Is it racist for a prostitute to reject black men?

[AthenaAwakened]

So do you advocate treating this prostitute who lied about her reason for rejecting all black Johns the way you would treat a business that lied about the reason for rejecting all black job applicants?

Yep, just "get a different job".

Yep. In a similar vein, a misogynistic waiter who doesn't feel like serving tables with women at them should get a different job because he's not doing the things required of a waiter. A racist building manager who doesn't feel like renting to Hispanics should get a different job because he's not doing what's required of a building manager. A bigoted pharmacist who doesn't feel like selling birth control pills to unmarried women should get a different job because he's not doing what's required of a pharmacist.

If your personal feelings prevent you from performing all the legally required functions of your job, that job's not for you.

and what exactly is this different job this bigot should get? Your argument so far has been all jobs are the same with regard to the fact that no job allows legal racial discrimination. So what is this "another job"?

One which doesn't require interaction with the public?

okay.

I couldn't apply racism to my job - I never meet anyone, so how would I know which of my products needed to be sabotaged because blacks were using them?

Okay.

 

[bilby]

Oddly enough, if a bigot breaks anti-discrimination laws, the courts make their lives less pleasant, by imposing a fine, closing down their business, or even putting them in jail.

None of these things forces them to serve blacks, or Jews, or whoever. It gives them a CHOICE between suffering a penalty, or ceasing their bigotry.

Of course, if a plumber refuses to work for blacks, a court might say 'either work for blacks, or stop working as a plumber'. If he cannot bring himself to discard his racism, then his lifeay be made very uncomfortable as a result - his earning potential might be drastically reduced - but he is not being forced to fix black men's sinks; he is bringing misfortune upon himself by being a racist.

I feel no great concern about the possibility that bigots might be made to feel uncomfortable, or be penalised for their bigotry. They were not born racist. They chose it - with all its consequences. (None of which include rape, btw).

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Yep. In a similar vein, a misogynistic waiter who doesn't feel like serving tables with women at them should get a different job because he's not doing the things required of a waiter. A racist building manager who doesn't feel like renting to Hispanics should get a different job because he's not doing what's required of a building manager. A bigoted pharmacist who doesn't feel like selling birth control pills to unmarried women should get a different job because he's not doing what's required of a pharmacist.

If your personal feelings prevent you from performing all the legally required functions of your job, that job's not for you.

and what exactly is this different job this bigot should get? Your argument so far has been all jobs are the same with regard to the fact that no job allows legal racial discrimination. So what is this "another job"?

One where they don't have to break laws in order to perform their job. There are lots of jobs which don't involve interacting with the public and it doesn't particularly bother me if a racist's bigotry causes him or her to end up on welfare - in fact, the schadenfreude from that would be quite enjoyable. Are you seriously saying that if a restaurant owner or a building manager or a prostitute or a pharmacist or the like discriminates against his or her customers, we should just let it go because forcing them to perform their jobs in accordance with the law would be an imposition on them?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I'm interested in minimizing the harm done--and I think that's accomplished by permitting that White Power Diner sign so long as there aren't too many diners that do it.

And I think that allowing explicit displays of racism to be prominently displayed to people who walk down the street to be a thing that increases the harm done, regardless of whether there's one or ten of them.

It's a word, not a stick or a stone.

The stealthy discrimination, however, does actual harm.

Also, what counts as "too many"? If a black man only has to walk one block to find a place he's allowed to eat as opposed to three blocks does that mean it's not an issue?

I would say no more than 1/4, rounded down.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

So "accept black clients or stop being a prostitute".

"Have sex with a black guy or starve from lack of work."

People who don't like government interference in the economy are often derided for the "simplistic" answer of "get a different job." And yet, now, the answer is "get a different job." We're told "if only it were that easy, you're really saying take these horrible wages and working conditions or starve."

Logical relativism rears its head.

That's an ... interesting ... way of coming to a conclusion.

That doesn't mean it's not right.

We already accept prostitutes being far more selective than this--look at the sugar dating industry. What is that but prostitution where you get to know them a bit first?

 

[bilby]

In a world that contains both bigots and their victims, we can have laws that defend victims from the bigotry; or laws that defend bigots rights to be assholes.

This is not a complex moral dilemma; a racist can choose to be racist or not; but a black person cannot choose his skin colour - Michael Jackson notwithstanding.

So we protect the victims by punishing the bigots. If we choose not to punish the bigots, then harm instead comes to their victims.

It is morally worse to allow a business or it's employee to reject customers based on race, than it is to penalise businesses or employees that do this - even if that means prohibiting certain bigots from working in a given profession or professions.

I have yet to see a single valid reason why, of all transactions, prostitution should be exempt from this general principal.

