Is it racist for a prostitute to reject black men?

[Toni]

The practical solution which unfolds in the real world is inherent in Angra Mainyu's post. If we're talking brothels, the people who want to discriminate are never offered to the people who fall within their exclusions. If someone is servicing kerb crawlers, they avoid the cars driven by the old, the wrong sex, the wrong ethnicity.

The situation where it comes up is in phone ordering and if you turn up and find that your client is someone you don't want to service, nobody can stop you walking away again, short of the violence that prostitutes risk with every transaction. Only someone who is so racist that they feel the need to be provocative has to give the reason.

But the majority of this thread has been about the legalities. Enshrining in law that it is OK to discriminate on the basis of race is a retrograde step.

Yeah, there has been talk of how this is an extension of the discussion about women's rights not to have their use of their bodies dictated to them.

Even if those people weren't missing the point, the issue is wider than gender politics.

I see nothing as being a wider issue than being able to choose with whom to share your own body, using whatever selection criteria.

I don't apply this only to females but to all genders and all orientations.

Yes, and if you know you have racist issues don't choose sex work as your profession. Not everybody is suited to every field of endeavour.

Sorry: I reject totally that working as a sex worker means you no longer have a choice about your sex partners. As far as I can tell, my position is supported by law.

There is a big difference between having a choice, and having a prejudice. One is made on a case by case basis. The other is decided in advance. One is lawful, the other is not. And the former does not entail the latter.

Really.

It doesn't.

That may be the law in Australia but in the US, it is not. At least to the best of my ability to determine.

Compelling someone to have sex against their will is rape, even if the reason to refuse to have sex is rooted in prejudice or racism.

 

[repoman]

There are a couple of more interesting situations that this could lead to:

If you take as a given that a sex worker has a right to choose and reject clients based on any criteria, what about employer/employee arguments about that?

On one hand the sex worker may work for a brothel/escort agency that rejects black men and then the worker takes on black clients and is fired. Any recourse?

The other hand the brothel/escort agency with a no discrimination policy fires the worker for explicitly or implicitly refusing black clients. What recourse then?

 

[Toni]

There are a couple of more interesting situations that this could lead to:

If you take as a given that a sex worker has a right to choose and reject clients based on any criteria, what about employer/employee arguments about that?

On one hand the sex worker may work for a brothel/escort agency that rejects black men and then the worker takes on black clients and is fired. Any recourse?

The other hand the brothel/escort agency with a no discrimination policy fires the worker for explicitly or implicitly refusing black clients. What recourse then?

Assuming that the situation is one where prostitution is illegal, then I would say no recourse. One major reason that some choose to run illegal enterprises is because they don't want to follow rules, regulations, laws in general.

If the situation is one where prostitution is legal, then it depends on whether the business is one of public accommodation vs private club. A business open to the public may not discriminate. A private club may.

In either case, a person cannot be compelled to have sex with any particular individual against his or her will.

 

[Bomb#20]

There are a couple of more interesting situations that this could lead to:

If you take as a given that a sex worker has a right to choose and reject clients based on any criteria, what about employer/employee arguments about that?

On one hand the sex worker may work for a brothel/escort agency that rejects black men and then the worker takes on black clients and is fired. Any recourse?

Just because the law recognizes a prostitute's right to reject clients based on any criteria, that doesn't force the law to also consider a prostitute's employer to have the right to reject clients based on any criteria. The obvious recourse would be a wrongful termination suit.

If you refuse to do business with someone because of their race, you are being racist. It's nothing a good bitchslapping from her pimp can't cure, though. Damn whore can't be turning away his paying customers that way and costing him money.

The other hand the brothel/escort agency with a no discrimination policy fires the worker for explicitly or implicitly refusing black clients. What recourse then?

Recognizing that such employer actions are likely to be rampant and hard to police, the simplest solution would be not to legalize pimping. It's probably easier to suppress it when prostitution itself is legal.

 

[bilby]

The practical solution which unfolds in the real world is inherent in Angra Mainyu's post. If we're talking brothels, the people who want to discriminate are never offered to the people who fall within their exclusions. If someone is servicing kerb crawlers, they avoid the cars driven by the old, the wrong sex, the wrong ethnicity.

