Is it racist for a prostitute to reject black men?

[Loren Pechtel]

Actually, that is not the case; you can't force a restaurant to serve anyone regardless of race; all you can do is force them to come up with a different (but lawful) pretext to refuse service.

I agree that it is a bit of a waste of time to make bigots reject customers piecemeal; but that is the way the law works, and I can't see an obvious solution other than to repeal anti-discrimination law in its entirety.

And that piecemeal rejection bit I think causes more harm than permitting discrimination in moderation.

When the ad says "no black men" the black man is out a few seconds reading it. Reject piecemeal and you get the very thing mentioned in the post from the prostitute above--wasting time & gas driving there.

But that's the same for every single other business that's going to find a stealth way to exclude based on discriminatory lines. If there's a restaurant that just "happens" to continuously find reasons to not let black customers dine there, any black person will waste their time going there. That doesn't mean that "White Power Diner. No Black Men Allowed" is a legitimate sign for them to put on their window.

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. When the discrimination is open but not widespread the cost to the victims is very minimal.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

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.

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?

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Tom,

What if the black John, through research and due diligence, can establish a pattern of her always rejecting black Johns even though she doesn't have a stated discrimination policy?

It has happened that businesses have gotten in trouble for having a pattern like that in their hiring without any written policy of discrimination. Investigators have even deliberately sent in dummy applicants of near equal qualifications but of different race to see the result, and even put in dummy applicants where the minority was more qualified.

So, if the John can present to the court "here is an established pattern of racial discrimination", what then?

 

[doubtingt]

What about gender discrimination by prostitutes? If they cannot discriminate by race, then they should not be allowed to by gender. Should all prostitutes be forced to give male and female clients equal consideration? Isn't having clients of all one gender strong evidence of discrimination warranting jail for the prostitue?

For that matter, what about age discrimination or even drug using clients?
You can make and argument that discrimination restrictions should be limited to innate traits, but that only covers the legal question and not the moral one. Objectively, having sex with black men greatly increases risk of STD exposure, just like having sex with drug users does, yet not all members of either group has an STD. So, why is it more immoral to refuse all black clients than to refuse all drug using clients? Both are acts of prejudice, and both are also rational acts that reduce objective threats to oneself.

Well, that's like saying that it's cool to not hire a black person because there's a higher risk of him being a thief. Do you think that's a valid and legal decision on the part of a company? Why or why not?

The differences are: 1) theft is not a direct threat to one's life but STDs are; 2) the client/employee needs to engage in a criminal act having nothing to do with the economic exchange in order to pose a threat in your scenario but merely needs to act like any other law abiding client to kill the prostitute; 3) In both realtive and absolute probabilities, the objective level of threat that a black employee will steal is much lower than that a black "john" has an STD (which again is 15 times higher than white clients).

Should a tech company be allowed to discriminate against programmers with AIDS? Should a prostitute be allowed to refuse a client with AIDS?
Unless you give the exact same answer to both these scenarios, you are countering your own position which rests on the notion that there is nothing whatever different about prostitution than any other profession that should qualify moral or legal concerns with discrimination.

There's no problem not accepting a client due to his activities but there is a problem not accepting a client because of his race.

But if their race is objectively just as predictive of the threat as whether they engage in some activity, then how is it morally any different? Again, I can imagine a pragmatic argument grounded in historical issues for making a legal distinction, but I don't see a clear moral distinction.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Tom,

What if the black John, through research and due diligence, can establish a pattern of her always rejecting black Johns even though she doesn't have a stated discrimination policy?

It has happened that businesses have gotten in trouble for having a pattern like that in their hiring without any written policy of discrimination. Investigators have even deliberately sent in dummy applicants of near equal qualifications but of different race to see the result, and even put in dummy applicants where the minority was more qualified.

So, if the John can present to the court "here is an established pattern of racial discrimination", what then?

Then she gets fined and needs to either change her business practices or change her business. It's about the same as if a government agent shot her in the face and then raped her corpse.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

What about gender discrimination by prostitutes? If they cannot discriminate by race, then they should not be allowed to by gender. Should all prostitutes be forced to give male and female clients equal consideration? Isn't having clients of all one gender strong evidence of discrimination warranting jail for the prostitue?

