I don’t think your prediction widespread refusal of service, let alone unavailability of service, would come to pass at all
I am basing this from what I’ve seen in places like India, so I’m definitely biased. It may seem like a bad prediction for the U.S., but I tend to be wary about things like this when I’ve seen it happen elsewhere.
…
But that violates no rights. No one has a right to the labor and/or property of another
Would you say the same for a doctor who refuses life-saving treatment for a child based on the religion/race/sexual orientation of the parents? For certain jobs like my own (pharmacist), I do believe that I have an obligation to help people even if I disagree with them or hate their views.
So, if you provide services to some, then you are taking rights from others by not servicing them…but you are not taking anyone’s rights by not servicing anyone?
The last part confuses me. But as long as I’m not refusing service to anyone who can pay, then I’m not taking away their rights.
…
HUGE difference in demanding customized preferences particular to your belief on someone else that doesn’t share it.
Out of respect you shouldn’t do that, but it’s such a slippery slope IMO to let store owners refuse a service based on identity. Even beyond needed services like the doctor example from a few paragraphs above. For example, if a Christian wanted a Jesus-themed cake from an athiest baker, I’d argue the baker has to make it even if he doesn’t want to. I say that as an athiest.
There are a lot of ideologies I hate, but I can’t refuse service to them because of it.
So if I’m the only health care worker in the area, I should be allowed to let a baby die from lack of treatment because I don’t like their parents’ religion?
That’s great! You’re saying you don’t need the government to force you to serve others, right?
Me, no. But there are some people who need to be forced to serve customers who’ve done nothing wrong other than be the “wrong religion.” For a real example, a Hindu doctor in India who’d refuse Muslims and would let a Muslim baby die.
If I understand your view, you’re saying that it’s alright to refuse service to EVERYONE
I am confused by your point here. If a business can’t refuse service to someone who can’t pay, then we’d need to competely reorganize how our economy runs. Every business would have to become a charity.
Yes. You realize we have “healthcare workers” who actively kill babies as it is, right?
Ah. Some less civilized or advanced peoples, I suppose. Here, we see another trait of the Progressive Authoritarian: superiority complex.
Yes. How about that lone Doctor in the deep wilderness? Would it be preferable that he refuse to treat ALL patients instead of just that baby? He could just refuse to use his skills for anything and be okay?
Most of my family and family friends own pharmacies/doctor’s offices/other businesses and regularly do “IOUs.” Not gonna get into details for obvious reasons, but we’ve done services for people who’d pay later or couldn’t pay at all. You don’t advertise this since it invites scummy people who can pay but don’t want to. However, when you provide services that are needed such as healthcare, you have an obligation to help people who legitimately cannot pay. It’s legal for us to refuse service, but we’re not shit heads who’d do so.
Other examples my family does includes being fair with the tent for tenants and telling patients when they don’t need a drug or supplement (even if it’d make us money). These should be mimimum standards IMO and not even seen as us being “good people.”
You gave examples of when business should be obligated to serve. You have no problem with a business refusing service when a customer cannot pay. Should doctors be forced to serve all who cannot pay? Should the child die?
Is money of more importance/value then someone’s personal beliefs?
Is this a question about personal values or legal policy? Genuinely asking.
If it’s legal policy, then businesses that provide needed services such as healthcare shouldn’t be allowed to refuse patients who can’t pay. That’s why my family, most young people, and I are pro-universal healthcare since we’ve seen first hand how scammy private healthcare is. As someone in the industry and who makes money from it, I can attest to how scammy and inherently inhumane it is. I wouldn’t say the same for non-essential services like a baker, though. If you can’t afford a cake, then screw off. But no child should die because their parents are poor.
However, this is a completely seperate conversation, which is why I feel that it’s off-topic. If we’re talking about customers who can’t pay, we end up talking about universal healthcare and capitalism in general (I’m pro-capitalism btw).
On the specific topic of refusing customers based on personal beliefs, I’ve seen it go horribly wrong in the 3rd world, and I don’t want the U.S. to copy 3rd world practices such as this.
Ending this here since we’ll probably have to agree to disagree. I am definitely biased on this topic based on my experiences since I’ve seen the worst-case scenario happen. That probably won’t happen in the U.S., but I don’t want to take the risk. Hopefully that makes sense. It’s all fun and games until the only doctor in 50 miles refuses service because he doesn’t like your religion (won’t happen in the U.S. probably, but happened in India).
I didn’t say I was “okay” with it. My personal feelings should not be law. You and I have no right to the service of another.
If my baby were starving, I’d probably rob someone to feed him. I’d still deserve to be killed by my victim. I WOULD feel that way if it were my baby. Under NO CIRCUMSTANCE do I or anyone else have a right to the service of another.
Because you threw in the ol’ “I don’t need to be forced to do XYZ, but other people aren’t as good as me and do.”
Because you threw in the ol’ “I don’t need to be forced to do XYZ, but other people aren’t as good as me and do.”
I wouldn’t murder an innocent man, but some people on the planet would and clearly do. I’d like to think everyone in this thread wouldn’t murder an innocent man. So using this for example: Yes, everyone in this thread doesn’t need to be forced to not murder, but other people aren’t as good as us. That’s why laws exist against murder.
Not letting an innocent child die from a treatable illness is one of the most basic forms of morality I can think of. So yes, there is something inherently defective with someone who’d let a baby die like that, regardless of who the parents are. There are people who’d happily let your child die because of who you are. I’ve met them. They should NOT be allowed to do that.
As an add-on: You’re the first person to bash me as a progressive about this. Most progressives I talk to HATE me for this because I hate a lot of aspects of Indian, Middle Eastern, Chinese and African culture for being inherently authoritarian and inhumane. Which is why much of my argument was talking about how I don’t want the U.S. to copy what I’ve seen the 3rd world do.
No. Laws against murder exist to punish the murderer and to protect society from him. You are not being forced to not murder. A murderer INITIATES force against his victim.
Sure there are. And I couldn’t care less.
They should not be allowed to KILL my child, but they shouldn’t have to lift one finger to help him. It’s my job as a parent to get my child help; it’s not someone else’s duty to help him.
It doesn’t get a lot more authoritarian than forced labor, which you support.
but they shouldn’t have to lift one finger to help him.
I can see why you’re treating my murder example as a bad analogy to the doctor/patient example. However, I hope you see my general point about why laws exist/should exist.
A doctor letting a child die because they don’t want to do “forced labor” is just murder by a different name. If you don’t see this, then I feel you are purposely missing the point. This doctor would be a murderer, and because of this, he should be made to do “forced labor” to save the child’s life. This really should be the least controversial thing ever.
but they shouldn’t have to lift one finger to help him.
Then that person isn’t fit to be a doctor/pharmacist/nurse/etc. Again, for this specific example, this healthcare professional is a murderer. This becomes real in certain parts of the world where there’s only one doctor in an area . Then there’s nowhere to get your child help in time. The “911” equivalent in rural India is meme-worthy. And the idea of an ER is a dream.
If you’re walking by a swimming pool with a child in it, actively drowning, do you think that saying you have a moral obligation to save the child entails “forced labor?”
More importantly, do you believe that if all people were to start making decisions based on this sort of reasoning, the world would become a better place?
The right to refuse service is an odd thing to prioritize over the right to life. And one of the hallmarks of medical ethics is indiscriminate care.
Here’s an interesting case of service refusal from a few years ago. Had it gone the trans activists way, it would have resulted in a court ordered sexual assault. At least Canada was able to get that much right.