Is it racist for a prostitute to reject black men?

[Loren Pechtel]

There is nothing about banning advertisements that say "No blacks" that requires any person to submit to rape. There simply isn't. I can't grasp why you imagine that there is.

As far as I'm concerned any law that doesn't give a prostitute full say over who her clients are amounts to legalized rape.

 

[bilby]

There is nothing about banning advertisements that say "No blacks" that requires any person to submit to rape. There simply isn't. I can't grasp why you imagine that there is.

As far as I'm concerned any law that doesn't give a prostitute full say over who her clients are amounts to legalized rape.

How does anti discrimination law prevent a prostitute from having exactly that say? Anti discrimination law says "You cannot have a licence to work as a prostitute if you are openly racist".

What part of not granting a licence to somebody who refuses to meet the terms of the license forces them to do anything?

 

[spikepipsqueak]

Also the fact that this is dealing with sex and a woman's body is what makes me come down on the side of not enforcing strict anti-discrimination laws against prostitutes.

Firstly, this shouldn't be narrowed to vaginas and women's rights. To do so is denying women's agency as business people and making some assumptions that feed back into the "this is a suitable avenue of endeavour for the little woman" mindset.

The concept of discrimination is universal.

Sex is kind of a singular commodity.

I agree that sex is kind of a singular interaction. It is loaded with all sorts of emotional and biological complexities before you ever consider the legal aspects.

It becomes much easier once you commodify sex, which is the nature of the prostitution business. Then is is just another commodity. Nobody has the right to rape the purveyor of that commodity, any more than they have the right to rape a lawyer or a busboy, but the purveyor has the responsibility to conduct their business according to the laws of the land or conduct a different business where their abhorrent mindset has no effect, just like everybody else.

 

[fast]

I'm really having a hard time seeing how some posters aren't seeing that if you force prostitutes to abide by anti-discrimination laws then you are forcing her to have sex with people she normally wouldn't have sex with. She is being coerced into having sex if she wants to keep using the sex trade to make her livelihood.

One is not the same as the other. Countless hours over the issue of free will leads me to that conclusion.

Consider Anna who a) wants to legally drive and b) is willing to take a drivers test
And
Consider Bob who a) wants to legally drive and b) is NOT willing to take a drivers test.

If Anna takes a drivers test, then she is doing so of her own free will
But
If Bob takes a drivers test, then is he (or is he not) doing so of his own free will?

I believe the answer is no, even though no one is forcing him to take the drivers test, for he is being compelled under threat of punishment--constrained to take the test in order to legally drive ... Or restrained from legally driving unless he takes the test.

Like I said, one is not the same as the other; hence,

1) "you must have sex" (without the contingency)
Versus
2) "you must have sex to keep your job" (with the contingency)

No one is compelling me to take a drivers test (per se),
Yet
With the contingency, I am compelled to take the test

Moreover, some are talking past others while some view the issue one way while others view the issue another way.

 

[another1]

skip to 1:15

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gyGOJ1_kcI8[/YOUTUBE]

 

[repoman]

This slippery slope argument is kind of a waste of time. Sex work is not a public accommodation.

You could take it to reductio ad absurdum extreme of say forcing a gigolo to take on male clients that would anally penetrate him. That is the end goal!

 

[Tom Sawyer]

If not, why is there a difference between how it acts in a private transaction on my own time and a private transaction when I'm seeing clients as part of my business?

if I am spreading typhoid or some other contagion be it in my business or leisure, existing public health law gives the govt authority to quarantine me. It is a matter of public health not the civil rights of a person to be able to infect or be infected.

So, are you saying that if two private individuals are having unprotected sex, the government has a right to quarantine them? If not, I don't fully understand your position.

Take these two situations.

I like having unprotected sex. I'm a member of barebacksexisgreat.com and constantly hook up with other people who don't feel like using condoms. Two or three times per day, I have unprotected sex with people I meet there, at bars or wherever. Before having sex, I always make a point of explaining the risks of this unprotected sex with my partners and don't engage in the sex unless they fully understand the risks and potential consequences inherent in this activity and want to do it anyways.

