Is it racist for a prostitute to reject black men?

[ksen]

serving drinks and fucking are exactly the same itt

They're both legal businesses which require licences to operate and there are conditions attached to having those licences. One of those conditions is that you don't break any laws while running your business and if you don't uphold that or any other condition of the licence, you can lose your licence as a result. So, while there are many differences between the two types of business, they are exactly the same as pertains to the relevant question of the thread.

right, so exactly the same

 

[Tom Sawyer]

They're both legal businesses which require licences to operate and there are conditions attached to having those licences. One of those conditions is that you don't break any laws while running your business and if you don't uphold that or any other condition of the licence, you can lose your licence as a result. So, while there are many differences between the two types of business, they are exactly the same as pertains to the relevant question of the thread.

right, so exactly the same

Good job. Way to contribute to the discussion in a completely not-irrelevant way.

 

[ksen]

Just helping to cut through the bullshit my friend. :hug:

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Just helping to cut through the bullshit my friend. :hug:

Well, it didn't work.

 

[ksen]

dammit

 

[Toni]

bilby, are you or are you not advocating actually not allowing prostitutes to work unlicensed, while at the same time not allowing licensed prostitutes to discriminate on the basis of race?

If you are, then prostitutes would to choose between losing their job, or having sex with people they would otherwise - i.e., lacking that law, or its enforcement - not have sex with.

Or are you advocating having a law, but then allowing unlicensed prostitutes to work and discriminate if they so choose?

For fucks sake. I will say this one last time.

Nobody starts out as a licensed prostitute. So no one is forced to stop being racist or lose their job. People who are racist are not allowed to START being prostitutes.

No one is forced to fuck anyone. No one is allowed to be racist when selling ANYTHING.

No matter how much people want to make racism a special and protected prejudice. No matter how much people want to claim that sex is somehow different from other personal services.

I am fed up with being repeatedly told that I advocate something I have explicitly and repeatedly declared that I am opposed to in the strongest terms; you can all take your smug closeted racism and stick it up your arses.

I'm not the one who is being smug or racist here. What I do think is unique is sex work which carries specific dangers as well as intimacy not present in other business transactions. I am adamant that any person should be able to refuse any sexual contact with any other person for any reason including bad reasons without fear of legal reprisal .

- - - Updated - - -

They're both legal businesses which require licences to operate and there are conditions attached to having those licences. One of those conditions is that you don't break any laws while running your business and if you don't uphold that or any other condition of the licence, you can lose your licence as a result. So, while there are many differences between the two types of business, they are exactly the same as pertains to the relevant question of the thread.

right, so exactly the same

Well drinking = consent dontjano.

 

[ksen]

I don't think consent really kicks in until the 4th or 5th long island iced tea.

 

[Sabine Grant]

What "ideology"? Since you don't know the reasons for the rejection, how can you possibly know that?

Connecting back to the OP content :

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.

Very early in the thread someone theorized that the "no black men" is associated with Black men being generally viewed as having large penises. If the reason why X number of prostitutes eliminate "black men" from their clientele is a matter of them being physically uncomfortable with having intercourse with or/and giving oral sex to males equipped with a large penis, "no large penises" would suffice rather than the specific "no black men".


Can you tell me how many instances in the history of mankind when "no black X or Y" has popped up and it was not the product of a culturally induced ideology based on the belief that members of the specific black ethnicity are inferior to the dominant white ethnicity? Triggering racial discrimination and segregation targeting Blacks.

Again, if racial discrimination and segregation are not the product of a culturally induced mind state, what would be their cause? What is the most probable motivation behind anyone stating "no blacks" while not dismissing the number of times various societies and cultures have set multiple precedents of "no blacks" being the direct product of a mind state which was culturally induced and promoting race supremacy?

Rejecting clients based on incompatibility with one's GI or/and sexual orientation is the product of nature.

So what? Are you saying it's okay to discriminate as long as the reason is to be found in 'nature'? If not, what are you saying?

Non. What I am saying is that the motivation is vastly different and further I do not abide to the belief that female GI and straight persons discriminate against their own gender by excluding female partners. Do not abide to the belief that male GI and straight persons discriminate against their own gender by excluding male partners. Nor do I abide to the belief that gay males discriminate against females by excluding female partners. Nor do I abide to the belief that gay females discriminate against males by excluding male partners.

