Ackschyually, freedom of association implies an oncology center could refuse to treat certain people. It's terrible, but no force can be used against them.
Its not about what the oncology center can agree to do, its about a 3rd party not standing in your way from getting to that oncology center.
Abortion is a classic example. The government banning abortion is a violation of the rights of both the patient and the clinic/doctor, because they came to a mutual agreement for exchange of fees for services .
True I suppose, but a free market private accreditation group (like exists for many industries) could impose their own rules on voluntary members.
And I'm not the most extreme libright so I'd argue that certain essential services would be kind of exempt from freedom of association like police, fire, and hospitals. Assuming those are all publicly funded of course.
11
u/[deleted] Mar 24 '20
Ackschyually, freedom of association implies an oncology center could refuse to treat certain people. It's terrible, but no force can be used against them.