Is it racist for a prostitute to reject black men?

[dx713]

Thanks for your patience, and please cool off from attacking the posters...

 

[Sabine Grant]

TFT Moderation team.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

No, that was in context of my disputing someone else's assertion about what "we humans tend to value (...) in increasing order of importance" Saying 'if A then B' isn't necessarily asserting A. Now that does happen to be my order of priority but not just because I think it'd be most peoples'.

Of course, saying “if A then B” isn't necessarily saying A, or for that matter B.
However, that does not help your case. Let's take a look again at what you said in your replied to maurile:

, including:

1. The freedom to do business, or to refuse doing business, with anyone we want.

2. The freedom not to be discriminated against based on race.

3. The freedom to decide for ourselves whom we are willing to have sex with, and whom we are not, for any reason whatsoever, without being penalized by the state (except, perhaps, in the case of state-run brothels, who may decide not to employ prostitutes who aren't sufficiently indiscriminate).
​

That list is in increasing order of importance. So when they conflict, #1 often gives way to #2, and #2 gives way to #3. That's why prostitutes, but not accountants, should be able to discriminate based on race.

If we disagree, I suspect it's because you value #2 more than #3; and if so, I suspect you are in the minority (which does not by itself make you wrong). Is that a fair summary?

I don't disgree, but that misrepresents the argument by omission. The prioritised list in this context would be :

1. The freedom to be a licensed prostitute.

2. The freedom to do business, or to refuse doing business, with anyone we want.

3. The freedom not to be discriminated against based on race.

4. The freedom to decide for ourselves whom we are willing to have sex with, and whom we are not, for any reason whatsoever, without being penalized by the state (except, perhaps, in the case of state-run brothels, who may decide not to employ prostitutes who aren't sufficiently indiscriminate).​

Since the licensing authority would revoke licenses rather than pin anyone down and force their legs apart, the conflict here is between (1) and (2 & 3), with the fourth irrelvant. Most people value (1) far less than the others, with many (not me) denying that it should be a right at all.

So if sex is so special that exceptions should be made to rights and freedoms (about which there seems to be a range of opinion), it is (1) which should be compromised.


(I haven't read the entire thread, so apologies to others who're doubtless already blue in the face from pointing this out)

As I explained, you make the error of saying that (4) is irrelevant – it's not, since the state would not be forcing legs apart, but if the proposed laws were passed and enforced, the state would forcibly prevent prostitutes from working if they don't have sex with some clients they don't want to, by revoking the licenses and preventing unlicensed prostitutes from working – and the error of talking about the right to be a “licensed prostitute” - the issue is actually about the right to be a prostitute, given that the government is, under the proposed policy, banning unlicensed ones.

But aside from all of that, and with regard to the point of mine that you're disputing in your “If A then B” reply, in your reply to maurile you did make a moral assessment offering popularity as the rationale.

Yes, granted, you asserted “If A then B”, rather than either “A” (or “B”, for that matter); here, A is “sex is so special that exceptions should be made to rights and freedoms”, and B is “it is (1) which should be compromised”.

However, the explicit rationale that you used in support of B conditional to A's obtaining was that most people value most people value (1) far less than the others

The fact that you didn't assert the antecedent of the conditional does not change the fact that - conditional to sex's being special in that manner - , you defended that (1) should go (a moral assessment; that's clearly a moral “should”) because of what the majority values.
If you insist that the conditional makes a difference with regard to whether you were defending a moral claim on the grounds of what the majority values, one may look at it from a slightly different perspective, namely the fact that by means of defending the consequent - conditional to the antecedent's being true - on the basis of popularity, you also defended the entire conditional moral claim on that basis.

Furthermore, you provided no other basis. In other words, the whole rationale you gave in support of the conditional moral claim “If A then B” is popular opinion. If you had a different rationale in mind as well, you did not provide it in the thread.
Given that popular opinion is not a good reason for believing the conditionals, you did not provide any good reasons for believing that your moral claim “If A then B” (and conditional moral statements are still moral statements).
Now, if you didn't mean to make a moral assessment based on what a majority values, then you made a mistake and did something you did not mean to make, in which case you can easily correct the point by saying that you made a mistake and did not mean to say that, in which case I would ask you: What did you mean, and on what grounds do you hold that “If A then B” is true?

