Is it racist for a prostitute to reject black men?

[Tom Sawyer]

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.

I'm not following you here. It's the difference between a personal transaction and a business transaction. Where you choose to spend your own money is a personal transaction for you and it's not the government's business. When you sell a product or service, it's a business transaction and it's the government's business. It's like if a McDonalds' franchise doesn't want to sell to Jews, that's a problem that the government has a role to intrude upon but if a guy doesn't want to eat at a particular McDonalds because it's run by Jews, then he's a racist dick but he's not doing anything illegal that the government should get involved in.

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.

If it can be proven that he's violating non-discrimination laws then he should lose his licence the same way that he should lose it if it's proven that he's engaging in any other kind of illegal activity.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

delete

 

[Bomb#20]

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.

I'm not following you here. It's the difference between a personal transaction and a business transaction. Where you choose to spend your own money is a personal transaction for you and it's not the government's business. When you sell a product or service, it's a business transaction and it's the government's business. It's like if a McDonalds' franchise doesn't want to sell to Jews, that's a problem that the government has a role to intrude upon but if a guy doesn't want to eat at a particular McDonalds because it's run by Jews, then he's a racist dick but he's not doing anything illegal that the government should get involved in.

What aren't you following? Your reply is a picture-perfect example of the phenomenon I described: you're offering classifications instead of offering reasons. You haven't said why buying is "personal" and selling is "business"; you haven't said why "personal" means the government shouldn't intrude and "business" means it should; you haven't said why is should be illegal to refuse to sell to Jews but legal to refuse to buy from Jews.

(Moreover, I don't believe for a second that you even agree with the rules you just propounded. Flipping burgers is a service people sell. That means you just in effect said a burger-flipper's decision not to work for a burger-joint because it's run by Jews is the government's business, whereas where a burger-joint owner chooses to spend his own money is a personal transaction for him and not the government's business, which would mean if he refuses to hire Jews to flip burgers for him then he's a racist dick but he's not doing anything the government should get involved in. So if you're going to keep offering classifications instead of reasons, you'll be needing to refine your class membership criteria.)

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.

If it can be proven that he's violating non-discrimination laws then he should lose his licence the same way that he should lose it if it's proven that he's engaging in any other kind of illegal activity.

Wow. You're actually okay with penalizing people for quitting their jobs.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I'm not following you here. It's the difference between a personal transaction and a business transaction. Where you choose to spend your own money is a personal transaction for you and it's not the government's business. When you sell a product or service, it's a business transaction and it's the government's business. It's like if a McDonalds' franchise doesn't want to sell to Jews, that's a problem that the government has a role to intrude upon but if a guy doesn't want to eat at a particular McDonalds because it's run by Jews, then he's a racist dick but he's not doing anything illegal that the government should get involved in.

What aren't you following? Your reply is a picture-perfect example of the phenomenon I described: you're offering classifications instead of offering reasons. You haven't said why buying is "personal" and selling is "business"; you haven't said why "personal" means the government shouldn't intrude and "business" means it should; you haven't said why is should be illegal to refuse to sell to Jews but legal to refuse to buy from Jews.

(Moreover, I don't believe for a second that you even agree with the rules you just propounded. Flipping burgers is a service people sell. That means you just in effect said a burger-flipper's decision not to work for a burger-joint because it's run by Jews is the government's business, whereas where a burger-joint owner chooses to spend his own money is a personal transaction for him and not the government's business, which would mean if he refuses to hire Jews to flip burgers for him then he's a racist dick but he's not doing anything the government should get involved in. So if you're going to keep offering classifications instead of reasons, you'll be needing to refine your class membership criteria.)

What on earth are you talking about? I cannot believe that you've been a participant in this thread for this long and have this little idea what it is that is being said.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

What aren't you following? Your reply is a picture-perfect example of the phenomenon I described: you're offering classifications instead of offering reasons. You haven't said why buying is "personal" and selling is "business"; you haven't said why "personal" means the government shouldn't intrude and "business" means it should; you haven't said why is should be illegal to refuse to sell to Jews but legal to refuse to buy from Jews.