If you were a prostitute and as a gay male advertising "no females", there is no way I would call it "discrimination". The reason being that the motivation behind your "no females" would not be the product of a culturally induced mind state/belief/ideology but the direct product of your sexual orientation as a gay male.

Unless you want to argue that the experiencing of having a female GI or male GI, the experiencing of being gay or hetero is somehow the product of an ideology.

I wouldn't argue this,

I knew you would not. Your sexual orientation cannot be confused for being the product of a culturally induced mind/state, belief/ideology when you eliminate females as partners. Therefor, there is no way I would cry out "discrimination" if you were a prostitute who advertises "no females" versus prostitutes who advertise "no black men" as specifically brought up in the Op content.

but some lesbian separatists and radicals who believe in 'political lesbianism' certainly would. Of course, those women are utterly deluded, but it's no skin off my nose if they laughably believe in libertarian free will and that they chose to be attracted to women.

Indeed.

Unless you would argue that the reason why gay males will not have sex with females is the product of misogyny.

Why would that follow? I don't accuse heterosexual women of misogyny for not having sex with women.

That was stated to reinforce my point that when it comes to sexual orientation eliminating partners of one gender or or the other and being advertised as "no males" or "no females", we cannot cry out "discrimination". Misogyny being another mind state induced by culture.

(Of course, there are radical lesbians who believe that gay men are expressing another form of misogyny by rejecting women as sexual partners. But then, radical lesbians are deluded about so many things, I wouldn't know where to start if I wanted to disabuse them of their erroneous thinking).

And I would be adding water to your well if such discussion took place.

Do you understand the vast difference between behavior governed by ideologies and behavior governed by one's identity whether it be GI or sexual orientation?

No, since I don't understand what you mean by 'governed by ideologies'.

Let me explain then via several non fictive illustrations :

-what governed legislature depriving Blacks in the US from equal Constitutional Rights and Privileges (equal to the white majority) was the belief or ideology or culturally induced mind state that due to their ethnicity or what some refer to as "race", they were inferior and therefor to be socially separate (segregation) while not having access to privileges and rights to be conferred to whites only.

-what governed the South African Apartheid was the belief or ideology or culturally induced mind state that the Bantu people were inferior and therefor to be socially separate while not having access to privileges and rights to be conferred to whites only.

-what governs White Supremacist movements in the US is the belief or ideology or culturally induced mind set that the white ethnicity (which some will refer to as "race") is superior to others therefore promoting race separatism and unequal access to rights and privileges to be conferred to whites only.

The result of the first 2 is that those culturally induced mind states/ideologies/beliefs did govern how those societies behaved towards persons of black ethnicity and behaviors which were legally institutionalized.

The 3 one if deprived from "legally institutionalized" still governs how White Supremacists will behave towards persons of the ethnicity they believe to be inferior to their own. Still governs their wishful thinking of returning to race separatism and legally institutionalized race based discrimination.

I do not want to derail this thread by triggering an intense discussion on the source or root of race supremacy based ideologies governing human behaviors. I had to give you the above illustrations since you did not understand what I meant by " governed by ideologies".

 

[fromderinside]

I do not want to derail this thread by triggering an intense discussion on the source or root of race supremacy based ideologies governing human behaviors. I had to give you the above illustrations since you did not understand what I meant by " governed by ideologies".

NO need for intense anything. OP premise is simple. Should an american prostitute be permitted to reject all black potential clients. Not reject just this black man or that black man, but, should a prostitute, male or female, be allowed to reject all black potential customers. All! The answer is a resounding no as I've pointed out several times before.

 

[Bomb#20]

The prostitute is running a business and her licence to run that business is dependent on her following the rules for conducting business. If she doesn't pay her corporate taxes, the government can revoke her business licence and that doesn't make the government her pimp because she's passing on the cash she made from sex to them.

It isn't profiting from somebody's prostitution that makes you a pimp. Where prostitution is illegal, the protection racketeers who demand a cut of everybody's income including all the local prostitutes' fees aren't acting as their pimps.

I knew a woman who lost her job at a brothel once, long time ago now. It was for exactly the reason stated in this thread. She refused to have sex with a couple of black African/American sailors who were visiting our fair city.

The brothel owner who fired her, in contrast, was a pimp. Having the power to make a woman lose her prostitution job for refusing to have sex with the people you pick out for her, and using it, makes you her pimp.