I run an escort agency which specializes in unprotected sex. My ad states "Tom Sawyer's Escort Agency. I cater to clients who prefer to have sex without a condom and generally see two or three such clients per day. There are risks inherent in this activity (click here for more information) and if you accept these risks and the potential consequences thereof, give me a call. Rates starting at $200/hour".

In both of these situations, the exact same number of people are having the exact same amount of unprotected sex, making the public health risk exactly the same.

From my point of view, the government's reaction to them would be completely different based on the fact that one is a private transaction and the other is a business activity. For the first situation, the government would be limited to trying to convince us to not do this, handing out flyers detailing the risks, etc. They may not like the fact that we're engaging in risky sexual behaviour, but it's a private activity and they have no place in our bedrooms and everyone involved is aware of the risk and has consented to the risk, so their response is limited to providing information.

For the second situation, the government is fully within its rights to shut down my business and stop me from seeing my clients. I am legally employed in a profession which has a set of health and safety regulations that includes wearing a condom during sex and I am in violation of those regulations. That means that the government has a right to bar me from running my business in this unsafe manner and the fact that everyone involved is aware of and consents to the risks of the activity isn't relevant to the fact that the government can stop us from engaging in this activity as a part of a legal business.

You seem to be saying that the government's response to both situations should be exactly the same, since both are private transactions between individuals and they either have no standing to enforce any health and safety rules they've implemented for the profession or that they have a right to act against two people who decide to have unprotected sex when they hook up on their own. I'm not trying to sound snarky or anything here, but that's how I'm reading your posts and I want to know if I'm understanding you correctly. If I'm not, what would be the difference in their response to each of these situations and why?

 

[AthenaAwakened]

if I am spreading typhoid or some other contagion be it in my business or leisure, existing public health law gives the govt authority to quarantine me. It is a matter of public health not the civil rights of a person to be able to infect or be infected.

So, are you saying that if two private individuals are having unprotected sex, the government has a right to quarantine them? If not, I don't fully understand your position.

Take these two situations.

I like having unprotected sex. I'm a member of barebacksexisgreat.com and constantly hook up with other people who don't feel like using condoms. Two or three times per day, I have unprotected sex with people I meet there, at bars or wherever. Before having sex, I always make a point of explaining the risks of this unprotected sex with my partners and don't engage in the sex unless they fully understand the risks and potential consequences inherent in this activity and want to do it anyways.

I run an escort agency which specializes in unprotected sex. My ad states "Tom Sawyer's Escort Agency. I cater to clients who prefer to have sex without a condom and generally see two or three such clients per day. There are risks inherent in this activity (click here for more information) and if you accept these risks and the potential consequences thereof, give me a call. Rates starting at $200/hour".

In both of these situations, the exact same number of people are having the exact same amount of unprotected sex, making the public health risk exactly the same.

From my point of view, the government's reaction to them would be completely different based on the fact that one is a private transaction and the other is a business activity. For the first situation, the government would be limited to trying to convince us to not do this, handing out flyers detailing the risks, etc. They may not like the fact that we're engaging in risky sexual behaviour, but it's a private activity and they have no place in our bedrooms and everyone involved is aware of the risk and has consented to the risk, so their response is limited to providing information.

For the second situation, the government is fully within its rights to shut down my business and stop me from seeing my clients. I am legally employed in a profession which has a set of health and safety regulations that includes wearing a condom during sex and I am in violation of those regulations. That means that the government has a right to bar me from running my business in this unsafe manner and the fact that everyone involved is aware of and consents to the risks of the activity isn't relevant to the fact that the government can stop us from engaging in this activity as a part of a legal business.