The situation where it comes up is in phone ordering and if you turn up and find that your client is someone you don't want to service, nobody can stop you walking away again, short of the violence that prostitutes risk with every transaction. Only someone who is so racist that they feel the need to be provocative has to give the reason.

But the majority of this thread has been about the legalities. Enshrining in law that it is OK to discriminate on the basis of race is a retrograde step.

Yeah, there has been talk of how this is an extension of the discussion about women's rights not to have their use of their bodies dictated to them.

Even if those people weren't missing the point, the issue is wider than gender politics.

I see nothing as being a wider issue than being able to choose with whom to share your own body, using whatever selection criteria.

I don't apply this only to females but to all genders and all orientations.

Yes, and if you know you have racist issues don't choose sex work as your profession. Not everybody is suited to every field of endeavour.

Sorry: I reject totally that working as a sex worker means you no longer have a choice about your sex partners. As far as I can tell, my position is supported by law.

There is a big difference between having a choice, and having a prejudice. One is made on a case by case basis. The other is decided in advance. One is lawful, the other is not. And the former does not entail the latter.

Really.

It doesn't.

That may be the law in Australia but in the US, it is not. At least to the best of my ability to determine.

Compelling someone to have sex against their will is rape, even if the reason to refuse to have sex is rooted in prejudice or racism.

Banning prejudiced people from engaging in a business transaction is NOT compelling them to do anything.

Racists are not allowed to run shops, restaurants or bars; yet that fact does not compel them to sell goods, food or drink to black people. How would banning racists from becoming licensed prostitutes force them to have sex?

How??

"You are not allowed to sell sex", and "you must have sex with this person whether you want to or not" are about as completely different as two statements can be.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Just in case: I only asked bilby a few questions, in order to test how he is using terms like "coerce", "coercion", etc.; I wasn't proposing a legal system based on that.

 

[Toni]

Banning prejudiced people from engaging in a business transaction is NOT compelling them to do anything.

Racists are not allowed to run shops, restaurants or bars; yet that fact does not compel them to sell goods, food or drink to black people. How would banning racists from becoming licensed prostitutes force them to have sex?

How??

"You are not allowed to sell sex", and "you must have sex with this person whether you want to or not" are about as completely different as two statements can be.

If we are honest, we all have prejudices and biases. One of my biases is that I would object if one of my children wanted to marry a Muslim from the Mid-East and immigrate to that country. Whether my objections influence my children's choices in marital partners (should they ever actually decide to get married) is an entirely different question as is what actions I might take in such a hypothetical situation.


If you are in the U.S., then you should know that in fact, prejudiced people are allowed to conduct business transactions and do so every single day, with impunity. Engaging in business while prejudiced is not illegal. Excluding some individuals based upon certain criteria, including race, is illegal in most circumstances.

However there are limits. One limit is that if you are running a private club, you are allowed to admit or reject any members based upon whatever criteria you decide. So if you set up your brothel as a private gentleman's club, for example, you may exclude admissions to whomever you choose, for whatever reason you choose. However, if you operate a public establishment, you may not deny service based upon race, etc. etc. etc.

The question is: if you sell sex (which is not allowed in almost any part of the U.S. but frankly happens all the time, everywhere), are you allowed to discriminate based upon the race of the customer. Since prostitution lies outside of the legal business community, I am perplexed as to how any particular equal opportunity law could be applied and indeed, I wish someone would discuss why prostitution is being discussed rather than say: can a drug dealer decide to sell drugs only to members of some races? Or: Can a loan shark make loans to borrowers based upon the borrower's race and/or determine the terms of the loan based upon the borrower's race. I think the real deal with this thread is that some people get a particular kind of thrill figuring out ways in which women (because in prostitution threads, almost never are male prostitutes mentioned) may be forced to have sex with someone they do not wish to have sex with. In this thread, it's all under the guise of 'equal opportunity.' But IMO, it's the same old bullshit.

 

[bilby]

Banning prejudiced people from engaging in a business transaction is NOT compelling them to do anything.

Racists are not allowed to run shops, restaurants or bars; yet that fact does not compel them to sell goods, food or drink to black people. How would banning racists from becoming licensed prostitutes force them to have sex?

How??

