Quote:
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).
Quote:
|
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?
Quote:
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?