For that matter, what about age discrimination or even drug using clients?
You can make and argument that discrimination restrictions should be limited to innate traits, but that only covers the legal question and not the moral one. Objectively, having sex with black men greatly increases risk of STD exposure, just like having sex with drug users does, yet not all members of either group has an STD. So, why is it more immoral to refuse all black clients than to refuse all drug using clients? Both are acts of prejudice, and both are also rational acts that reduce objective threats to oneself.

Well, that's like saying that it's cool to not hire a black person because there's a higher risk of him being a thief. Do you think that's a valid and legal decision on the part of a company? Why or why not?

The differences are: 1) theft is not a direct threat to one's life but STDs are; 2) the client/employee needs to engage in a criminal act having nothing to do with the economic exchange in order to pose a threat in your scenario but merely needs to act like any other law abiding client to kill the prostitute; 3) In both realtive and absolute probabilities, the objective level of threat that a black employee will steal is much lower than that a black "john" has an STD (which again is 15 times higher than white clients).

Should a tech company be allowed to discriminate against programmers with AIDS? Should a prostitute be allowed to refuse a client with AIDS?
Unless you give the exact same answer to both these scenarios, you are countering your own position which rests on the notion that there is nothing whatever different about prostitution than any other profession that should qualify moral or legal concerns with discrimination.

That makes no sense at all. Different industries can have different sets of health and safety regulations which are based on the individual factors within their industry. Do you feel that a computer programmer who doesn't wash his hands before typing on his keyboard should be treated the same as a chef who doesn't wash his hands before preparing for a meal?

There's no problem not accepting a client due to his activities but there is a problem not accepting a client because of his race.

But if their race is objectively just as predictive of the threat as whether they engage in some activity, then how is it morally any different? Again, I can imagine a pragmatic argument grounded in historical issues for making a legal distinction, but I don't see a clear moral distinction.

So because black men have a higher rate of murder, a business owner is justified in banning black men from his business due to his predicting a higher threat to his life by having them in there?

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

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.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Tom,

What if the black John, through research and due diligence, can establish a pattern of her always rejecting black Johns even though she doesn't have a stated discrimination policy?

It has happened that businesses have gotten in trouble for having a pattern like that in their hiring without any written policy of discrimination. Investigators have even deliberately sent in dummy applicants of near equal qualifications but of different race to see the result, and even put in dummy applicants where the minority was more qualified.

So, if the John can present to the court "here is an established pattern of racial discrimination", what then?

Then she gets fined and needs to either change her business practices or change her business. It's about the same as if a government agent shot her in the face and then raped her corpse.

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 discrimanted 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.

 

[doubtingt]

What about gender discrimination by prostitutes? If they cannot discriminate by race, then they should not be allowed to by gender. Should all prostitutes be forced to give male and female clients equal consideration? Isn't having clients of all one gender strong evidence of discrimination warranting jail for the prostitue?

For that matter, what about age discrimination or even drug using clients?
You can make and argument that discrimination restrictions should be limited to innate traits, but that only covers the legal question and not the moral one. Objectively, having sex with black men greatly increases risk of STD exposure, just like having sex with drug users does, yet not all members of either group has an STD. So, why is it more immoral to refuse all black clients than to refuse all drug using clients? Both are acts of prejudice, and both are also rational acts that reduce objective threats to oneself.

Well, that's like saying that it's cool to not hire a black person because there's a higher risk of him being a thief. Do you think that's a valid and legal decision on the part of a company? Why or why not?

The differences are: 1) theft is not a direct threat to one's life but STDs are; 2) the client/employee needs to engage in a criminal act having nothing to do with the economic exchange in order to pose a threat in your scenario but merely needs to act like any other law abiding client to kill the prostitute; 3) In both realtive and absolute probabilities, the objective level of threat that a black employee will steal is much lower than that a black "john" has an STD (which again is 15 times higher than white clients).

Should a tech company be allowed to discriminate against programmers with AIDS? Should a prostitute be allowed to refuse a client with AIDS?
Unless you give the exact same answer to both these scenarios, you are countering your own position which rests on the notion that there is nothing whatever different about prostitution than any other profession that should qualify moral or legal concerns with discrimination.

That makes no sense at all. Different industries can have different sets of health and safety regulations which are based on the individual factors within their industry. Do you feel that a computer programmer who doesn't wash his hands before typing on his keyboard should be treated the same as a chef who doesn't wash his hands before preparing for a meal?

