That's so sad :(

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.

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

If that's not consistent with what you offer as an architect and builder, then you have every right to refuse them that service or say "I don't do murals sorry but how many buttons do you want." If make a name for yourself as a sex dungeon heavy architect, then you have a lot less room to refuse service. Do you seriously think that's the same as refusing service on something like race alone? That is sad, adorable, and hilarious all at once.

You're not just committing a slippery slope fallacy here, you're jumping off of a slippery cliff dude.

When you offer your labour as a commodity, you give people that right.

:laughing:

Yeah, and it's also like refusing to let someone kill you because they're a republican! Don't be a ****ing fascist!

Lmao, yeah the almighty contract, can't break that.

IF you believe the “owner” of a business is in fact the rightful owner Merit’s argument holds up. Say it’s my place. A jazz bar perhaps, I think how the bar operates should be up to me. Maybe I only want to serve one legged gay senior citizens. Maybe I don’t want to serve someone because **** him I don’t need a reason. I’m sympathetic to that reasoning.

I do not think the profit motive will solve discrimination problems but to me freedom means the right to discriminate.

In the antebellum and Jim Crow south the laws didn’t only allow discrimination they made desegregation illegal so that example is NOT a Libertarian economy.

It’s not perfect but there’s an appealing logic to what Merit is saying. Basically, if it’s your business you should be able to do what ever the **** you want with it.

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.

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?
You have heard of the Hippocratic Oath, I assume?