"You are not allowed to sell sex", and "you must have sex with this person whether you want to or not" are about as completely different as two statements can be.

If we are honest, we all have prejudices and biases. One of my biases is that I would object if one of my children wanted to marry a Muslim from the Mid-East and immigrate to that country. Whether my objections influence my children's choices in marital partners (should they ever actually decide to get married) is an entirely different question as is what actions I might take in such a hypothetical situation.


If you are in the U.S., then you should know that in fact, prejudiced people are allowed to conduct business transactions and do so every single day, with impunity. Engaging in business while prejudiced is not illegal. Excluding some individuals based upon certain criteria, including race, is illegal in most circumstances.

However there are limits. One limit is that if you are running a private club, you are allowed to admit or reject any members based upon whatever criteria you decide. So if you set up your brothel as a private gentleman's club, for example, you may exclude admissions to whomever you choose, for whatever reason you choose. However, if you operate a public establishment, you may not deny service based upon race, etc. etc. etc.

The question is: if you sell sex (which is not allowed in almost any part of the U.S. but frankly happens all the time, everywhere), are you allowed to discriminate based upon the race of the customer. Since prostitution lies outside of the legal business community, I am perplexed as to how any particular equal opportunity law could be applied and indeed, I wish someone would discuss why prostitution is being discussed rather than say: can a drug dealer decide to sell drugs only to members of some races? Or: Can a loan shark make loans to borrowers based upon the borrower's race and/or determine the terms of the loan based upon the borrower's race. I think the real deal with this thread is that some people get a particular kind of thrill figuring out ways in which women (because in prostitution threads, almost never are male prostitutes mentioned) may be forced to have sex with someone they do not wish to have sex with. In this thread, it's all under the guise of 'equal opportunity.' But IMO, it's the same old bullshit.

I am not in the US; and it is obvious that discrimination law, like all law, is impotent to regulate illegal activity, so where prostitution is not legal, pretty much anything goes (including prostitutes being forced to have sex against their will); the illegality of the transaction makes reporting rape more difficult, and makes securing a conviction that much harder too.

The question of applicability of discrimination law only arises in places (such as my country) where prostitution is lawful.

Obviously it is not illegal to be a racist; but as you point out, excluding customers from one's otherwise lawful business on the basis of prejudice is illegal. Where that business requires a license (for example a bar), one of the penalties for illegal discrimination on the basis of race may be the loss of your licence - and hence your business. In short, as a racist, you may not own a bar.

The US rules that exclude 'private clubs' from anti-discrimination law are an oddity; IMO if you charge admission, and/or charge for the services provided, then there should be no exemption - but an historical distaste amongst legislators in the US for allowing Jews, Blacks, or other people they see as 'inferior' into their favourite bar has led to this anomalous and immoral distinction. That has no bearing on the morality of the situation; the existence of such exemptions is a moral problem in and of itself, and does not constitute an excuse for similar exemptions in other circumstances.

The question is: If you are going to allow people to sell sex, should you exempt those people to whom you grant a licence from the anti-discrimination laws that apply to every other business?

For drugs which are currently legal, such as alcohol or tobacco, refusing to sell them to blacks would be sufficient reason to revoke the vendor's licence. In no way is such revocation of license tantamount to forcing them to sell cigarettes to blacks. It merely presents them with the choice of concealing their prejudice, or not running that kind of business at all.

I am not aware of any anti-discrimination cases against prostitutes being brought before the courts here; but I am confident that if a prostitute could be shown to have rejected all of a large number of black men who approached her business, while rejecting very few white customers, a case could successfully be brought against her, and her licence revoked, and/or a fine imposed.

 

[Toni]

If we are honest, we all have prejudices and biases. One of my biases is that I would object if one of my children wanted to marry a Muslim from the Mid-East and immigrate to that country. Whether my objections influence my children's choices in marital partners (should they ever actually decide to get married) is an entirely different question as is what actions I might take in such a hypothetical situation.


If you are in the U.S., then you should know that in fact, prejudiced people are allowed to conduct business transactions and do so every single day, with impunity. Engaging in business while prejudiced is not illegal. Excluding some individuals based upon certain criteria, including race, is illegal in most circumstances.

