In Rand Paul's world, does a private doctor get to refuse treatment to a black man?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by OPTIONAL777, May 23, 2010.

  1. Humans are held to ethical standards all the time, and when they are breached in a manner that causes harm to others...they get sued and often lose...

    I don't think "I had the right to refuse them service because of my human right to hate black people" will go over too well at a civil trial...especially if the jury is of a certain disposition...

     
    #121     May 26, 2010
  2. Noam Chomsky is not in favour of nazism but he supports the rights of Nazis to express their views. Are you saying Chomsky is only against nazism until a nazi author or publisher engages in it?
     
    #122     May 26, 2010
  3. At gunpoint?

    No, but at the point of the doctors being under the threat of losing their license to practice medicine...yes.

     
    #123     May 26, 2010
  4. Strawman...

    Useless...

    You lose...

    I would venture to guess that Chomsky is in favor of the right of Nazis to have free speech about Nazism, but would not be supportive of actions that were immoral and injurious to other human beings in the way Nazi's were to other human beings...

    Racists are free to march, assemble, talk about their hatred of blacks...that's all free speech...but acting on their racism to deny the rights of blacks to eat lunch at a public restaurant is a different matter...

     
    #124     May 26, 2010
  5. Aha - so you support racism after all?
     
    #125     May 26, 2010
  6. No, I don't support racism after all...

    The law allows for private clubs to be racist in their practices within the private clubs.

    Membership does have it privileges...much different from a business that is supposedly open to the public.

     
    #126     May 26, 2010
  7. Rights aren't created by a constitution. A document can only announce already-existing rights. Slaves had rights before the law said so. Did you "like the law" back then?
     
    #127     May 26, 2010
  8. So what? Ethics have nothing to do with what the law is, or what 12 people think. The law used to allow slavery, protect the property rights of slaveholders, and criminalize helping escaped slaves. Juries regularly sentenced people to death based on their race or slave status.

    Therefore, the law and the opinions of juries have no ethical status whatsoever.
     
    #128     May 26, 2010
  9. Really? You seem to be confusing rights with laws.
     
    #129     May 26, 2010
  10. So a doctor's political views are grounds for forcibly prohibiting him from working? Like in the USSR or 1984? Does that apply to doctors who are communists too?
     
    #130     May 26, 2010