I am not the one whose entire argument rest on the notion that all industries are the same. There is a very real objective and massive increase in the threat to the health and life of prostitutes who take on black clients, due to their 15 fold greater likelihood of having an STD. For the same reason that it more acceptable for the prostitute to refuse a person with AIDS (greater potential threat to health and life), it is more acceptable for them to refuse people who are objectively 15 times more likely to have STDs, including AIDS.

There's no problem not accepting a client due to his activities but there is a problem not accepting a client because of his race.

But if their race is objectively just as predictive of the threat as whether they engage in some activity, then how is it morally any different? Again, I can imagine a pragmatic argument grounded in historical issues for making a legal distinction, but I don't see a clear moral distinction.

So because black men have a higher rate of murder, a business owner is justified in banning black men from his business due to his predicting a higher threat to his life by having them in there?

You completely ignored differences #2 and #3 that apply even more to this example than to your thief example.

Also, you never answered my initial quesiton of whether all prostitutes should be forced to supply sex equally to people of all sex and genders?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

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.

 

[doubtingt]

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.

Its a very valid critique. Your argument is the same as those of corporate apologists who say that people are not being forced to work for low pay, because if they do not like it, they can just go get a different job. You are saying that prostitutes should be forced to put their lives at 15 times the risk, even though they could do things to greatly reduce the risk if free to apply rational decision making and objective facts to how they do their job. Your argument that they aren't really being forced to have sex or put their lives at greater risk rest on the claim that they can just go get a different job.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

I would be considered one of those corporate apologists, and I find it interesting to see that argument used.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

What about gender discrimination by prostitutes? If they cannot discriminate by race, then they should not be allowed to by gender. Should all prostitutes be forced to give male and female clients equal consideration? Isn't having clients of all one gender strong evidence of discrimination warranting jail for the prostitue?

For that matter, what about age discrimination or even drug using clients?
You can make and argument that discrimination restrictions should be limited to innate traits, but that only covers the legal question and not the moral one. Objectively, having sex with black men greatly increases risk of STD exposure, just like having sex with drug users does, yet not all members of either group has an STD. So, why is it more immoral to refuse all black clients than to refuse all drug using clients? Both are acts of prejudice, and both are also rational acts that reduce objective threats to oneself.

Well, that's like saying that it's cool to not hire a black person because there's a higher risk of him being a thief. Do you think that's a valid and legal decision on the part of a company? Why or why not?

The differences are: 1) theft is not a direct threat to one's life but STDs are; 2) the client/employee needs to engage in a criminal act having nothing to do with the economic exchange in order to pose a threat in your scenario but merely needs to act like any other law abiding client to kill the prostitute; 3) In both realtive and absolute probabilities, the objective level of threat that a black employee will steal is much lower than that a black "john" has an STD (which again is 15 times higher than white clients).

Should a tech company be allowed to discriminate against programmers with AIDS? Should a prostitute be allowed to refuse a client with AIDS?
Unless you give the exact same answer to both these scenarios, you are countering your own position which rests on the notion that there is nothing whatever different about prostitution than any other profession that should qualify moral or legal concerns with discrimination.

That makes no sense at all. Different industries can have different sets of health and safety regulations which are based on the individual factors within their industry. Do you feel that a computer programmer who doesn't wash his hands before typing on his keyboard should be treated the same as a chef who doesn't wash his hands before preparing for a meal?

I am not the one whose entire argument rest on the notion that all industries are the same. There is a very real objective and massive increase in the threat to the health and life of prostitutes who take on black clients, due to their 15 fold greater likelihood of having an STD. For the same reason that it more acceptable for the prostitute to refuse a person with AIDS (greater potential threat to health and life), it is more acceptable for them to refuse people who are objectively 15 times more likely to have STDs, including AIDS.

Dude, there is zero difference between your reasoning and the reasoning that one shouldn't hire Hispanics because they're lazy or blacks because they're criminals. It's explicitly racist and a prostitute who bases her business model on it runs afoul of anti-discrimination legislation.

There's no problem not accepting a client due to his activities but there is a problem not accepting a client because of his race.

But if their race is objectively just as predictive of the threat as whether they engage in some activity, then how is it morally any different? Again, I can imagine a pragmatic argument grounded in historical issues for making a legal distinction, but I don't see a clear moral distinction.

So because black men have a higher rate of murder, a business owner is justified in banning black men from his business due to his predicting a higher threat to his life by having them in there?