However there are limits. One limit is that if you are running a private club, you are allowed to admit or reject any members based upon whatever criteria you decide. So if you set up your brothel as a private gentleman's club, for example, you may exclude admissions to whomever you choose, for whatever reason you choose. However, if you operate a public establishment, you may not deny service based upon race, etc. etc. etc.

The question is: if you sell sex (which is not allowed in almost any part of the U.S. but frankly happens all the time, everywhere), are you allowed to discriminate based upon the race of the customer. Since prostitution lies outside of the legal business community, I am perplexed as to how any particular equal opportunity law could be applied and indeed, I wish someone would discuss why prostitution is being discussed rather than say: can a drug dealer decide to sell drugs only to members of some races? Or: Can a loan shark make loans to borrowers based upon the borrower's race and/or determine the terms of the loan based upon the borrower's race. I think the real deal with this thread is that some people get a particular kind of thrill figuring out ways in which women (because in prostitution threads, almost never are male prostitutes mentioned) may be forced to have sex with someone they do not wish to have sex with. In this thread, it's all under the guise of 'equal opportunity.' But IMO, it's the same old bullshit.

I am not in the US; and it is obvious that discrimination law, like all law, is impotent to regulate illegal activity, so where prostitution is not legal, pretty much anything goes (including prostitutes being forced to have sex against their will); the illegality of the transaction makes reporting rape more difficult, and makes securing a conviction that much harder too.

The question of applicability of discrimination law only arises in places (such as my country) where prostitution is lawful.

Obviously it is not illegal to be a racist; but as you point out, excluding customers from one's otherwise lawful business on the basis of prejudice is illegal. Where that business requires a license (for example a bar), one of the penalties for illegal discrimination on the basis of race may be the loss of your licence - and hence your business. In short, as a racist, you may not own a bar.

The US rules that exclude 'private clubs' from anti-discrimination law are an oddity; IMO if you charge admission, and/or charge for the services provided, then there should be no exemption - but an historical distaste amongst legislators in the US for allowing Jews, Blacks, or other people they see as 'inferior' into their favourite bar has led to this anomalous and immoral distinction. That has no bearing on the morality of the situation; the existence of such exemptions is a moral problem in and of itself, and does not constitute an excuse for similar exemptions in other circumstances.

The question is: If you are going to allow people to sell sex, should you exempt those people to whom you grant a licence from the anti-discrimination laws that apply to every other business?

For drugs which are currently legal, such as alcohol or tobacco, refusing to sell them to blacks would be sufficient reason to revoke the vendor's licence. In no way is such revocation of license tantamount to forcing them to sell cigarettes to blacks. It merely presents them with the choice of concealing their prejudice, or not running that kind of business at all.

I am not aware of any anti-discrimination cases against prostitutes being brought before the courts here; but I am confident that if a prostitute could be shown to have rejected all of a large number of black men who approached her business, while rejecting very few white customers, a case could successfully be brought against her, and her licence revoked, and/or a fine imposed.

My short answer is that I believe that any person has the right to refuse any sex act with any other person for any reason at all, regardless of whether they have engaged in the same acts with others or with the person they are now rejecting.

I have a hard time seeing legal prostitution as being non-exploitive as some claim it to be, when any of the prostitutes may be forced to engage in sex acts against their will.

My experience with racists is that they would find paying a fine less unpleasant than having sex with someone in the group against which they feel racism.

I'm still interested in hearing from someone why this discussion is about female prostitutes vs loan sharks or drug dealers or others who engage in illegal enterprise.

 

[bilby]

I am not in the US; and it is obvious that discrimination law, like all law, is impotent to regulate illegal activity, so where prostitution is not legal, pretty much anything goes (including prostitutes being forced to have sex against their will); the illegality of the transaction makes reporting rape more difficult, and makes securing a conviction that much harder too.

The question of applicability of discrimination law only arises in places (such as my country) where prostitution is lawful.

Obviously it is not illegal to be a racist; but as you point out, excluding customers from one's otherwise lawful business on the basis of prejudice is illegal. Where that business requires a license (for example a bar), one of the penalties for illegal discrimination on the basis of race may be the loss of your licence - and hence your business. In short, as a racist, you may not own a bar.