Moreover, on the issue of A – i. e., on whether sex is so special that exceptions should be made to rights and freedoms – you said that “there seems to be a range of opinion”, and you did not specify how any majority rules on that. So, you did not assert A, bu even then, it seems implicit in you post what policy you're advocating, because your assertion is that if sex is “so special”, then (1) should go; but what if it isn't?

It seems implicit that if it is not the case that sex is “so special” that “exceptions should be made to rights and freedoms” (i. e., if ¬A), then the policy in the case of sex should be the same as in other cases – namely, that prostitutes, like bus drivers an accountants, are forced to choose between not discriminating on the basis of race, or lose their jobs – no exceptions.

So, it appears that it's implicit in your post that if A, prostitutes should get forced to either stop working or have sex with clients they don't want to have sex with because of their race, and if ¬A, then also the same applies.


Now, it's true that you did not assert that, so if you did not mean to imply that (given context), please clarify what other alternative you had or have in mind, in case sex is not “so special”.
In other words, if sex is not so special, what is your stance on whether prostitutes should be forbidden from using race as a criterion to reject clients? Because the stance that seems implicit in your post is that they should.

In a later post, you also said “While I'm not 100% convinced there should be such a law (or licensing condition), that doesn't sway me 1%.”. In addition to the errors in your rejecting my argument – I already replied to that here -, your claim was only that you're not “100% convinced”.

You hadn't said that before (in your original post), and the original implication seemed to be what I described above, without exceptions. But even if one counts that later reply, saying that you're not “100% convinced” seems to be a way of saying that you still lean towards that [very unjust] law.

Incidentally, it's hard to see how it is that you're not “100% convinced”. You're apparently 100% convinced that “If A then B”. But if ¬A, then sex is not “so special” that “exceptions should be made to rights and freedoms”; how is is that the law in question might not be necessary? Or are you just suggesting it might not be necessary because such cases of discrimination doesn't happen often enough to bother, or something like that?

 

[angelo]

Enough of this political correctness bullshit. A prostitute should be able to refuse to have sex with anyone regardless of race, colour or for whatever reason she may feel uncomfortable with. A John can pick and choose a prostitute from a line up with no problem so what changes in her case?

 

[Canard DuJour]

Of course, saying “if A then B” isn't necessarily saying A, or for that matter B.
However, that does not help your case. Let's take a look again at what you said in your replied to maurile:

, including:

1. The freedom to do business, or to refuse doing business, with anyone we want.

2. The freedom not to be discriminated against based on race.

3. The freedom to decide for ourselves whom we are willing to have sex with, and whom we are not, for any reason whatsoever, without being penalized by the state (except, perhaps, in the case of state-run brothels, who may decide not to employ prostitutes who aren't sufficiently indiscriminate).
​

That list is in increasing order of importance. So when they conflict, #1 often gives way to #2, and #2 gives way to #3. That's why prostitutes, but not accountants, should be able to discriminate based on race.

If we disagree, I suspect it's because you value #2 more than #3; and if so, I suspect you are in the minority (which does not by itself make you wrong). Is that a fair summary?

I don't disgree, but that misrepresents the argument by omission. The prioritised list in this context would be :

1. The freedom to be a licensed prostitute.

2. The freedom to do business, or to refuse doing business, with anyone we want.

3. The freedom not to be discriminated against based on race.

4. The freedom to decide for ourselves whom we are willing to have sex with, and whom we are not, for any reason whatsoever, without being penalized by the state (except, perhaps, in the case of state-run brothels, who may decide not to employ prostitutes who aren't sufficiently indiscriminate).​

Since the licensing authority would revoke licenses rather than pin anyone down and force their legs apart, the conflict here is between (1) and (2 & 3), with the fourth irrelvant. Most people value (1) far less than the others, with many (not me) denying that it should be a right at all.

So if sex is so special that exceptions should be made to rights and freedoms (about which there seems to be a range of opinion), it is (1) which should be compromised.


(I haven't read the entire thread, so apologies to others who're doubtless already blue in the face from pointing this out)

As I explained, you make the error of saying that (4) is irrelevant – it's not, since the state would not be forcing legs apart, but if the proposed laws were passed and enforced, the state would forcibly prevent prostitutes from working if they don't have sex with some clients they don't want to, by revoking the licenses and preventing unlicensed prostitutes from working – and the error of talking about the right to be a “licensed prostitute” - the issue is actually about the right to be a prostitute, given that the government is, under the proposed policy, banning unlicensed ones.