You completely ignored differences #2 and #3 that apply even more to this example than to your thief example.

Also, you never answered my initial quesiton of whether all prostitutes should be forced to supply sex equally to people of all sex and genders?

Gender, no. As I said sex with a man and sex with a woman can be considered different activities and calling it discrimination would be the same as going into a lawyer's office and asking him to write up a separation agreement and then suing him for discrimination against divorced people when he tells you that his office only does estate planning.

Equality of race, yes. If you want to racially discriminate against your customer base you have two choices:

A) Get a different job
B) Lie about it and make up fake reasons to deny them service

A is the best choice and the only one available if you're found out to be doing B.

 

[doubtingt]

What about gender discrimination by prostitutes? If they cannot discriminate by race, then they should not be allowed to by gender. Should all prostitutes be forced to give male and female clients equal consideration? Isn't having clients of all one gender strong evidence of discrimination warranting jail for the prostitue?

For that matter, what about age discrimination or even drug using clients?
You can make and argument that discrimination restrictions should be limited to innate traits, but that only covers the legal question and not the moral one. Objectively, having sex with black men greatly increases risk of STD exposure, just like having sex with drug users does, yet not all members of either group has an STD. So, why is it more immoral to refuse all black clients than to refuse all drug using clients? Both are acts of prejudice, and both are also rational acts that reduce objective threats to oneself.

Well, that's like saying that it's cool to not hire a black person because there's a higher risk of him being a thief. Do you think that's a valid and legal decision on the part of a company? Why or why not?

The differences are: 1) theft is not a direct threat to one's life but STDs are; 2) the client/employee needs to engage in a criminal act having nothing to do with the economic exchange in order to pose a threat in your scenario but merely needs to act like any other law abiding client to kill the prostitute; 3) In both realtive and absolute probabilities, the objective level of threat that a black employee will steal is much lower than that a black "john" has an STD (which again is 15 times higher than white clients).

Should a tech company be allowed to discriminate against programmers with AIDS? Should a prostitute be allowed to refuse a client with AIDS?
Unless you give the exact same answer to both these scenarios, you are countering your own position which rests on the notion that there is nothing whatever different about prostitution than any other profession that should qualify moral or legal concerns with discrimination.

That makes no sense at all. Different industries can have different sets of health and safety regulations which are based on the individual factors within their industry. Do you feel that a computer programmer who doesn't wash his hands before typing on his keyboard should be treated the same as a chef who doesn't wash his hands before preparing for a meal?

I am not the one whose entire argument rest on the notion that all industries are the same. There is a very real objective and massive increase in the threat to the health and life of prostitutes who take on black clients, due to their 15 fold greater likelihood of having an STD. For the same reason that it more acceptable for the prostitute to refuse a person with AIDS (greater potential threat to health and life), it is more acceptable for them to refuse people who are objectively 15 times more likely to have STDs, including AIDS.

Dude, there is zero difference between your reasoning and the reasoning that one shouldn't hire Hispanics because they're lazy or blacks because they're criminals. It's explicitly racist and a prostitute who bases her business model on it runs afoul of anti-discrimination legislation.

No, I spelled out the ways it is different, and you have simply ignored it.
Is racial discrimination by prostitution technically racist? Yes. Is it highly rational? Yes. Is it immoral? Not to reasonable people. Is it technically illegal? Yes. Do most people make a reasonable distinction and not endorse prosecution of it yet want your hypothetical scenarios prosecuted? Yes, because of the ways I have explained to you that it is critically different.

There's no problem not accepting a client due to his activities but there is a problem not accepting a client because of his race.

But if their race is objectively just as predictive of the threat as whether they engage in some activity, then how is it morally any different? Again, I can imagine a pragmatic argument grounded in historical issues for making a legal distinction, but I don't see a clear moral distinction.

So because black men have a higher rate of murder, a business owner is justified in banning black men from his business due to his predicting a higher threat to his life by having them in there?

You completely ignored differences #2 and #3 that apply even more to this example than to your thief example.

Also, you never answered my initial quesiton of whether all prostitutes should be forced to supply sex equally to people of all sex and genders?

Gender, no. As I said sex with a man and sex with a woman can be considered different activities and calling it discrimination would be the same as going into a lawyer's office and asking him to write up a separation agreement and then suing him for discrimination against divorced people when he tells you that his office only does estate planning.

