It is almost humorous that the party which accepts a womans right to murder a half born child does not accept a business' right to choose who they serve. What kind of twisted logic are we dealing with? Pro choice? not quite........ I see your true colors!!! <object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/LPn0KFlbqX8&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xd0d0d0&hl=en_US&feature=player_detailpage&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/LPn0KFlbqX8&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xd0d0d0&hl=en_US&feature=player_detailpage&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>
You think you are right... You are entitled to that opinion. The winner isn't going to be decided with a layman's legal opinions on a message board. You will eventually get pissed off and huff and puff, demanding like a child...and then will go away...for a while...I've seen it with regularity here at ET. Go ahead, open a business that caters to the public and then deny service to a minority group on the basis of their race...and see what happens... See...the thing that happens is people like you try to win...and you never ever do actually win, even when you think you are winning, you know deep inside that you are not winning...and I never lose, never have lost here at ET...and it pisses people off...and you don't even know why that actually is... So...Go ahead, open a business that caters to the public and then deny service to a minority group or person on the basis of their race...and see what happens... Keep playing the tic tac toe and thinking you are going to win...
Or you could just answer the question. It's really as simple as that. Winning, losing what? Problem is you never give a straight answer thinking it's a clever hedge against losing. But what that really says is that you don't know what you are talking about.
You think it is that simple... Fine. Go ahead, open a business that rejects customers and refuses them service on the basis of their race...see how that works out... "Problem is you never give a straight answer thinking it's a clever hedge against losing. But what that really says is that you don't know what you are talking about." Oh yes, you sure have it all figured out...don't you... That would mean you are right, wouldn't it? That would mean I am wrong, right? You are losing...and don't even know it... Go ahead, open a business that rejects customers and refuses them service on the basis of their race...see how that works out...
In my opinion it's unethical, but it's not criminal. I.e. it's similar in principle to calling someone a racial epithet or refusing to talk to them or interact with them normally because of their race. Or similar to refusing to save someone who is drowning, or assist in putting out a fire. I.e. morally distasteful and wrong in some sense, a bit like cheating in a marriage or telling certain types of lies, but not breaking a legal obligation. I would say it's criminal to *force* doctors to treat people they don't want to, or to prohibit them practicing just because you don't like their political views. A neo-Nazi or marxist revolutionary doctor IMO still has the right to practice medicine. This is pretty easy to establish - the only way to prevent racist or politically "beyond the pale" doctors doing this is to enslave them, which is obviously criminal. The Hippocratic Oath isn't required by many modern medical schools, and in any case there is nothing to stop a doctor refusing to take it or renouncing it. There is nothing sacred about what 1 ancient Greek said 2500 years ago.
Businesses are operated and owned by humans therefore business rights are indistinguishable from human rights.
You do know that people sue for unethical behavior of others that is not a crime in the way you are suggesting...and they do win in civil court, right? "Or similar to refusing to save someone who is drowning" Refusing to save someone could be seen as depraved indifference in some courts...it depends on the circumstances. Just ask the Goldman's if you can win in a criminal trial and lose in a civil trial... Oh, I don't think you have to force a doctor to heal someone...you just take away their license to practice medicine. They can get a different job...being a practicing doctor is not a right...it is a privilege governed by the medical board...so let a doctor refuse to treat an injured person that results in pain and suffering or death of a patient because a doctor refused to treat them on the basis of their race...and see what happens to that doctor's license to practice medicine.
Do you think it would have been ethical for the protestors to invade the segregated facilities and force the racist doctors to perform operations at gunpoint? If not, why not.