If she doesn't follow health and safety rules, the government can revoke her licence and that doesn't mean they're forcing her out of the security of a brothel and out into the danger of the street. If she doesn't follow anti-discrimination rules, the government can revoke her licence and that doesn't mean they're coercing her into sex.

That's an interesting view of what coercion is. Let's examine it further.

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.

So here you're granting that they're coercing her; you're simply making a distinction between coercing somebody to have sex and coercing somebody not to be a prostitute.

That's not coersion. She can choose to not keep using the sex trade to make her livelihood. The factor upon which the demand is being made is her right to be employed as a prostitute. That is not actually a right.

But here you're denying it's coercion and simply calling it a demand being made on something that isn't a right. That appears to be an inconsistency; but we can go with the latter term if you prefer it.

Ya, tell that to my boss. He keeps saying that I'll be an unemployed homophobic bigot if I don't blow him in the conference room.

May I just say for the record that I greatly appreciate your sharp wit, here and in innumerable other posts.

But let's pretend for the moment that he really does that. He's certainly not coercing you to blow him in the conference room, going by the view of what coercion is that you're applying to the state. It's your right to be legally employed as his employee which your boss is imposing regulations and coercing compliance through threat of penalties upon. Or, if you prefer, that's what he's making a "demand" upon. And that is not actually a right.

So, regardless of what you call it instead, does the circumstance that your boss is not by your definition "coercing you to blow him in the conference room" make what he's doing okay?

 

[fromderinside]

So, regardless of what you call it instead, does the circumstance that your boss is not by your definition "coercing you to blow him in the conference room" make what he's doing okay?

Of course. It could have been a demand that he sodomize you. Whew

 

[Metaphor]

Very early in the thread someone theorized that the "no black men" is associated with Black men being generally viewed as having large penises. If the reason why X number of prostitutes eliminate "black men" from their clientele is a matter of them being physically uncomfortable with having intercourse with or/and giving oral sex to males equipped with a large penis, "no large penises" would suffice rather than the specific "no black men".

But you don't know the reason. Maybe it's a constellation of reasons. Do you reject all of these reasons as legitimate?

Can you tell me how many instances in the history of mankind when "no black X or Y" has popped up and it was not the product of a culturally induced ideology based on the belief that members of the specific black ethnicity are inferior to the dominant white ethnicity? Triggering racial discrimination and segregation targeting Blacks.

If I got a stripper for my birthday, I'd want it to be a white-European looking man. I am much less aesthetically attracted to Asian and Black men.

Does it follow that my parents taught me that Asians and Blacks were inferior to my Whiteness? No, it does not.

Again, if racial discrimination and segregation are not the product of a culturally induced mind state, what would be their cause?

There is no single cause of a complex social phenomenon. A two year old can burst into tears if she sees someone with a facial deformity in public, never having been exposed to such a thing, and without her parents 'teaching' her to be uncomfortable with facial deformities. Nature -- since you seem obsessed with 'natural' causes -- may have equipped us to prefer similarity with ourselves. When you see a prostitute advertising 'no blacks', you sure seem confident that you know that whatever reason she has, it's illegitimate.

What is the most probable motivation behind anyone stating "no blacks" while not dismissing the number of times various societies and cultures have set multiple precedents of "no blacks" being the direct product of a mind state which was culturally induced and promoting race supremacy?

I don't know. Up until today, I didn't even know prostitutes did that. But someone in the thread has already stated any number of reasons. They might be personal (e.g. the prostitute has been raped by a Black man and is traumatically triggered by sexual intimacy with them) or they might be actuarial (Black men are more likely to have STDs, Black men have fewer financial resources, etc).

Non. What I am saying is that the motivation is vastly different

No. You don't know the motivation behind a prostitute advertising 'no Blacks' unless you've asked each and every one of them. You just imagine the reasons can't be legitimate.

and further I do not abide to the belief that female GI and straight persons discriminate against their own gender by excluding female partners. Do not abide to the belief that male GI and straight persons discriminate against their own gender by excluding male partners. Nor do I abide to the belief that gay males discriminate against females by excluding female partners. Nor do I abide to the belief that gay females discriminate against males by excluding male partners.

I am not aesthetically attracted to Asian men and I would never pay for sex with one. Should the government crack down on me, as a racist john?

Therefor, there is no way I would cry out "discrimination" if you were a prostitute who advertises "no females" versus prostitutes who advertise "no black men" as specifically brought up in the Op content.

