...makes no sense, at all, that YOU want government to be able to pick and choose when it can make someone provide a service.
When something is a life-saving issue, I do believe there is a "general welfare" provision in the constitution that gives the federal government oversight into such an issue. When it's whether or not someone's teeth are whitened, or they can be inseminated, or they get a latte from the store of their choice, I see (personally) no such "general welfare" that would put the government into play.
What if the doctor figures the person is a goner and life saving attempts are a waste of time and resources? Is that decision up to we, the people while all others are not? What if they don't like the persons religion? Or their sexual habits? Or their favorite football team? How do you make exceptions to what you argue is some sort of preeminent right of choice all the rest of the time?
Simple public accommodation and common sense dictates that if a society has the right to regulate and oversee commerce from a simple standpoint of basic rules and regulations, evenly applied, then there is a societal expectation that someone wishing to do business, under those conditions can, at the very least, leave their personal beliefs over who has the 'right' to their services at home along with their faith.
You people are embarrassing yourselves by asserting a right to discrimination for all and any reasons, to take us back over 140 years of societal evolution in order to justify and cover up your own fears and dislikes based on the private sexual practices of a given person.
Based on your arguments, a business has a right to discriminate based on every single sin and offense to God in the Bible without question, without argument. You seek to throw out the baby and the bathwater based on one specific piece of dirt, as you see it, in that water that holds particular offense to your sensibilities, never mind that it doesn't have one thing to do with your own right to life, liberty and your pursuit of happiness.
You're mistaking the reason of discrimination for the reason discrimination should be allowed. If we truly are a free society, a capitalist society, then anyone has the right to build or destroy their business as they see fit.
I would not go to a store or restaraunt that denied service based on race, gender, sexual orientation, etc., etc. I doubt you would, either. Therefore, if a place of business chose that avenue, they would probably go under. That's freedom - freedom to succeed or fail all on your own. I really don't care what the reason is this doc decided not to serve this customer. I just believe a business has the right to deny service as they see fit. I do not believe the government has the right to deny service as they see fit, as they are BY THE PEOPLE, FOR THE PEOPLE, AND OF THE PEOPLE. Target is not. Target is a private organization. Should they choose to only serve pretty young black girls in short skirts, they have that right. And, they have the right to fail. And, if you're a pretty young girl in a short skirt, you have the right to recognize that would be a stupid, discriminatory, abhorant action on Target's part, and not frequent the store.
I do not see the constitutional authority for the government to tell me who, as a business owner, I have to provide my product/services to. Unless there is a compelling "general welfare" component (say, an ER doctor, an electricity provider, a single grocery store within hundreds of miles, etc., etc.), I see no authority nor reason for the law/government to be involved at all.
If you want the government to ensure private social equality for all, forced upon people, I think you're in the wrong. That's all.
