There is a distinction between discrimination and preference. The latter seems to be a protected right and the former actionable if it can be proven. For example, a potential employer chooses the best candidate for the job based on his or her own set of criteria, often preferences. The employer is within his or her rights to chose one candidate over another just "because." If, a job applicant suspects and can prove that he or she was denied employment due to his or her gender, age, race, sexual preference, etc... then he or she has a potential discrimination suit.

Like many other legal areas, this is a slippery slope situation. As long as it is permissible to freely chose to hire one person over another without giving a reason (maybe he or she simply attended the same grad school the interviewer did or maybe it really is because she is a female rather than male) then it should be within the rights of a doctor to elect to turn over patient care to another doctor as long as it isn't life threatening. Doesn't a patient have a similar right to chose to use another doctor (or pharmacist or restaurant) if he or she has an issue with him or her? People chose to do business or not do business with others everyday simply because they do not like them without having to specify to others or even acknowledge themselves the source of this dislike.

That is the basis of a free country.