The US rules that exclude 'private clubs' from anti-discrimination law are an oddity; IMO if you charge admission, and/or charge for the services provided, then there should be no exemption - but an historical distaste amongst legislators in the US for allowing Jews, Blacks, or other people they see as 'inferior' into their favourite bar has led to this anomalous and immoral distinction. That has no bearing on the morality of the situation; the existence of such exemptions is a moral problem in and of itself, and does not constitute an excuse for similar exemptions in other circumstances.

The question is: If you are going to allow people to sell sex, should you exempt those people to whom you grant a licence from the anti-discrimination laws that apply to every other business?

For drugs which are currently legal, such as alcohol or tobacco, refusing to sell them to blacks would be sufficient reason to revoke the vendor's licence. In no way is such revocation of license tantamount to forcing them to sell cigarettes to blacks. It merely presents them with the choice of concealing their prejudice, or not running that kind of business at all.

I am not aware of any anti-discrimination cases against prostitutes being brought before the courts here; but I am confident that if a prostitute could be shown to have rejected all of a large number of black men who approached her business, while rejecting very few white customers, a case could successfully be brought against her, and her licence revoked, and/or a fine imposed.

My short answer is that I believe that any person has the right to refuse any sex act with any other person for any reason at all, regardless of whether they have engaged in the same acts with others or with the person they are now rejecting.

I completely agree. However a person who is unlawfully discriminatory in their choice of customers has no right to continue to have a license to do business. These two facts - the absolute right to reject any sexual partner for any reason or none; and the absence of a right to a prostitution license for prostitutes who break the anti-discrimination laws - do not impact upon one another in any way. Both are enshrined in law, and they do not conflict with each other.

I have a hard time seeing legal prostitution as being non-exploitive as some claim it to be, when any of the prostitutes may be forced to engage in sex acts against their will.

If prostitutes (or anyone else) is forced to engage in sex acts against their will, then the law here considers that to be rape, and it is taken very seriously indeed by the police and the courts.

My experience with racists is that they would find paying a fine less unpleasant than having sex with someone in the group against which they feel racism.

That's their choice; If you would rather pay the fine than obey the law, that is always an option for offences where the penalty is a fine.

I'm still interested in hearing from someone why this discussion is about female prostitutes vs loan sharks or drug dealers or others who engage in illegal enterprise.

I don't think anyone is particularly discussing people who are engaged in illegal enterprise; the law does not reach illegal traders, so they are in no way regulated by it.

I suppose in theory someone could go to the cops and claim that he was unlawfully discriminated against while he was illegally attempting to solicit a prostitute; There are certainly cases of people going to the cops to report the theft of their illegal drugs, which kinda indicates that you don't need to be too smart to be a criminal or a drug addict. But in general, if somebody engages in an illegal activity, they cannot expect the law to protect them from any harm that might result.

 

[Bomb#20]

The question is: if you sell sex (which is not allowed in almost any part of the U.S. but frankly happens all the time, everywhere), are you allowed to discriminate based upon the race of the customer. Since prostitution lies outside of the legal business community, I am perplexed as to how any particular equal opportunity law could be applied and indeed, I wish someone would discuss why prostitution is being discussed rather than say: can a drug dealer decide to sell drugs only to members of some races? Or: Can a loan shark make loans to borrowers based upon the borrower's race and/or determine the terms of the loan based upon the borrower's race.

The reason we're talking about whether prostitutes should be allowed to racially discriminate is because of post #2.

That does raise an interesting question about the legalization and regulation of prostitution, though. If an accountant can't advertise that he doesn't want black clients or turn them away due to their race when they show up, would a prostitute be able to legally discriminate in that manner?

A whole lot of people on the forum thought Tom's interesting question was a whole lot more interesting than NobleSavage's question in post #1. So we started discussing it. So you need to read most of the posts in this thread as if they began with "Suppose we legalize prostitution; ..." or "In countries where prostitution is legal...". This is a significant subject to discuss because there are a great many people in most Western countries who favor legalization of prostitution; we get our way in some countries. We aren't discussing whether legal loan sharks should get to racially discriminate because hardly anyone is agitating to legalize loan sharking. I expect nobody wants to discuss whether legal drug dealers should get to racially discriminate since we already have legal drug dealers -- we call them pharmacists -- and banning them from racially discriminating isn't controversial the way it is for prostitutes. The reason it isn't controversial is that insisting that pharmacists sell drugs to people they don't feel like selling drugs to doesn't strike most of us as much of an imposition on them.

