doctors did.

 

If we're going to have such a thing as "rights" and individual choice and free will, then I'd prefer it be consistent. I do not agree with the people's rationale to demand what kind of business I can operate on my land, or really anything that happens on my land unless it causes direct harm or consequence to them or their land. Like polluting a river, or burning your lawn.

 

So any unclean, unqualified hack should be able to hang his shingle and start treating patients with no oversight? Mixing his own potions and dispensing his own prescriptions regardless of their potential danger? Would it be OK if your neighbor started a nuclear research facility in his garage? It wouldn't violate any of your rights until you actually suffered some harm, right? You've got no "right" to any safety protections do you?

 

I don't even understand where the people get that authority, in a philosophical sense to feel they can decide what I do with my land without any direct damage to qualify. I would never presume my neighbor should live up to MY ideas of business and fairness even if there's a hundred of me and only one of him.

 

The people get the authority because the Constitution says so.

 

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

 

We the People are a society, an entity, all citizens of a common central core. Yes, we have some individual rights and liberties but we also have some collective rights and liberties. That's exactly why the people have two houses of Congress, the House Of Representatives which represents us as individuals and the Senate which represents us collectively as the joined members of the States. What you support is maximum rights for the people as individuals at the expense of our State's rights which are intended to provide us collective liberties as a society like a common defense. Be careful what you wish for.

 

Nice segway. I was hoping this would come up. Well, my libertarian tendencies lead me away from student loads from the government, but there are other scenarios as well that will garner a response of some kind from a government entity.

 

Why? The availability of funds from our taxes is the reason we have more health care providers per capita than any other nation in the world. This is why we collectively have the quality of care available that we have on the scale that we do.

 

I do agree that the government should have a "position" on discrimination - where the government employee base must respresent the position of "the people" for matters not involving rights, and judgement and so forth. This is going to be a functional consequence of who we elect in office and should represent the people. So, I have no issues with our government "aid" mirroring a moral and ethical code. We, the people, should always require fair and decent statesmen that would also demand staff and policies that are not discriminatory in any way. In that sense, the government will use a moral code set. But I vehemently disagree with using a code set to judge and restrict other citizens' range of rights.

 

So you have no issues with Christian students using government "aid" to become doctors that will only treat Christians when they graduate? Or black students using that same "aid" only to treat blacks only when they graduate? That we the people fund these people collectively and we get nothing in return collectively, only those individuals whom they decide to provide service to? You';re really OK with spending "your" money to send these people to school while granting them the rights to refuse "you" service?

[ParanoiA]

In what way? I visited various Hooters and encountered people of all types working there including some with waiters. I also never encountered them screening whom may or may not eat there so who is it that doesn't get to utilize their business.

 

So that was a figment of my imagination that they were engaged in a legal dispute about discriminatory hiring practices based on the idea that they sell burgers from hot chicks in scimpy outfits? Been to an equal opportunity strip club lately? I don't remember seeing any "big girls" or old women, or any kind of man on stage - they were all in the audience.

 

They are being discriminated against, by your logic, so go get 'em. My 80 year old grandma ought to be able to work there. But no....they want to turn a profit and make believe that horny men want to see young women and are discriminating in order to gaurantee only good looking young women get to work there.

 

Just because a club has a bank account does not make it a public business. I'm a member of a local rocket club and we usually have a balance in the bank from year to year but we don't file any taxes on it either.

 

Aren't hospitals in the business of nursing people back to health? Can you name any hospices that prevent terminally ill patients from returning to regular medical treatment if their condition improves? Just because they provide a service for the terminally ill does not qualify their service as discriminatory. Do you think barber shops discriminate against bald people too?

 

Right' date=' my point is that they limit the scope of who can "utilize" their business by sensible discriminatory practice. Hospices focus on the dying. Profit turning golf clubs also focus on golf geeks. Everyone else doesn't really get to utilize their business.