When given a choice between limiting the rights of bigots, or limiting the rights of their victims, what is the exceptional nature of prostitution that requires that in this case, the bigot's rights should be upheld to the detriment of their victims?

We happily say, "If you continue to discriminate based on race, then the law will prohibit you from being a restauranteur"; why then should we resile from saying "If you continue to discriminate based on race, then the law will prohibit you from being a prostitute"?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

We already accept prostitutes being far more selective than this--look at the sugar dating industry. What is that but prostitution where you get to know them a bit first?

And party planners have initial meetings with clients where they can see if they're compatible. That doesn't mean that they can say "Call Ed's Party Planners for your next event. No fags".

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Well since we have decided that bigots can all get jobs working in a closet, or jobs that never ask them to leave home, now could someone answer this little problem.

so the sex worker is found guilty and the right of the John to be serviced without racial discrimination is found of greater import under the law than the sex worker's right to refuse having sex with someone she doesn't want to sleep with.

Laws do not exist in vacuums and every law and every right must be balance against other laws and rights. Do you feel the right of a John (or Jane) to not be discriminated against out weighs the sex worker's right to control entrance into his or her body? And this whole s/he-should-quit argument makes no more sense here than it does with regard to low wages and bad working conditions.

 

[bilby]

Well since we have decided that bigots can all get jobs working in a closet, or jobs that never ask them to leave home, now could someone answer this little problem.

so the sex worker is found guilty and the right of the John to be serviced without racial discrimination is found of greater import under the law than the sex worker's right to refuse having sex with someone she doesn't want to sleep with.

Laws do not exist in vacuums and every law and every right must be balance against other laws and rights. Do you feel the right of a John (or Jane) to not be discriminated against out weighs the sex worker's right to control entrance into his or her body? And this whole s/he-should-quit argument makes no more sense here than it does with regard to low wages and bad working conditions.

Of course not.

But it does outweigh her right to be a sex worker.

She should not quit if she is a racist; she should be fired. Like any other racist who can't keep their bigotry to themselves at work.

It really is that simple.

 

[Unbeatable]

So "accept black clients or stop being a prostitute".

"Have sex with a black guy or starve from lack of work."

People who don't like government interference in the economy are often derided for the "simplistic" answer of "get a different job." And yet, now, the answer is "get a different job." We're told "if only it were that easy, you're really saying take these horrible wages and working conditions or starve."

It is an interesting point. However, it's worth noting that those of us who do like government interference in the economy tend to also like the idea of government-funded social assistance programs which would decouple "lack of work" and "starve".

In fact, this leads me to question my position on this. I'm rather on the fence, but I've tended thus far to be of the mind that taking away some of a prostitute's sexual autonomy by way of law is potentially significantly more harmful than forcing johns to shop around to find prostitutes who'll accept their race, but I think this may be based largely upon my current bias towards viewing prostitution as a job of last resort, due to its current status in the US as illegal, dangerous, and low-prestige in a country with inadequate social assistance.

Since we're already discussing a scenario where prostitution isn't illegal, why not also propose social reforms such that prostitutes have meaningful alternatives? Under those circumstances, I find it acceptable to legally prevent prostitutes from discriminating (although I still tend to feel that difficulty finding someone willing to have sex with you for money isn't a significant injustice.) But absent such reforms, I'd rather err on the side of caution.

 

[doubtingt]

Well since we have decided that bigots can all get jobs working in a closet, or jobs that never ask them to leave home, now could someone answer this little problem.

so the sex worker is found guilty and the right of the John to be serviced without racial discrimination is found of greater import under the law than the sex worker's right to refuse having sex with someone she doesn't want to sleep with.

Laws do not exist in vacuums and every law and every right must be balance against other laws and rights. Do you feel the right of a John (or Jane) to not be discriminated against out weighs the sex worker's right to control entrance into his or her body? And this whole s/he-should-quit argument makes no more sense here than it does with regard to low wages and bad working conditions.

Of course not.

But it does outweigh her right to be a sex worker.

She should not quit if she is a racist; she should be fired. Like any other racist who can't keep their bigotry to themselves at work.

It really is that simple.

Except that most prostitutes are self employed, so there is no one to fire them, so it isn't that simple at all.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Well, they don't have some kind of right to be a prostitute. If they don't want to follow the legal requirements of their job, they should not have their job. If they work for someone else, this means they should be fired. If they work for themselves, their business should close.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Right, nobody has a right to a job. They can choose to starve if they want. Is that what you're arguing?

The reason it seems that I'm asking you the same question over and over is because I want you to stop using the passive voice. Don't say "she has to change her business plan." If you really believe what you are arguing in favor of, say "She should be forced to have sex with the black guy even though she doesn't want to."