 

[Toni]

The reason we're talking about whether prostitutes should be allowed to racially discriminate is because of post #2.

That does raise an interesting question about the legalization and regulation of prostitution, though. If an accountant can't advertise that he doesn't want black clients or turn them away due to their race when they show up, would a prostitute be able to legally discriminate in that manner?

A whole lot of people on the forum thought Tom's interesting question was a whole lot more interesting than NobleSavage's question in post #1. So we started discussing it. So you need to read most of the posts in this thread as if they began with "Suppose we legalize prostitution; ..." or "In countries where prostitution is legal...". This is a significant subject to discuss because there are a great many people in most Western countries who favor legalization of prostitution; we get our way in some countries. We aren't discussing whether legal loan sharks should get to racially discriminate because hardly anyone is agitating to legalize loan sharking. I expect nobody wants to discuss whether legal drug dealers should get to racially discriminate since we already have legal drug dealers -- we call them pharmacists -- and banning them from racially discriminating isn't controversial the way it is for prostitutes. The reason it isn't controversial is that insisting that pharmacists sell drugs to people they don't feel like selling drugs to doesn't strike most of us as much of an imposition on them.

The distinctions between drug dealer and pharmacists are many and varied and so is the service and product they provide. Indeed there is great interest in legalizing recreational drugs. I believe that it has even been a recent topic here.

I did notice Tom sawyer's charming proposal to remedy racial discrimination by feme prostitutes.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I did notice Tom sawyer's charming proposal to remedy racial discrimination by feme prostitutes.

What was this charming proposal of mine that merits such a derogatory tone?

 

[Toni]

I did notice Tom sawyer's charming proposal to remedy racial discrimination by feme prostitutes.

What was this charming proposal of mine that merits such a derogatory tone?

The internet is a wonderful thing but it does have its limits, particularly with regards to the ability to accurately convey and interpret tone. I was referring back to the same post Bomb#20 pointed out:

Yes. If you refuse to do business with someone because of their race, you are being racist. It's nothing a good bitchslapping from her pimp can't cure, though. Damn whore can't be turning away his paying customers that way and costing him money.

That does raise an interesting question about the legalization and regulation of prostitution, though. If an accountant can't advertise that he doesn't want black clients or turn them away due to their race when they show up, would a prostitute be able to legally discriminate in that manner?

I bolded your proposal in the post quoted above. I realize that you are a very clever guy and that you like to make very sharp jokes. Probably you are not actually proposing that pimps should knock prostitutes around to ensure they don't engage in any racist practices. I guess I don't have much of a sense of humor because I don't find jokes about bitchslapping women to make them obey to be terribly funny.

 

[Bomb#20]

4. Whenever a female client shows up, Angel refuses to have sex with her. Her boss Jane tells her to stop doing that, or she'll get fired.

Wait, "Angel" is a hooker name now? A female hooker name? No, that is so wrong! Angel is the vampire who the gypsies cursed by giving him his soul back. Angel is the tough-as-nails police sergeant on Dexter. Angel is the greatest guitarist I've ever heard. Angel is the mechanic who kept my car alive years past its expiration date.

 

[Bomb#20]

What I said is that no one has the 'right to refuse anything if it is not demonstrably in the agreed upon social interests of the group to do so.
...
When I wrote "...demonstrably in the agreed upon social interests of the group to do so ..." I put myself in the US constitutional moral universe which sets limits on inalienable rights and government's rights relative to them.

Are you suggesting that if 70% of the public don't agree that it's in the social interests of the group for children not to be subjected to school prayer, then children have no U.S. constitutional right to refuse to participate? What on earth gives you the impression that the guarantees in the U.S. Bill of Rights are hostage to group agreement and/or demonstrations of what's in the group's interests?

My disagreement is with the right of one withholding sex in a business about sex where there are constraints about withholding service because of race. Such is unjustified for both business reasons and constitutional reasons as they apply to businesses.