 

The thing is, we don't call that "discrimination" because we agree with it. We agree that a hospice has the right to deny flu patients, and admit a dying old woman instead. That's discrimination. But we "say" it like the hospice is "focusing" or "specializes" - we edit the word discrimination here because we agree with its application here and interpret the word "discrimination" as a pejorative.

 

Much of it is a privilege. Do you think you have a "right" to drive on public roadways without a license? No, you do not. You apply, you test to show your proficiency to operate a vehicle safely without endangering others and then you are granted a privilege to use the roads with a drivers license with can be taken away from you at any time that your use of that privilege violates the rights of others.

 

The public paid for that roadway. So of course, I have no issues with it. If you want to buy me a business, I'll be happy to do it discrimination free, like any businessman would do anyway.

 

Business licenses work the same way. You cannot just device you want to hang up a shingle that says you're a doctor and start seeing patients. You must demonstrate an appropriate course of education and demonstrated proficiency to be granted the privilege to practice as a doctor.

 

But a doctor is engaging in an activity that is immersed in direct harm and damage - observable harm. They are basically given an "exception" status to cut, poke, prod and give drugs to people that can kill them. This is murder. So in order to have such a thing as "medical practice" we would have to make such activity a privilege.

 

And, that's not an infringement on personal choice. Just like denying you the right to stab me is not an infringement on your rights. I never said you have the right to run a business that kills people or causes direct damage. In fact, that's been my criteria for this entire thread - if it doesn't cause direct harm or damage, then I don't believe we have the right to restrict it.

 

Some people choose chiropractors and "healers" - nothing stops those people from endangering other's lives by redirecting them away from actual medical practioners. They can't cut or give drugs, because here again, we're talking about tools for direct harm. Objective, direct damage.

 

Not damage "perceived" by applying my particular morals and ethics - but actual, bloody, observable damage.

 

What's so hard to get about that? Your rights end, where other's begin. It would seem quite appropriate to make a privilege out of a practice that engages directly in direct harm and damage.

 

Do notice that the Constitution specifically calls your citizenship rights "privileges".

 

It also said immunities. In the same sentence. Two words away, separated by an "or".

 

Where the law says that a licensed business cannot discriminate against protected classes or groups of people then you cannot just decide that your liberty trumps the law.

 

Right, I never advocated otherwise. I'm arguing against the law's existence. I'm challenging the notion that doctors shouldn't have a right to refuse treatment for whatever freaking reason they want since I believe you do not have the right to enslave people through blackmail to satisfy your moral code set. Threatening their license, their livelihood, unless they comply to the government's ideas of "good behavior" - the same government that declared slaves as 3/5 a person - is blackmail and it's wrong.

 

 

So any unclean, unqualified hack should be able to hang his shingle and start treating patients with no oversight? Mixing his own potions and dispensing his own prescriptions regardless of their potential danger? Would it be OK if your neighbor started a nuclear research facility in his garage? It wouldn't violate any of your rights until you actually suffered some harm, right? You've got no "right" to any safety protections do you?

 

Actually, I do believe the role of government is to protect us from objective harm. I've already covered the medical angle, and this would seem similar in that the activity could be considered a threat to national security. People are free to navigate in the ocean, and they are free to own guns, but they aren't free to point guns at the coast and invade Florida.

 

So, I do believe the government's role is to extinguish threats to the security of the nation - and running a nuclear facility, of any kind, garners the attention of threat assessment. It's the armed boat coasting off the coast of Florida - when does a person's "rights" get trumped by the reality of national security?

 

Well, that's a big debate right now, actually. But again, we're at least talking about consequences that involve direct damage and harm. Not conclusions that require moral code processing to deduce.

 

And no, I haven't made up my mind about it. It's always been a good argument to point out nuclear warhead development by the neighbors being unacceptable.

 

The people get the authority because the Constitution says so.

 

Right. Pointing out what "is" again. Irrelevant to my point entirely. I even elaborated on it with a second sentence. The principles in the Constitution are driven by philosophical conclusions - my statement is about that philosophical conclusion, not about the resultant law.