You seem to be saying that the government's response to both situations should be exactly the same, since both are private transactions between individuals and they either have no standing to enforce any health and safety rules they've implemented for the profession or that they have a right to act against two people who decide to have unprotected sex when they hook up on their own. I'm not trying to sound snarky or anything here, but that's how I'm reading your posts and I want to know if I'm understanding you correctly. If I'm not, what would be the difference in their response to each of these situations and why?

I have not read passed your first sentence yet.

I need to say something.

While I have no problem answering questions that clarify something I said, I am finding it irritating to be asked if I am saying something that I clearly am not. I have no interest in arguing a position I have not taken but would really give another poster a really good gotcha moment.

I will finish reading the post later. I promise.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I have not read passed your first sentence yet.

I need to say something.

While I have no problem answering questions that clarify something I said, I am finding it irritating to be asked if I am saying something that I clearly am not. I have no interest in arguing a position I have not taken but would really give another poster a really good gotcha moment.

I will finish reading the post later. I promise.

Ya, that's why I was asking for the clarification. It seems like a silly position for someone to have but when you're saying that the government should act the same whether they're doing the activity in their business or leisure, it sounds like you're not differentiating between the two. I get that you're likely not arguing for a silly position, so I have clearly misunderstood you and I listed how it seems to me what you're saying and want to know what you're actually saying because I don't know what your position is here and that makes it difficult for me to have a conversation with you about it.

If they're both private transactions and it's not the place of the government to regulate what people are doing with their vaginas, what is the basis you're using for a different response to the latter situation than the former when there's an identical public health risk for both?

 

[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.

I am perfectly comfortable with the government requiring sole readers to cease trading (in the absence of any boss to fire them) if they refuse to comply with the law.

So if that is your only objection, it is indeed simple.

Violence is the sole basis upon which all laws are ultimately enforced. Threats of fines are meaningless without jail, which is meaningless without threat of physical force and violence to put and keep them there. Only by threat of physical violence can the State prevent a women from selling sex to white men but not black men. So what you are saying is that you are "perfectly comfortable" with the State physically attacking a women up to and including killing her, if she avoids starvation by taking money from white men when she has sex with them, but then refuses to have sex with black men who want to give her money.

 

[Sabine Grant]

I have not read passed your first sentence yet.

I need to say something.

While I have no problem answering questions that clarify something I said, I am finding it irritating to be asked if I am saying something that I clearly am not. I have no interest in arguing a position I have not taken but would really give another poster a really good gotcha moment.

I will finish reading the post later. I promise.

Ya, that's why I was asking for the clarification. It seems like a silly position for someone to have but when you're saying that the government should act the same whether they're doing the activity in their business or leisure, it sounds like you're not differentiating between the two. I get that you're likely not arguing for a silly position, so I have clearly misunderstood you and I listed how it seems to me what you're saying and want to know what you're actually saying because I don't know what your position is here and that makes it difficult for me to have a conversation with you about it.

If they're both private transactions and it's not the place of the government to regulate what people are doing with their vaginas, what is the basis you're using for a different response to the latter situation than the former when there's an identical public health risk for both?

Tom, one big nuance left out is that the State is able to enforce Health Dept. issued regulations when it comes to private businesses. Nevada brothels are audited/inspected and monitored for their compliance with State regulations. The State in no way would be able to enforce similar measures to protect public health when it comes to private citizens agreeing to engage in unprotected, multiple partners and added vector of anonymous. In fact that is one of the main arguments supporting the legalization of prostitution by making it a legal business so that the State is then able to enforce public health measures by conducting audits/inspections and monitoring the prostitutes' compliance with State regulations intended to protect public health.

The 2 vectors of multiple partners and anonymous cannot be avoided when it comes to prostitution, However, the third one unprotected sex can easily be controlled in any legal sex trade business. That is why advocates for the legalization of sex trade with an appropriate license in between consenting legal adults will mostly bring up public health protection measures enforced by the State as their primary concern.

 

[Sabine Grant]

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.

I am perfectly comfortable with the government requiring sole readers to cease trading (in the absence of any boss to fire them) if they refuse to comply with the law.