Constitutional reasons? Are you suggesting it's unconstitutional for businesses to withhold sex because of race? Exactly which clause in the Constitution do you think prohibits that?

 

[Angra Mainyu]

4. Whenever a female client shows up, Angel refuses to have sex with her. Her boss Jane tells her to stop doing that, or she'll get fired.

Wait, "Angel" is a hooker name now? A female hooker name? No, that is so wrong! Angel is the vampire who the gypsies cursed by giving him his soul back. Angel is the tough-as-nails police sergeant on Dexter. Angel is the greatest guitarist I've ever heard. Angel is the mechanic who kept my car alive years past its expiration date.

Okay, I concede you have a point, but I'm just the messenger. (I copied and pasted real [fake] names from real female prostitutes to make it more realistic )

Link: (not entirely sure the picture is SFW, though it seems pretty mild to me).
http://www.reviewjournal.com/life/stark-raving-madam-brothel-worker

 

[angelo]

Are you suggesting that if 70% of the public don't agree that it's in the social interests of the group for children not to be subjected to school prayer, then children have no U.S. constitutional right to refuse to participate? What on earth gives you the impression that the guarantees in the U.S. Bill of Rights are hostage to group agreement and/or demonstrations of what's in the group's interests?

My disagreement is with the right of one withholding sex in a business about sex where there are constraints about withholding service because of race. Such is unjustified for both business reasons and constitutional reasons as they apply to businesses.

Constitutional reasons? Are you suggesting it's unconstitutional for businesses to withhold sex because of race? Exactly which clause in the Constitution do you think prohibits that?

There's no clause that forbids sex because of race. In some US states it's still illegal for gay people to indulge in sexual behaviour. At least it's in the stature books, not sure if it's enforced though.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

What was this charming proposal of mine that merits such a derogatory tone?

The internet is a wonderful thing but it does have its limits, particularly with regards to the ability to accurately convey and interpret tone. I was referring back to the same post Bomb#20 pointed out:

Yes. If you refuse to do business with someone because of their race, you are being racist. It's nothing a good bitchslapping from her pimp can't cure, though. Damn whore can't be turning away his paying customers that way and costing him money.

That does raise an interesting question about the legalization and regulation of prostitution, though. If an accountant can't advertise that he doesn't want black clients or turn them away due to their race when they show up, would a prostitute be able to legally discriminate in that manner?

I bolded your proposal in the post quoted above. I realize that you are a very clever guy and that you like to make very sharp jokes. Probably you are not actually proposing that pimps should knock prostitutes around to ensure they don't engage in any racist practices. I guess I don't have much of a sense of humor because I don't find jokes about bitchslapping women to make them obey to be terribly funny.

Really? After almost 400 posts of actual discussion, debate and information, you're basing your opinion on the irrelevant joke from the first page from before discussion started? Try to keep up in the future.

 

[Toni]

The internet is a wonderful thing but it does have its limits, particularly with regards to the ability to accurately convey and interpret tone. I was referring back to the same post Bomb#20 pointed out:

Yes. If you refuse to do business with someone because of their race, you are being racist. It's nothing a good bitchslapping from her pimp can't cure, though. Damn whore can't be turning away his paying customers that way and costing him money.

That does raise an interesting question about the legalization and regulation of prostitution, though. If an accountant can't advertise that he doesn't want black clients or turn them away due to their race when they show up, would a prostitute be able to legally discriminate in that manner?

I bolded your proposal in the post quoted above. I realize that you are a very clever guy and that you like to make very sharp jokes. Probably you are not actually proposing that pimps should knock prostitutes around to ensure they don't engage in any racist practices. I guess I don't have much of a sense of humor because I don't find jokes about bitchslapping women to make them obey to be terribly funny.

Really? After almost 400 posts of actual discussion, debate and information, you're basing your opinion on the irrelevant joke from the first page from before discussion started? Try to keep up in the future.

Which opinion is that? That jokes about smacking women around to keep them in line are not funny? That everyone has a right to determine what sex acts they wish to engage in and with whom and when or whether to engage in any sex act at all ?

Both opinions were formed many years ago, long before your joke which I don't find to be irrelevant to this thread at all. Your joke opened the post that, as has been pointed out by bomb, changed the direction of the discussion.