Is it racist for a prostitute to reject black men?

[Nexus]

There's likely any number of reasons. Anything to do with cleanliness would be acceptable. If they're too busy, too tired or anything else. They just couldn't so it explicitly do it because of race.

Would it be acceptable to you if a prostitute only had paid sex with someone they're attracted to?

 

[Angry Floof]

There's likely any number of reasons. Anything to do with cleanliness would be acceptable. If they're too busy, too tired or anything else. They just couldn't so it explicitly do it because of race.

Would it be acceptable to you if a prostitute only had paid sex with someone they're attracted to?

It would to me. There is no other line of work that can reasonably be compared to prostitution. If penetration of your body is your trade, I think there is arguably room to demand freedom of personal preferences in choosing clients.

 

[bilby]

So you feel that racial discrimination is more important than a woman's bodily integrity? I would agree that her actions are racist yet its a lesser evil than forcing women to have sex with someone.

WTF are you talking about? Exactly who is forcing her to have sex with someone? If she doesn't want to follow the legal rules of the business, she can choose not to be employed in that business. It's the same way that someone who doesn't want to run a bar that bans smoking isn't forced to open a bar in an area that doesn't allow smoking in bars. It's the same as someone who doesn't want to give drivers' licenses to women isn't forced to work at the DMV. It's the same as someone who doesn't want to sell birth control pills to single women isn't forced to work in a pharmacy. It's the same as someone who doesn't want to give loans to Indians isn't forced to work at a bank.

None of those people are the victims of someone forcing them to do something and neither is the prostitute.

In almost all of the USA, prostitution is illegal, so there are no "legal" rules for that business. Unlike a pharmacist who is typically licensed by the state, prostitutes are not.

To answer the OP question, I'd say yes.

Who said anything about the US, or US law? Prostitution is not illegal everywhere (indeed, not even in all parts of the US), so there most certainly ARE legal rules for that business - indeed there are as many such sets of rules as there are jurisdictions in which prostitution is legal.

I agree that the answer is 'Yes'; rejecting people from provision of any service solely on the basis of their race is the very definition of racism. Legality doesn't enter into it; a drug dealer who refuses to sell crack to white people, simply because they are white, is also being racist. racism and legality are independent concepts.

 

[bilby]

What are the grounds upon which a prostitute can reject a customer?

Any. Including racism.

 

[credoconsolans]

Yes, it is racist.

It is only a problem where prostitution is legalized. Then a whore and her whorehouse could be sued for discrimination.

In the world of crime, it's not an issue. As an earlier poster said, it's not a problem a good beating from her pimp won't solve.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

So, in the areas where prostitution is legal, if a prostitute turns down a customer because of race, the customer should be entitled to sue for discrimination?

 

[credoconsolans]

So, in the areas where prostitution is legal, if a prostitute turns down a customer because of race, the customer should be entitled to sue for discrimination?

Yup. You don't open a business and not treat all your customers equally.

 

[bilby]

So, in the areas where prostitution is legal, if a prostitute turns down a customer because of race, the customer should be entitled to sue for discrimination?

Yup. You don't open a business and not treat all your customers equally.

Indeed. And given that there are plenty of perfectly legitimate grounds for turning down any given customer, it is a particularly stupid prostitute who does so in such a way as to make it provable in court that race was the only factor.

If the customer can prove that race was the only factor, then he has a legal case, and the same law applies as it would for any other business. There is nothing particularly complicated or exceptional about any of this stuff.

 

[Angry Floof]

I disagree. The intimate and personal nature of the work should allow for freedom of preference. Serving someone a sandwich doesn't require penetration or swapping body fluid. It may be the only kind of work where race (actually it's body shape, size, color) DOES affect the person offering the service and how they deliver it.

A prostitute may well be a racist, but because it's the most intimate of arts, her preferences on appearance, size, shape, etc., should be the first consideration here regardless of her prejudices.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

There's likely any number of reasons. Anything to do with cleanliness would be acceptable. If they're too busy, too tired or anything else. They just couldn't so it explicitly do it because of race.

Would it be acceptable to you if a prostitute only had paid sex with someone they're attracted to?

Yes, that's as perfectly fine as an accountant only doing the taxes of people who'll play golf with him.

 

[Angry Floof]

Yeah, because doing taxes for a stranger is reasonably comparable to having sex with one. Let's pretend there's nothing else at all to consider here.

 

[Jayjay]

It being wrong to for a prostitute to refuse their services to black men is not the same as them having to accept every customer they come across. That's like saying that it's acceptable for a company to refuse to hire black people because the alternative is that they have to hire every single person who sends them a resumé.