So if that is your only objection, it is indeed simple.

Violence is the sole basis upon which all laws are ultimately enforced. Threats of fines are meaningless without jail, which is meaningless without threat of physical force and violence to put and keep them there. Only by threat of physical violence can the State prevent a women from selling sex to white men but not black men. So what you are saying is that you are "perfectly comfortable" with the State physically attacking a women up to and including killing her, if she avoids starvation by taking money from white men when she has sex with them, but then refuses to have sex with black men who want to give her money.

There is absolutely NO way based on the succession of posts from Bilby that anyone could draw such conclusion especially as you wrongly assume that laws cannot be enforced without the use of physical violence. Especially as everyone in this thread has been drawing an important nuance between LEGAL sex trade and the current illegal status of prostitution with the exception of brothels such as in Nevada.

Are you going to claim that licensed and legal brothels owners and their employees are susceptible to be sentenced to jail with "threat of physical force and violence to put and keep them there" while the State would be empowered to "physically attacking a women (sic) up to killing her" if and when they deviate from not discriminating against their potential clients based on their ethnicity? The highest risk such deviating brothel owners would face is a suspension of their license or a heavy fine or both.

I find your conclusion drawn on Bilby's clearly communicated thoughts to be highly inflammatory and disconnected from existing realities.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Tom, one big nuance left out is that the State is able to enforce Health Dept. issued regulations when it comes to private businesses. Nevada brothels are audited/inspected and monitored for their compliance with State regulations. The State in no way would be able to enforce similar measures to protect public health when it comes to private citizens agreeing to engage in unprotected, multiple partners and added vector of anonymous. In fact that is one of the main arguments supporting the legalization of prostitution by making it a legal business so that the State is then able to enforce public health measures by conducting audits/inspections and monitoring the prostitutes' compliance with State regulations intended to protect public health.

The 2 vectors of multiple partners and anonymous cannot be avoided when it comes to prostitution, However, the third one unprotected sex can easily be controlled in any legal sex trade business. That is why advocates for the legalization of sex trade with an appropriate license in between consenting legal adults will mostly bring up public health protection measures enforced by the State as their primary concern.

Right, and the state is also allowed to enforce any other legal regulations when it comes to private businesses. It is able to say that in order to possess a licence to operate as a prostitute within our jurisdiction, you must abide by all the laws and regulations which cover doing business within our jurisdiction. One of those is conforming to anti-discrimination laws.

I see a disconnect between the argument that it is treated as a business where it concerns health and safety laws, but as a private transaction where it concerns anti-discrimination laws. It should be a business where it's covered by both or as a private transaction where it's covered by neither.

 

[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.

I am perfectly comfortable with the government requiring sole readers to cease trading (in the absence of any boss to fire them) if they refuse to comply with the law.

So if that is your only objection, it is indeed simple.

Violence is the sole basis upon which all laws are ultimately enforced. Threats of fines are meaningless without jail, which is meaningless without threat of physical force and violence to put and keep them there. Only by threat of physical violence can the State prevent a women from selling sex to white men but not black men. So what you are saying is that you are "perfectly comfortable" with the State physically attacking a women up to and including killing her, if she avoids starvation by taking money from white men when she has sex with them, but then refuses to have sex with black men who want to give her money.

There is absolutely NO way based on the succession of posts from Bilby that anyone could draw such conclusion

Yes, the "way" is to actually apply basic deductive logic to undeniable facts of reality, and thereby deduce what "fining" or "revoking a license" actually requires for it to be enforced.

especially as you wrongly assume that laws cannot be enforced without the use of physical violence.

It is undeniable fact that no law can be enforced without an ultimately threat of violence. How do you think laws get enforced? Why would anyone pay a fine? Jail? How do they get put in jail? Violent kidnapping or surrender under threat of such violence. What is jail? A place where the location any every action of people are controlled via force and threat of violence. Why would anyone stay and jail and not try constantly to escape? Threat of violence and death.