Already addressed : Freedom to be a prostitute is no further up the list of popular priority (which is what I was addressing) than freedom to be a licensed prostitute. Or my list, so long as not being one means nothing worse than a different job or welfare. And that's assuming being unlicensed means being banned rather than forgoing state protections.

But aside from all of that, and with regard to the point of mine that you're disputing in your “If A then B” reply, in your reply to maurile you did make a moral assessment offering popularity as the rationale.

Yes, granted, you asserted “If A then B”, rather than either “A” (or “B”, for that matter); here, A is “sex is so special that exceptions should be made to rights and freedoms”, and B is “it is (1) which should be compromised”.

However, the explicit rationale that you used in support of B conditional to A's obtaining was that most people value most people value (1) far less than the others

The fact that you didn't assert the antecedent of the conditional does not change the fact that - conditional to sex's being special in that manner - , you defended that (1) should go (a moral assessment; that's clearly a moral “should”) because of what the majority values.
If you insist that the conditional makes a difference with regard to whether you were defending a moral claim on the grounds of what the majority values, one may look at it from a slightly different perspective, namely the fact that by means of defending the consequent - conditional to the antecedent's being true - on the basis of popularity, you also defended the entire conditional moral claim on that basis.

Which wouldn't be a "slightly different perspective," but a direct contradiction of your earlier assertion : "Of course saying 'if A then B' isn't necessarily saying A, or for that matter B."

Make yer mind up..

Furthermore, you provided no other basis. In other words, the whole rationale you gave in support of the conditional moral claim “If A then B” is popular opinion. If you had a different rationale in mind as well, you did not provide it in the thread.
Given that popular opinion is not a good reason for believing the conditionals, you did not provide any good reasons for believing that your moral claim “If A then B” (and conditional moral statements are still moral statements).

Garbage. Were I to argue that if (A) people of jewish descent are subhuman, then (B) Hitler is subhuman because he is of jewish descent, I am neither making an antisemitic statement, nor obligated to proffer an alternative antsemitic rationale.

Now, if you didn't mean to make a moral assessment based on what a majority values, then you made a mistake and did something you did not mean to make, in which case you can easily correct the point by saying that you made a mistake and did not mean to say that, in which case I would ask you: What did you mean, and on what grounds do you hold that “If A then B” is true?

Exactly what I said in response to maurile.

Moreover, on the issue of A – i. e., on whether sex is so special that exceptions should be made to rights and freedoms – you said that “there seems to be a range of opinion”, and you did not specify how any majority rules on that. So, you did not assert A, bu even then, it seems implicit in you post what policy you're advocating, because your assertion is that if sex is “so special”, then (1) should go; but what if it isn't?

It seems implicit that if it is not the case that sex is “so special” that “exceptions should be made to rights and freedoms” (i. e., if ¬A), then the policy in the case of sex should be the same as in other cases – namely, that prostitutes, like bus drivers an accountants, are forced to choose between not discriminating on the basis of race, or lose their jobs – no exceptions.

So, it appears that it's implicit in your post that if A, prostitutes should get forced to either stop working or have sex with clients they don't want to have sex with because of their race, and if ¬A, then also the same applies.

Nah, that's the same misrepresentation of both the argument you quote and the one it addresses. 'A' would be maurile's thesis as a whole, which invoked popular priority including the idea sex is so special that exceptions should be made to rights and freedoms. Not only do I not necessarily assert the former, but actually disputed whether the latter is actually popular priority, as there seems to be a range of opinion. But if, arguendo, we accept both, then it is the right to be a prostitute (which doesn't force anyone to have sex with anyone) that should be compromised.

Now, it's true that you did not assert that, so if you did not mean to imply that (given context), please clarify what other alternative you had or have in mind, in case sex is not “so special”.
In other words, if sex is not so special, what is your stance on whether prostitutes should be forbidden from using race as a criterion to reject clients? Because the stance that seems implicit in your post is that they should.

In a later post, you also said “While I'm not 100% convinced there should be such a law (or licensing condition), that doesn't sway me 1%.”. In addition to the errors in your rejecting my argument – I already replied to that here -, your claim was only that you're not “100% convinced”.