If a legitimate business like a restaurant were to refuse service to black people, either explicitly by having a sign that says so on the window (which would be the equivalent of the original example), or simply by refusing service based on nothing but skin tone, that business would open itself to being sued for discrimination.

Hiring and providing a service are different issues, but similar rules apply. Nobody says you have to hire every person who applies for a job, but you have to give them equal opportunity and you can't discriminate the applicants based on race without a good reason (for example, if you're looking for a model or an actor for a specific role that needs to be of particular ethnicity). Or if you do discriminate, you need to either hide it instead of just having a sign outside "black people need not apply".

 

[fast]

I've never hired a prostitute -- maybe some day -- but, I get get a kick out of reading their ads on backpage.com I've noticed many of them say NO black men.

Here's a silly idea that probably won't hold up, but just for funs sake, it's okay to discriminate against someone if the basis is purely skin color, as skin color is not a protected class. For instance, refusing to have sex with all black Caucasians and all black African Americans when not race but rather skin color is the issue, then discriminatory or not, it wouldn't therefore be racist, as the race has no bearing on your choice. So, be prepared to have sex with both white Caucasians and white African Americans.

 

[laughing dog]

How is that not the entire point of my post?

Your post was about the choice of the prostitute. It had nothing to do with the fact that illegal activity, in and of itself, typically does not adhere to legal rules.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I disagree. The intimate and personal nature of the work should allow for freedom of preference. Serving someone a sandwich doesn't require penetration or swapping body fluid. It may be the only kind of work where race (actually it's body shape, size, color) DOES affect the person offering the service and how they deliver it.

A prostitute may well be a racist, but because it's the most intimate of arts, her preferences on appearance, size, shape, etc., should be the first consideration here regardless of her prejudices.

I disagree. They can't have the benefits of the legalization of their trade without also dealing with the costs of that. They have a far safer and healthier environment, but they need to start paying taxes and dealing with all the workplace laws that everyone else has to conform to.

- - - Updated - - -

How is that not the entire point of my post?

Your post was about the choice of the prostitute. It had nothing to do with the fact that illegal activity, in and of itself, typically does not adhere to legal rules.

Umm ... exactly?

 

[Derec]

white African Americans.

You mean like him?

 

[laughing dog]

In my view, if it would be legal and moral for a prostitute to reject a customer on the basis of race because of the personal nature of the service, then why couldn't sex therapists, psychologists and psychiatrists, or physicians be able to reject a customer on the basis of the personal nature of the service?

 

[credoconsolans]

I disagree. The intimate and personal nature of the work should allow for freedom of preference. Serving someone a sandwich doesn't require penetration or swapping body fluid. It may be the only kind of work where race (actually it's body shape, size, color) DOES affect the person offering the service and how they deliver it.

Oh, gee, what kind of work did she think she was signing up for?

OMG, men are going to want to stick things in her! Wow, she thought she was just there to serve coffee.




No personal preference would be allowed and you know why? Who are the guys who have to PAY for sex?

Hate to tell you, but they don't all look like Brad Pitt.

A picky prostitute is a liability in a whorehouse. She needs to break out on her own, go into business as a private courtesan and then she can call the shots. In the meantime, if she works for someone else...there's the door if you can't handle the customers.

 

[bilby]

I disagree. The intimate and personal nature of the work should allow for freedom of preference. Serving someone a sandwich doesn't require penetration or swapping body fluid. It may be the only kind of work where race (actually it's body shape, size, color) DOES affect the person offering the service and how they deliver it.

A prostitute may well be a racist, but because it's the most intimate of arts, her preferences on appearance, size, shape, etc., should be the first consideration here regardless of her prejudices.

Freedom of preference is not infringed. The only thing that is illegal is deciding that she will reject a particular customer due to his race. Basically, if she says 'No blacks need apply' on her ad, she is racist, and is illegally discriminating. If she simply says 'No' to individual customers, she is not breaking any law - even if she happens to reject every black man who has so far attempted to use her services, she is not doing anything wrong if she is not rejecting them ONLY because of their skin colour.

As I said, she would have to be pretty stupid to admit that this was her criterion, given that it is perfectly OK for her to reject customers on almost any other basis.

 

[Angry Floof]

I disagree. They can't have the benefits of the legalization of their trade without also dealing with the costs of that. They have a far safer and healthier environment, but they need to start paying taxes and dealing with all the workplace laws that everyone else has to conform to.

You're right. There's nothing unique about prostitution that would call for any kind of nuance of thinking or creative problem solving. It's best to stick with the status quo and make the unique situation fit that. Carry on.