Sorry, but that is bullshit. Prostitutes do all kinds of activities that can be done to both males and females. Putting a cock in a man or a woman's ass are not any more objectively "different activities", than putting it in a white man's ass versus a black man's ass. Such gender discrimination is like going into an estate planners office an him saying "I only plan estates for men". Only sex acts that specifically entail the clients penis or vagina are "different activities" to the level that might support your argument. So, according to your line of reasoning, any prostitute doing any other sex acts should have to do them with any gender. And even when the acts are different, they are no more so many other economic activities differ depending upon the gender to the person or their physical attractiveness. Getting my hot wings from a hot 18 year old girl with big breast is a "different activity" than getting them from a man or a homely girl with small breasts, or 50 year old. The difference is bigger than the difference for the prostitute in whether the genitals they are licking are an innee or an outee, because they aren't really aroused by either. So, if you are going to allow gender discrimination with prostitutes because its a "different activity" then you must allow it in any profession where sexuality or sexual arousal is at all relevant to the exchange.
,

Equality of race, yes. If you want to racially discriminate against your customer base you have two choices:

A) Get a different job
B) Lie about it and make up fake reasons to deny them service.

A is the best choice and the only one available if you're found out to be doing B.

Just to be clear, if a prostitute lies about it, would you want it treated morally and legally the same as if a 7-11 discriminated against blacks and women but never explicitly made it their policy? I assume you'd consider that latter immoral and want the law to still prosecute indirect evidence of discrimination even when no explicit policy exists. Do you advocate the exact same for prostitutes?

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Just to be clear, if a prostitute lies about it, would you want it treated morally and legally the same as if a 7-11 discriminated against blacks and women but never explicitly made it their policy? I assume you'd consider that latter immoral and want the law to still prosecute indirect evidence of discrimination even when no explicit policy exists. Do you advocate the exact same for prostitutes?

That's basically my question to. I would like to have it explicit.

A pattern of discrimination is established, based on tracking the race of customers accepted and customers denied. The same as job applicants. When it is a business dealing with job applicants, such a pattern can be enough. The John, suspecting discrimination, has done due diligence and established a clear pattern.

Just like the business can say "it is a coincidence" so an the prostitute, but depending on the jurisdiction that could float like a lead balloon.

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".

 

[Tom Sawyer]

No, I spelled out the ways it is different, and you have simply ignored it.
Is racial discrimination by prostitution technically racist? Yes. Is it highly rational? Yes. Is it immoral? Not to reasonable people. Is it technically illegal? Yes. Do most people make a reasonable distinction and not endorse prosecution of it yet want your hypothetical scenarios prosecuted? Yes, because of the ways I have explained to you that it is critically different.

It's not technically illegal, it's actually illegal and only rational and reasonable in the sense that all other forms of racism are.

Black men murder at a higher rate than white men. Even though only a minority of black men are murderers, I'm going to apply that subset to the entire race as a whole and bar black men from my business out of the reasonable and rational fear of that increased risk of their murdering me.

Black men lose their jobs at a higher rate than white men. Even though only a minority of currently employed black men are going to get fired, I'm going to apply that subset to the entire race as a whole and bar black men from renting an apartment in my building out of the reasonable and rational fear of that increased risk of their defaulting on the rent.

Black men have a higher rate of STDs than white men. Even though only a minority of black men have STDs, I'm going to apply that subset to the entire race as a whole and bar black men from my business out of the reasonable and rational fear of that increased risk of their giving me an STD.

It's the exact same irrational, unreasonable and blatantly racist logic in all situations. None of the above can be done legally for the exact same reasons.

Just to be clear, if a prostitute lies about it, would you want it treated morally and legally the same as if a 7-11 discriminated against blacks and women but never explicitly made it their policy? I assume you'd consider that latter immoral and want the law to still prosecute indirect evidence of discrimination even when no explicit policy exists. Do you advocate the exact same for prostitutes?

Of course. If they're caught trying to hide that they've broken the law, they should be treated as someone who's been caught breaking the law. Similarly, if they get caught not declaring a portion of their income, they should be both be charged with tax evasion.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

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.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

And so if a court finds that a prostitute has discriminated, based on a pattern of discrimination instead of a stated policy of discrimination, you would have the court say what to her?

 

[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"?

 

[bilby]

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?

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?