You hadn't said that before (in your original post), and the original implication seemed to be what I described above, without exceptions. But even if one counts that later reply, saying that you're not “100% convinced” seems to be a way of saying that you still lean towards that [very unjust] law.

Incidentally, it's hard to see how it is that you're not “100% convinced”. You're apparently 100% convinced that “If A then B”. But if ¬A, then sex is not “so special” that “exceptions should be made to rights and freedoms”; how is is that the law in question might not be necessary? Or are you just suggesting it might not be necessary because such cases of discrimination doesn't happen often enough to bother, or something like that?

It'd depend on the consequence of not being a prostitute. If it's nothing worse than a different job or welfare, then it doesn't seem good enough reason to compromise the principle that there shouldn't be explicit racial discrimination in the provision of goods and services. As I've already said, and would maintain regardless of popular priority.

 

[Canard DuJour]

Enough of this political correctness bullshit. A prostitute should be able to refuse to have sex with anyone regardless of race, colour or for whatever reason she may feel uncomfortable with.

Who's saying otherwise? What's under dispute is whether s/he should enjoy the state protections and privileges other providers of goods and services enjoy if s/he openly discriminates. That's a much more tricky question.

 

[angelo]

Enough of this political correctness bullshit. A prostitute should be able to refuse to have sex with anyone regardless of race, colour or for whatever reason she may feel uncomfortable with.

Who's saying otherwise? What's under dispute is whether s/he should enjoy the state protections and privileges other providers of goods and services enjoy if s/he openly discriminates. That's a much more tricky question.

Why is it a tricky question? Of course she [majority are female] should have state protection and privileges.

 

[Canard DuJour]

Well, there's an interesting thread debating the issues here

 

[angelo]

There really is precious little to debate about. As far as I'm aware we live in the Western World which I presume is free and democratic.

 

[Sabine Grant]

Enough of this political correctness bullshit. A prostitute should be able to refuse to have sex with anyone regardless of race, colour or for whatever reason she may feel uncomfortable with. A John can pick and choose a prostitute from a line up with no problem so what changes in her case?

I thought it was explained previously in this thread the difference between consumer and provider. Under a legal and licensed sex services provider, the "john" is a consumer. Consumers are not under a mandate to not discriminate in their choice of a business or provider of services. Whereas legal businesses are under a mandate to not discriminate against consumers.

 

[Sabine Grant]

Who's saying otherwise? What's under dispute is whether s/he should enjoy the state protections and privileges other providers of goods and services enjoy if s/he openly discriminates. That's a much more tricky question.

Why is it a tricky question? Of course she [majority are female] should have state protection and privileges.

However, state protections and privileges are not separate from providers and services exercising their trade within the restrictions imposed by laws. Anti discrimination laws being part of those restrictions.Even independent incorporated contractors are mandated to comply with anti discrimination laws.

What I have observed in this thread is some focusing on the legality of allowing for exemptions from anti discrimination laws. Others focusing on the principle of bodily integrity and resulting requirement that there be an informed consent from both parties to sexual activities.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Enough of this political correctness bullshit. A prostitute should be able to refuse to have sex with anyone regardless of race, colour or for whatever reason she may feel uncomfortable with.

Who's saying otherwise? What's under dispute is whether s/he should enjoy the state protections and privileges other providers of goods and services enjoy if s/he openly discriminates. That's a much more tricky question.

What protections and privileges are you talking about?

In any case, one of the things under dispute is whether the state should force her to stop working if she discriminates based on race, by means of not giving her a license and putting unlicensed prostitutes is jail.

 

[Canard DuJour]

Who's saying otherwise? What's under dispute is whether s/he should enjoy the state protections and privileges other providers of goods and services enjoy if s/he openly discriminates. That's a much more tricky question.

What protections and privileges are you talking about?

National Insurance (or whatever non-UK equivalent), entitlement to sickness and holiday pay, entitlement to union representation, legal recourse against unreasonable employers or clients, legal recourse for non-payment (rather than having to cut in a violent criminal), protection under health and safety regulation, all sorts..

In any case, one of the things under dispute is whether the state should force her to stop working if she discriminates based on race, by means of not giving her a license and putting unlicensed prostitutes is jail.