 

I'm questioning where a person gets the just philosophical notion that someone else should be forced to run a business that reflects their ideas of good and bad. If we were writing the constitution today, where would we get the audacity to make that presumption?

 

We the People are a society, an entity, all citizens of a common central core. Yes, we have some individual rights and liberties but we also have some collective rights and liberties. That's exactly why the people have two houses of Congress, the House Of Representatives which represents us as individuals and the Senate which represents us collectively as the joined members of the States. What you support is maximum rights for the people as individuals at the expense of our State's rights which are intended to provide us collective liberties as a society like a common defense. Be careful what you wish for.

 

Right, we disagree on the proportion. I don't agree that state's rights have a legitimate case to override individual rights in terms of discrimination. In this case, the collective state's rights are oppressive, have precedence to cause irreparable harm and shame, and trample too much on individual liberty. The balance is tiled heavily in the collective's rights favor, unjustly, in my opinion.

 

Why? The availability of funds from our taxes is the reason we have more health care providers per capita than any other nation in the world. This is why we collectively have the quality of care available that we have on the scale that we do.

 

If that's true, so what? I'll bet if we forced little kids to be doctors, against their will, we'd have even more huh? I could cut crime in half if you let me strip your civil liberties away. But it's not acceptable to sacrifice some of our principles like that, even for noble intent. Think Bush, wiretapping and etc.

 

And there are many who believe we have the level of care that we do because there is a lot of profit in medicine - doctors are rewarded with big salaries, as opposed to other more socialist approaches to medicine that result in lower pay, smaller talent pool. Not a value judgement, just clinical observation. After all, we also have profit driven hospitals that are run el cheapo style on the resources - money goes to a doctor's pocket rather than a new EKG machine.

 

So you have no issues with Christian students using government "aid" to become doctors that will only treat Christians when they graduate? Or black students using that same "aid" only to treat blacks only when they graduate? That we the people fund these people collectively and we get nothing in return collectively, only those individuals whom they decide to provide service to? You';re really OK with spending "your" money to send these people to school while granting them the rights to refuse "you" service?

 

Yes, I'm ok with them exercising their freedom to discriminate against me, legally. Personally, I'm going to make a scene, and cuss at them, and I'm pretty sure the media would love to help fry them.

 

But, that also serves to illustrate what's wrong with forcing the citizenry to pay taxes for industry that has nothing to do with the narrow role of government. Persuasion to get my tax money? Cool. Forcing my tax money? Not cool. The above scenario that you present is a good reason why I shouldn't be forced to participate in their education funding.

[iNow]

I was reminded about how strongly I disagree with this selective medicine nonsense earlier this morning.

 

A great post over at Respectful Insolence that's worth the read:

 

 

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2008/09/when_religion_interferes_with_medical_ed.php

When religion interferes with medical education

[Glider]

That reminds me of something that happened last academic semester. A student complained about my 'going on' about alcohol in one of the seminars of the module 'Psychobiology and Clinical Neuroscience'. The seminar title was 'Mechanisms of Action of Psychoactive Drugs'.

 

Given that alcohol is one of the most commonly abused psychoactive drugs, it's quite hard to avoid the topic. That student will be taking Health Psychology this coming semester. I fully expect another complaint as alcohol, addiction and other related topics are covered in much more depth in that module.

[iNow]

The mental contortions that must go on in these people's heads to avoid this. They go into medicine, which at its root is to help people, yet they refuse to help a particluar group (aka discriminate against) because of their religious teachings.

 

If you cannot help everyone equally, then you cannot be a doctor. Simple. I couldn't care less what your religion is. If you're going to med school, you have to learn medicine and treat people without Iron Age fairy tales impacting your actions and curriculum.

 

It's just so infuriating, as this seems so simple to understand and such common sense. If waving my body around in front of women is against my beliefs, I'm not going to get a job as a stripper. If alcohol is against my beliefs, I'm not going to be a bartender. If you can't treat all patients the same, then you can't be a general practitioner. If you can't give out all medicines available, then you can't be a pharmacist. Come on... Why is this so hard to grasp?!?

 

</exasperated venting>