But it is discrimination; it's simply discrimination you think has a legitimate reason behind it (I think the reason is legitimate too).

bilby, on the other hand, is now backed so far in a corner in his 'prejudiced discrimination is never justified camp' he thinks a straight gigolo should have to service male clients (or indeed a gay rent boy should have to service female clients, or at least not refuse putting his penis in their mouth or anus).

That was stated to reinforce my point that when it comes to sexual orientation eliminating partners of one gender or or the other and being advertised as "no males" or "no females", we cannot cry out "discrimination". Misogyny being another mind state induced by culture.

It is discrimination. It's just discrimination that we both believe is legitimate.

Let me explain then via several non fictive illustrations :

-what governed legislature depriving Blacks in the US from equal Constitutional Rights and Privileges (equal to the white majority) was the belief or ideology or culturally induced mind state that due to their ethnicity or what some refer to as "race", they were inferior and therefor to be socially separate (segregation) while not having access to privileges and rights to be conferred to whites only.

-what governed the South African Apartheid was the belief or ideology or culturally induced mind state that the Bantu people were inferior and therefor to be socially separate while not having access to privileges and rights to be conferred to whites only.

-what governs White Supremacist movements in the US is the belief or ideology or culturally induced mind set that the white ethnicity (which some will refer to as "race") is superior to others therefore promoting race separatism and unequal access to rights and privileges to be conferred to whites only.

The result of the first 2 is that those culturally induced mind states/ideologies/beliefs did govern how those societies behaved towards persons of black ethnicity and behaviors which were legally institutionalized.

The 3 one if deprived from "legally institutionalized" still governs how White Supremacists will behave towards persons of the ethnicity they believe to be inferior to their own. Still governs their wishful thinking of returning to race separatism and legally institutionalized race based discrimination.

I do not want to derail this thread by triggering an intense discussion on the source or root of race supremacy based ideologies governing human behaviors. I had to give you the above illustrations since you did not understand what I meant by " governed by ideologies".

So, the only way for me to be less aesthetically attracted to Asian men is because my parents and society taught me that White men were hotter, and my preference has nothing to do with biology and therefore my preference is ideology and completely illegitimate?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

...

So here you're granting that they're coercing her; you're simply making a distinction between coercing somebody to have sex and coercing somebody not to be a prostitute.

...

Your whole post was basically about coercion, so I'll reply to that and not each point specifically (because I don't feel like parsing the quotes out).

The distinction being made is between criminal coercion and coercion by law, which is a major distinction. An argument can be made that all government is based on coercion and that the government imposes its authority by the threat of negative consequences. If you want to use the same word for them then fine, but that doesn't make them the same concept.

If two people tell you need to give them $100,000 or they'll lock you in a room for a few months, there's a huge distinction between the situations if one of them is saying "because I have a gun to your head and feel like robbing you" and the other is saying "because you owe a lot of back taxes". Both are coercing you to give them money through the threat of negative consequences, but the usage of the word is not comparable between them.

The government has the authority and the right to "coerce" people to obey the law. It's not the same thing as someone without that authority and right illegally coercing someone to do things.

If you want to argue that making people pay taxes is extortion because they're coercing you to pay them money and traffic cops are assaulting you because they're coercing you through the threat of the use force on you if you run through the intersection they're directing, that's up to you but I disagree with the usage of the term in the same context as criminal coercion.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Your whole post was basically about coercion, so I'll reply to that and not each point specifically (because I don't feel like parsing the quotes out).

The distinction being made is between criminal coercion and coercion by law, which is a major distinction. An argument can be made that all government is based on coercion and that the government imposes its authority by the threat of negative consequences. If you want to use the same word for them then fine, but that doesn't make them the same concept.

If two people tell you need to give them $100,000 or they'll lock you in a room for a few months, there's a huge distinction between the situations if one of them is saying "because I have a gun to your head and feel like robbing you" and the other is saying "because you owe a lot of back taxes". Both are coercing you to give them money through the threat of negative consequences, but the usage of the word is not comparable between them.

The government has the authority and the right to "coerce" people to obey the law. It's not the same thing as someone without that authority and right illegally coercing someone to do things.

And once again you've ignored my question about the propriety and equality of all laws.

If the government says it is legal for one person to own another as a slave, and then passes a law saying "If you find an escaped slave you must return that escaped slave to its owner", do you think that the government coercion used on the person who found an escaped slave is justified?