I doubt it. More like a series of warnings followed by fines. And lawsuits. You might get jail for resisting a legal official or agent thereof e.g. bailiff.

Unlicensed taking of payment for sex needn't even be illegal. Money plays a tacit part in all sorts of sexual relationships and prostitution can be quite difficult to define and identify.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

National Insurance (or whatever non-UK equivalent), entitlement to sickness and holiday pay, entitlement to union representation, legal recourse against unreasonable employers or clients, legal recourse for non-payment (rather than having to cut in a violent criminal), protection under health and safety regulation, all sorts..

Okay, so I didn't see much of that as part of the discussion, but generally:

a. Legal recourse for non-payment is the usual standard for any legal contract, regardless of whether it's a licensed activity or not. Not giving them legal recourse would foster violence as a means of getting paid and promote crime, and also result in much more exploitation.

b. Also, legal recourse against unreasonable people is also standard. If they commit a crime, there is always legal recourse, and if they don't, there is still a lawsuit because they failed to comply with what they agreed.

In any case, one of the things under dispute is whether the state should force her to stop working if she discriminates based on race, by means of not giving her a license and putting unlicensed prostitutes is jail.

I doubt it. More like a series of warnings followed by fines. And lawsuits. You might get jail for resisting a legal official or agent thereof e.g. bailiff.

You doubt that the state should force her by those means, or that it's one of the things under dispute?
In any case, if the state imposes warnings and fines, it seems that they would impose jail as an alternative. Otherwise, how do you use warnings and fines against someone who does not have the money to pay the fine, and ignores the warnings?

In any case, warnings and fines are also a way of forcing a person to choose between losing her job and having sex with people she does not want to have sex with.

Unlicensed taking of payment for sex needn't even be illegal. Money plays a tacit part in all sorts of sexual relationships and prostitution can be quite difficult to define and identify.

Fair enough, but part (much) of the dispute is whether it should be illegal for a prostitute to refuse to take clients of a specific race, because of their race.

 

[tupac chopra]

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.

So if she sets up her own business she can do it?
See its nothing to do with the laws of "the business".

It's the same as someone who doesn't want to give loans to Indians isn't forced to work at a bank.

You are clearly completely ignorant of how the banking and the money system works. What, are the going to set up their own fucking bank to make loans?
You do know how banks advance money don't you? Do you think banks loan money in the same way that people do?

 

[whichphilosophy]

Why is it a tricky question? Of course she [majority are female] should have state protection and privileges.

However, state protections and privileges are not separate from providers and services exercising their trade within the restrictions imposed by laws. Anti discrimination laws being part of those restrictions.Even independent incorporated contractors are mandated to comply with anti discrimination laws.

What I have observed in this thread is some focusing on the legality of allowing for exemptions from anti discrimination laws. Others focusing on the principle of bodily integrity and resulting requirement that there be an informed consent from both parties to sexual activities.

Where prostitution is illegal, then the agreements between the parties are not legally enforceable. For example under English Common law, if a prostitute takes a taxi and informs the driver as to the purpose of her travel a court cannot compel her to pay the fare (English law Pearce v Brooks (1866) LR 1 Exch 213). In my view, a prostitute will not be legally racist even if she is, because she is refusing to consider an illegal act which a court will not enforce. I am sure US common law will be similar to English common law and you may have some better leads on this.

 

[Bomb#20]

I'll try and find it, but it's a hypocritical position. If a John has a right not to be discriminated against, then a prostitute has a right not to be discriminated against.

No, they're entirely separate issues for all the reasons mentioned.

Actual reasons haven't been mentioned. What's been mentioned is the law's customary practice of distinguishing between economic activities it labels "businesses" and those it doesn't, the law's customary practice of distinguishing between economic activities it requires licenses for and those it doesn't, and the law's customary practice of distinguishing between the participants in an exchange based on which one is defined as "customer" and which as "seller". All these amount to saying we don't prohibit johns from discriminating because we categorize them as members of a class we don't impose anti-discrimination laws on. That doesn't actually qualify as a reason.