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Well since we have decided that bigots can all get jobs working in a closet, or jobs that never ask them to leave home, now could someone answer this little problem.

so the sex worker is found guilty and the right of the John to be serviced without racial discrimination is found of greater import under the law than the sex worker's right to refuse having sex with someone she doesn't want to sleep with.

Laws do not exist in vacuums and every law and every right must be balance against other laws and rights. Do you feel the right of a John (or Jane) to not be discriminated against out weighs the sex worker's right to control entrance into his or her body? And this whole s/he-should-quit argument makes no more sense here than it does with regard to low wages and bad working conditions.

It doesn't conflict with her right to control entrance to her body. It conflicts with her right to use her body as a tool of her business.

If a minimum wage greeter at Walmart is telling black customers to fuck off and shop somewhere else, does the fact that she's poor and would have trouble finding other work bear any relevance at all to the fact that she should be fired for this?

- - - Updated - - -

Right, nobody has a right to a job. They can choose to starve if they want. Is that what you're arguing?

The reason it seems that I'm asking you the same question over and over is because I want you to stop using the passive voice. Don't say "she has to change her business plan." If you really believe what you are arguing in favor of, say "She should have sex with the black guy even though she doesn't want to."

No I'm saying that she should become one more unemployed racist living off the government teat and complaining how the nigger lovers in government are oppressing her and keeping her down.

I really don't see how that could have been unclear.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Here's the problem.


S. E. X.

The act of penetration itself has statutes already attached to it. And the rights of privacy insure a person the right to be a bigot. Also in the US, discrimination laws are not all encompassing and never have been. In the US, for example, if you are a business of under fifty employees and no govt contracts, AA does not apply to the hiring practices of such a business. Private transactions here can and do include all kinds of discriminatory practices that if they were public would bring down the Halls of Justice. And it is all legal.

It kinda has to be that way. And considering the govt right now is already intruding way too much in a woman's vagina as it is, I'm glad it's that way.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Right, nobody has a right to a job. They can choose to starve if they want. Is that what you're arguing?

The reason it seems that I'm asking you the same question over and over is because I want you to stop using the passive voice. Don't say "she has to change her business plan." If you really believe what you are arguing in favor of, say "She should have sex with the black guy even though she doesn't want to."

No I'm saying that she should become one more unemployed racist living off the government teat and complaining how the nigger lovers in government are oppressing her and keeping her down.

I really don't see how that could have been unclear.

So the only reason you're not saying "let her starve" is because you want to use welfare to subsidize racism?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Right, nobody has a right to a job. They can choose to starve if they want. Is that what you're arguing?

The reason it seems that I'm asking you the same question over and over is because I want you to stop using the passive voice. Don't say "she has to change her business plan." If you really believe what you are arguing in favor of, say "She should have sex with the black guy even though she doesn't want to."

No I'm saying that she should become one more unemployed racist living off the government teat and complaining how the nigger lovers in government are oppressing her and keeping her down.

I really don't see how that could have been unclear.

So the only reason you're not saying "let her starve" is because you want to use welfare to subsidize racism?

No. I'm good with letting her starve too. Really don't give a shit what happens to some racist after she loses her job.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Right, nobody has a right to a job. They can choose to starve if they want. Is that what you're arguing?

The reason it seems that I'm asking you the same question over and over is because I want you to stop using the passive voice. Don't say "she has to change her business plan." If you really believe what you are arguing in favor of, say "She should have sex with the black guy even though she doesn't want to."

No I'm saying that she should become one more unemployed racist living off the government teat and complaining how the nigger lovers in government are oppressing her and keeping her down.

I really don't see how that could have been unclear.

So the only reason you're not saying "let her starve" is because you want to use welfare to subsidize racism?

No. I'm good with letting her starve too. Really don't give a shit what happens to some racist after she loses her job.

So then stop using the passive voice. Say "She should be forced to have sex with the black guy even though she doesn't want to or she should starve."

 

[Tom Sawyer]

So then stop using the passive voice. Say "She should be forced to have sex with the black guy even though she doesn't want to or she should starve."

Dude, your argument started as weird and nonsensical and has gotten worse as it went along.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

It kinda has to be that way. And considering the govt right now is already intruding way too much in a woman's vagina as it is, I'm glad it's that way.

It has nothing to do with a government intruding on a woman's vagina. It has to do with a government regulating how business is conducted within their jurisdiction. There are rules she needs to follow in order to conduct business and the fact that she uses her vagina in her business is irrelevant to that.

If she doesn't like paying taxes, tough shit. If she doesn't like operating in a clean and sanitary manner as required by the health code, tough shit. If she doesn't like not discriminating based on race, tough shit. Legalization of prostitution provides her with many benefits but it also incurs her some costs. If she doesn't want to pay the costs associated with working within a given business, then that's not the business for her.