Are you going to claim that licensed and legal brothels owners and their employees are susceptible to be sentenced to jail with "threat of physical force and violence to put and keep them there" while the State would be empowered to "physically attacking a women (sic) up to killing her" if and when they deviate from not discriminating against their potential clients based on their ethnicity? The highest risk such deviating brothel owners would face is a suspension of their license or a heavy fine or both.

Licenses and fines are meaningless unless the State uses physical force against those who operate without them or do not pay them. Lesser punishments are nothing other than people agreeing under extreme coercion to serve a lesser punishment under threat of violence and death if they do not.

I find your conclusion drawn on Bilby's clearly communicated thoughts to be highly inflammatory and disconnected from existing realities.

I find your response devoid of the application of logic and dangerously ignorant of the most basic facts of law enforcement.

 

[Sabine Grant]

Tom, one big nuance left out is that the State is able to enforce Health Dept. issued regulations when it comes to private businesses. Nevada brothels are audited/inspected and monitored for their compliance with State regulations. The State in no way would be able to enforce similar measures to protect public health when it comes to private citizens agreeing to engage in unprotected, multiple partners and added vector of anonymous. In fact that is one of the main arguments supporting the legalization of prostitution by making it a legal business so that the State is then able to enforce public health measures by conducting audits/inspections and monitoring the prostitutes' compliance with State regulations intended to protect public health.

The 2 vectors of multiple partners and anonymous cannot be avoided when it comes to prostitution, However, the third one unprotected sex can easily be controlled in any legal sex trade business. That is why advocates for the legalization of sex trade with an appropriate license in between consenting legal adults will mostly bring up public health protection measures enforced by the State as their primary concern.

Right, and the state is also allowed to enforce any other legal regulations when it comes to private businesses. It is able to say that in order to possess a licence to operate as a prostitute within our jurisdiction, you must abide by all the laws and regulations which cover doing business within our jurisdiction. One of those is conforming to anti-discrimination laws.

I see a disconnect between the argument that it is treated as a business where it concerns health and safety laws, but as a private transaction where it concerns anti-discrimination laws. It should be a business where it's covered by both or as a private transaction where it's covered by neither.

I can see it too. As a matter of consistency when it comes to laws applying to all legal businesses, anti discrimination laws should apply. However, because of the very nature of sex trade where it inevitably involves sexual activities, mutual consent is still a factor. IMO the question is whether the vital importance of mutual consent is to override laws applying to all legal businesses.

Efforts on the part of the State to coerce (via threats of penalties) all legal sex workers into providing sexual services to potential clients without their(the sex workers) consent may justifiably be perceived as the State dismissing the sex worker's right to protect her/his bodily integrity (keeping in mind that she/he is the sole legitimate owner of her/his own anatomy and subsequent choice of use).

 

[Bomb#20]

I'm really having a hard time seeing how some posters aren't seeing that if you force prostitutes to abide by anti-discrimination laws then you are forcing her to have sex with people she normally wouldn't have sex with. She is being coerced into having sex if she wants to keep using the sex trade to make her livelihood.

Well, there are basically two ways a person could fail to see that. One way is that they don't regard the threat of loss of livelihood by someone in a position of power over others, due to his role as a gatekeeper between them and their livelihood, as coercion. In some people's heads, only physical force and threats of violence count as coercion. Such a person wouldn't see threatening to fire a janitor unless she gives out unwilling sexual favors as coercion either -- it's the boss's money, he's offering to trade his money for clean bathrooms and sex with partners of his choosing, and she can freely choose to take the deal or not. So for the people here who say when the state does it it's not coercion, but who haven't offered an opinion on whether it's coercion when a private employer does it, that's one possible explanation. That, at least, would be consistent. (But I'll be very surprised if the other guy who responded to your post ever tells us he thinks Bob isn't coercing Alice in my janitor scenario.)