This raises a natural follow-up question. Suppose a licensed Certified Public Accountant quits his tax preparation job and goes looking for a new job, right after the owner of the tax preparation agency he works for retires and sells his company. This raises eyebrows. The new owner reads the agency's file copy of the CPA's resume; she does some fast checking of the guy's previous employers; and she figures out the guy has always worked only for black-owned businesses and he quit because she's Asian. Should the terms of a CPA license require one to sell accounting services to people of all races on a nondiscriminatory basis? If the new owner reports him for racially discriminating against her, should his CPA license be revoked? Should the licensing officials warn him that he'd better take a job at a non-black-owned business or lose his license? They wouldn't be forcing him to work for non-black people, after all, and making a living as a licensed accountant isn't a right.

 

[angelo]

Enough of this political correctness bullshit. A prostitute should be able to refuse to have sex with anyone regardless of race, colour or for whatever reason she may feel uncomfortable with. A John can pick and choose a prostitute from a line up with no problem so what changes in her case?

I thought it was explained previously in this thread the difference between consumer and provider. Under a legal and licensed sex services provider, the "john" is a consumer. Consumers are not under a mandate to not discriminate in their choice of a business or provider of services. Whereas legal businesses are under a mandate to not discriminate against consumers.

In other words the prostitute has to take on whatever even if it makes her ill? In that case whatever fee is charged, it's not anywhere near enough and they are doing far more than what a doctor is asked to do.

 

[Sabine Grant]

However, state protections and privileges are not separate from providers and services exercising their trade within the restrictions imposed by laws. Anti discrimination laws being part of those restrictions.Even independent incorporated contractors are mandated to comply with anti discrimination laws.

What I have observed in this thread is some focusing on the legality of allowing for exemptions from anti discrimination laws. Others focusing on the principle of bodily integrity and resulting requirement that there be an informed consent from both parties to sexual activities.

Where prostitution is illegal, then the agreements between the parties are not legally enforceable. For example under English Common law, if a prostitute takes a taxi and informs the driver as to the purpose of her travel a court cannot compel her to pay the fare (English law Pearce v Brooks (1866) LR 1 Exch 213). In my view, a prostitute will not be legally racist even if she is, because she is refusing to consider an illegal act which a court will not enforce. I am sure US common law will be similar to English common law and you may have some better leads on this.

I can understand you would not have read the entirety of this thread, considering how long it is. However, my comments throughout this thread have been following the continuity of a context where prostitution is legalized and where I have referred to such legalized trade as "sex services providers" and "legal licensed businesses". My reply to Angelo was also in that context.

The question remains that under that context whether exemptions, from the broad wide expectation that all legal trades abide to anti discrimination laws, be granted to legal businesses operating as licensed to provide sex services under the compelling argument that society in general expects mutual informed consent to be given by parties engaging in sexual activities. Obviously, a sex service provider or worker would be withholding consent from providing sex services to a potential client of the said business (to include client of a private incorporated contractor) based on the ethnicity of the said client. Sex services obviously implying sexual activities and the inevitable expectation that both parties consent to the said activities.

As I had mentioned much earlier in this thread, there is an inevitable clash between the social and legal expectation regarding observance of anti discrimination laws for all legal trades and the social and legal expectation that parties engaging in sexual activities both consent to the said activities.

 

[Sabine Grant]

I thought it was explained previously in this thread the difference between consumer and provider. Under a legal and licensed sex services provider, the "john" is a consumer. Consumers are not under a mandate to not discriminate in their choice of a business or provider of services. Whereas legal businesses are under a mandate to not discriminate against consumers.

In other words the prostitute has to take on whatever even if it makes her ill?

I thought much earlier in this thread I had already covered the aspect( and again under the context of a legal trade/business providing sex services) of when and how sex workers can refuse to provide services to a potential client based on the client either demanding the sex worker engages in unprotected intercourse (no condom) or the potential client is a health hazard. (the "no condom" would also be a health hazard) So, I am not sure why my reply was interpreted as " so the prostitute has to take on whatever even if it makes her ill".

In that case whatever fee is charged, it's not anywhere near enough and they are doing far more than what a doctor is asked to do.

Again, sex workers providing sex services in currently legal sex services providing establishments known as "brothels" such as in Nevada cannot be compelled by law to provide services to potential clients who endanger the health of those employees. To summarize (and I hope it is the last time I have to explain this) : the law is on the side of a sex worker refusing to provide sex services to a potential client on the basis of the client demanding the sex worker disregards guidelines imposed by OSHA and The Health Depart.