Are there any laws that you would ever say "no, even though it is coercion by law instead of criminal coercion, this coercion by law is wrong"? Would you face fines and maybe even jail time to assist an escaped slave, or would you return the escaped slave because the law said so?

I'm using examples form US history so there's no point in saying my example has no basis. I'm asking you if you would obey or violate the Fugitive Slave Law. The arguments you've been using would indicate that you wouldn't violate it, which places you in a very sticky situation. This thread has largely been an argument between those who play the political race card and those who play the political gender card, and you're on the side of those who play the political race card.

And you're still using euphemism.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

For fucks sake. I will say this one last time.

Nobody starts out as a licensed prostitute. So no one is forced to stop being racist or lose their job. People who are racist are not allowed to START being prostitutes.

I. Actually, there already are prostitutes. Some of them work illegally, some legally, depending on the jurisdiction.
So, let's consider a case where there are prostitutes working illegally, say New Orleans.

I. a. Do you propose legalizing prostitution in that case?
It seems you do, given that you said in this thread.
I. b. Do you propose enforcing the new laws, actually doing something to prevent unlicensed prostitutes from working illegally as prostitutes?


II. Let us now consider a case where prostitutes are working legally, say in Nevada.

I already presented the scenarios:


The events happen in a legal brothel in Nevada.

II. 1. Whenever an old client shows up, Sandy refuses to have sex with them. In fact, she does not even show up in the room for prostitutes from which the client would pick. But she doesn't do that with any other category of clients. Jane, who manages the place, tells her to stop doing that, or she'll get fired. Is Jane coercing Sandy?

II. 2. Whenever a client wearing a cross or a crucifix shows up, Ginger refuses to have sex with them. In fact, she does not even show up in the room for prostitutes from which the client would pick. But she doesn't do that with any other category of clients. Jane, who manages the place, tells her to stop doing that, or she'll get fired. Is Jane coercing Ginger?

II. 3. Whenever a Black client shows up, Sage refuses to have sex with them. In fact, she does not even show up in the room for prostitutes from which the client would pick. But she doesn't do that with any other category of clients. Jane, who manages the place, tells her to stop doing that, or she'll get fired. Is Jane coercing Sage?


II. 4. Whenever a female client shows up, Angelica refuses to have sex with her. In fact, she does not even show up in the room for prostitutes from which the client would pick. But she doesn't do that with any other category of clients. Jane, who manages the place, tells her to stop doing that, or she'll get fired. Is Jane coercing Angelica?

II. 5. Whenever a Black male client shows up, Dahlia refuses to have sex with him. In fact, she does not even show up in the room for prostitutes from which the client would pick. But she doesn't do that with any other category of clients. Jane, who manages the place, tells her to stop doing that, or she'll get fired. Is Jane coercing Dahlia?

Now, let's consider the matter from the perspective of your proposal.
II. a. Do you propose that any of the prostitutes above be forced by the state to choose between no longer discriminating in that fashion, and lose their jobs?
II. b. If the answer is affirmative, do you propose that the police handle the matter if they receive a call, or that someone else in the government do? Do you also propose proactive checking by the government, or only after receiving complaints?

No one is forced to fuck anyone. No one is allowed to be racist when selling ANYTHING.

No matter how much people want to make racism a special and protected prejudice. No matter how much people want to claim that sex is somehow different from other personal services.

I already explained, repeatedly, that your proposed law sides with the villains.

But again, what would you think of a man of race X to hire a prostitute he knows is a racist who would suffer for having sex with anyone of race X, but he wagers she would not want to risk losing her license (with consequences for her and her family, etc.), so she will likely put up?
The point is that regardless of whether she actually puts up, his behavior is morally appalling. So, by banning some immoral behavior, this proposed licensing system supports something a lot worse.

Yes, granting, the prostitute may well be able to avoid the law, since chances are in most cases, the man in question would have a difficult time showing that she's discriminating on the basis of race, but the point remains that the law sides with him; if she manages to avoid that unjust law, good for her, but the law still sides with him – not to mention, in some cases, she might not manage to avoid facing that situation.

I am fed up with being repeatedly told that I advocate something I have explicitly and repeatedly declared that I am opposed to in the strongest terms; you can all take your smug closeted racism and stick it up your arses.

