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???

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.

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.

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.

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 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?

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?

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.

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?

I know the law. My point is it’s worth considering whether there should be these kinds of laws. It’s not a top priority or even a philosophy I subscribe to. It’s a little frustrating because Merit (sorry dude) is rambling all over the place and not doing much to advocate for the merits of a much more laissez faire style of governance. Since I’m not a proponent of private property I’m not especially inspired to try to resell it for him. Starting from a position of homophobia didn’t help.

Exactly

No worries. I' m always doing a dozen things at once when I'm on here, so I don't have time to make long, thought-out diatribes.

And again, it's not about homophobia, it's about others not having the right to your labor. What is more fascist? A gay couple being denied [by fellow private citizens] a wedding cake because they are homosexuals, or a citizen being forced by their government to perform labor against their will? I think both are wrong and stupid, but the latter is worse.