The other way a person could fail to see that is by being blatantly inconsistent, applying double standards, putting his thumb on the scales of justice. He can decide what's coercion, not by any rational criterion, but by first deciding whose side he's on. (Typically people do this type of mental gyration either by identifying a subject as ingroup or outgroup, or else based on who they feel sorry for. Some people do both, being simultaneously too tribally oriented to feel sorry for outgroup members and too morally crippled to recognize injustice against a person they don't feel sorry for.) Once such a person has decided whose side he's on, he simply decides factual questions any way he needs to in order to get the preselected conclusion, which is that his ally is in the right and his enemy is in the wrong. So if his ally is threatening his enemy with loss of livelihood unless she does X, but he thinks coercing someone to do X is wrong, then in his head it automatically follows that his ally threatening his enemy with loss of livelihood unless she does X does not qualify as coercion. And when he gets a different answer when somebody else threatens somebody else with with loss of livelihood unless she does X, and he decides that case does qualify as coercion, what makes that different is that in that case the threatener is his enemy, while the person being threatened is somebody he feels sorry for.

Sex is kind of a singular commodity.

Yes, just so.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

i can see it too. As a matter of consistency when it comes to laws applying to all legal businesses, anti discrimination laws should apply. However, because of the very nature of sex trade where it inevitably involves sexual activities, mutual consent is still a factor. IMO the question is whether the vital importance of mutual consent is to override laws applying to all legal businesses.

Efforts on the part of the State to coerce (via threats of penalties) all legal sex workers into providing sexual services to potential clients without their(the sex workers) consent may justifiably be perceived as the State dismissing the sex worker's right to protect her/his bodily integrity (keeping in mind that she/he is the sole legitimate owner of her/his own anatomy and subsequent choice of use).

Yes, I can see how it can be perceived that way, but I just think that perception is invalid. A person's right to their bodily integrity is absolute. A person's right to be legally employed as a prostitute is not absolute. It is upon the latter which the government is imposing regulations and coercing compliance through threat of penalties, as they can and should with all legal businesses. The fact that she uses her body to conduct her business doesn't mean that the separation between her as an individual and her as a businesswoman should not be maintained when discussing matters which only pertain to one of them.

 

[prideandfall]

While I have no problem answering questions that clarify something I said, I am finding it irritating to be asked if I am saying something that I clearly am not. I have no interest in arguing a position I have not taken but would really give another poster a really good gotcha moment.

/spit-take

okay i nearly died laughing - that is... seriously, you have a gift for comedy!

 

[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.

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

I am perfectly comfortable with the government requiring sole readers to cease trading (in the absence of any boss to fire them) if they refuse to comply with the law.

So if that is your only objection, it is indeed simple.

Violence is the sole basis upon which all laws are ultimately enforced. Threats of fines are meaningless without jail, which is meaningless without threat of physical force and violence to put and keep them there. Only by threat of physical violence can the State prevent a women from selling sex to white men but not black men. So what you are saying is that you are "perfectly comfortable" with the State physically attacking a women up to and including killing her, if she avoids starvation by taking money from white men when she has sex with them, but then refuses to have sex with black men who want to give her money.

You are right; the very existence of a state is a travesty, and we should all take up arms against it and make sure not to form a new state of any kind as a result

If you have nothing rational to add to the discussion - and by rational, I include "not invoking absurd hyperbole", then perhaps you should reconsider contributing at all?

Withdrawing a persons licence to trade, because they refuse to comply with its conditions, is not the same as putting a gun to someone's head and saying "fuck this guy or die". If you honestly can't see a difference between the two, I suggest you seek psychiatric assistance.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

This slippery slope argument is kind of a waste of time. Sex work is not a public accommodation.

You could take it to reductio ad absurdum extreme of say forcing a gigolo to take on male clients that would anally penetrate him. That is the end goal!

That isn't a reductio ad absurdum, that actually is the logical conclusion of those arguing that the prostitute should not be able to deny black Johns.