Your accusation of racism is both unjustified and false.
Regardless, even if your accusations were true and you had gotten it right out of sheer luck – since there is no evidence whatsoever of racism on my part, or on the part of other posters who oppose your views -, that would not make arguments any better, nor would it change the facts that what you advocate is a bad policy, that the law would side with the villains, etc.
In fact, if a racist showed up and made the arguments some of us are making, he would be right about that – and wrong about his racism, but that's another matter.

 

[angelo]

I do not want to derail this thread by triggering an intense discussion on the source or root of race supremacy based ideologies governing human behaviors. I had to give you the above illustrations since you did not understand what I meant by " governed by ideologies".

NO need for intense anything. OP premise is simple. Should an american prostitute be permitted to reject all black potential clients. Not reject just this black man or that black man, but, should a prostitute, male or female, be allowed to reject all black potential customers. All! The answer is a resounding no as I've pointed out several times before.

So if a woman/man is sensitive to race, [racists] prostitution should be the last profession to look at?

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Now, let's consider the matter from the perspective of your proposal.
II. a. Do you propose that any of the prostitutes above be forced by the state to choose between no longer discriminating in that fashion, and lose their jobs?
II. b. If the answer is affirmative, do you propose that the police handle the matter if they receive a call, or that someone else in the government do? Do you also propose proactive checking by the government, or only after receiving complaints?

...

I already explained, repeatedly, that your proposed law sides with the villains.

But again, what would you think of a man of race X to hire a prostitute he knows is a racist who would suffer for having sex with anyone of race X, but he wagers she would not want to risk losing her license (with consequences for her and her family, etc.), so she will likely put up?
The point is that regardless of whether she actually puts up, his behavior is morally appalling. So, by banning some immoral behavior, this proposed licensing system supports something a lot worse.

Yes, granting, the prostitute may well be able to avoid the law, since chances are in most cases, the man in question would have a difficult time showing that she's discriminating on the basis of race, but the point remains that the law sides with him; if she manages to avoid that unjust law, good for her, but the law still sides with him – not to mention, in some cases, she might not manage to avoid facing that situation.

As I said many many pages ago, there are some who think it is a very good to force her to have sex with people she doesn't want to because racists should have no rights.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

NO need for intense anything. OP premise is simple. Should an american prostitute be permitted to reject all black potential clients. Not reject just this black man or that black man, but, should a prostitute, male or female, be allowed to reject all black potential customers. All! The answer is a resounding no as I've pointed out several times before.

So if a woman/man is sensitive to race, [racists] prostitution should be the last profession to look at?

I'd say that any job which interacts with the public would be the last professions to look at.

If you don't want to be in the same bar as black people, then don't work in a bar because black people are allowed to come in there. If you don't want to serve food to Arabs, then don't become a waiter because you can't decide to not give them food. If you don't want to sell comic books to women, then don't work in a comic book store because you can't ban them from being customers.

If your personal feelings and/or belief systems would require you to illegally discriminate against the customer base of a certain profession and you're not willing to compromise on that, then it's not the profession for you.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Again, without the euphemisms and passive language.

 

[Toni]

Now, let's consider the matter from the perspective of your proposal.
II. a. Do you propose that any of the prostitutes above be forced by the state to choose between no longer discriminating in that fashion, and lose their jobs?
II. b. If the answer is affirmative, do you propose that the police handle the matter if they receive a call, or that someone else in the government do? Do you also propose proactive checking by the government, or only after receiving complaints?

...

I already explained, repeatedly, that your proposed law sides with the villains.

But again, what would you think of a man of race X to hire a prostitute he knows is a racist who would suffer for having sex with anyone of race X, but he wagers she would not want to risk losing her license (with consequences for her and her family, etc.), so she will likely put up?
The point is that regardless of whether she actually puts up, his behavior is morally appalling. So, by banning some immoral behavior, this proposed licensing system supports something a lot worse.

Yes, granting, the prostitute may well be able to avoid the law, since chances are in most cases, the man in question would have a difficult time showing that she's discriminating on the basis of race, but the point remains that the law sides with him; if she manages to avoid that unjust law, good for her, but the law still sides with him – not to mention, in some cases, she might not manage to avoid facing that situation.

As I said many many pages ago, there are some who think it is a very good to force her to have sex with people she doesn't want to because racists should have no rights.

I think that some people are more than happy to invent a 'legal' way to force women to have sex with someone they don't want to have sex with. It's just more palatable when it's about certain women, and men although the fact that men are also prostitutes is really relegated to the sidelines in these discussions by all but a couple of people.