(Moreover, I don't believe for a second that you even agree with the rules you just propounded. Flipping burgers is a service people sell. That means you just in effect said a burger-flipper's decision not to work for a burger-joint because it's run by Jews is the government's business, whereas where a burger-joint owner chooses to spend his own money is a personal transaction for him and not the government's business, which would mean if he refuses to hire Jews to flip burgers for him then he's a racist dick but he's not doing anything the government should get involved in. So if you're going to keep offering classifications instead of reasons, you'll be needing to refine your class membership criteria.)

What on earth are you talking about? I cannot believe that you've been a participant in this thread for this long and have this little idea what it is that is being said.

He understands what is being said, he's talking about what you said, and he keeps rasing decisive objections. You're the one who does not seem to understand what the objections are, and keep replying to posts while misunderstanding the actual points made in them, or not addressing them but dismissing them without an explanation (as in the example quoted above), or just not mentioning them (as in Bomb#20's last sentence in his immediately previous post), or a combination of those.

 

[angelo]

Gawd if you guys can't come to an agreement what hope is there politicians can come to an agreement in parliament. We are arguing about free will and just plain democracy without the political correctness that's poisoned the western world.

 

[Lion IRC]

Commercial videographer/photographer can decline to shoot (perfectly legal) pornography.
...but wedding photographer can't decline gay weddings.

 

[funinspace]

Wow...talk about digging up the dead...a 2014 thread

Commercial videographer/photographer can decline to shoot (perfectly legal) pornography.
...but wedding photographer can't decline gay weddings.

Isn't cool that we don't live in a black and white world?

Commercial videographer/photographer can decline to shoot (perfectly legal) cats, and choose to only work with dogs.
Parents can choose to mutilate their child's penis as part of their religious practices, but typically can't (depending on how neanderthalic their particular state is) choose to let their child die of easily handled health care issues as part of their religious practices.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Kind of an interesting question, though. I mean, obviously, if I advertise that I take wedding photos, it'd be wrong to discriminate against weddings that included certain races, religions, interracial, or have a 'no fat chicks' policy.

But if I produced porn, could I choose not to produce certain kinds of porn?
If I bill myself as a producer and marketer of amputee dwarf porn, could I turn down someone who wants to do tentacle-enhanced bicycle porn because 'I'm not into that market' or would that be discrimination?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

This can make for an interesting examination of discrimination concern vs safety concern. While there are likely a few prostitutes who just don't like black people, most who have "no black men" policies do so because they believe (rightly or wrongly) that black men are statistically more likely to be violent towards them or to be pimps. The same goes for a friend of mine who works as a stripper who dreads working for Indian men, as she has found them to be a lot less respectful and more likely to push beyond club rules.

So question then is, should we force these women to take a greater risk to personal safety so not to discriminate in a racist manner? And if so, does that wedge the door open for similar cases of profiling? Does considering the prostitute case make you more receptive to Sam Harris' view that we should profile at airports, as resources (scrutiny) is finite and wasting it on little old ladies and toddlers takes time away from people belonging to groups that are more statistically likely to be problems?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

This can make for an interesting examination of discrimination concern vs safety concern. While there are likely a few prostitutes who just don't like black people, most who have "no black men" policies do so because they believe (rightly or wrongly) that black men are statistically more likely to be violent towards them or to be pimps. The same goes for a friend of mine who works as a stripper who dreads working for Indian men, as she has found them to be a lot less respectful and more likely to push beyond club rules.

So question then is, should we force these women to take a greater risk to personal safety so not to discriminate in a racist manner? And if so, does that wedge the door open for similar cases of profiling? Does considering the prostitute case make you more receptive to Sam Harris' view that we should profile at airports, as resources (scrutiny) is finite and wasting it on little old ladies and toddlers takes time away from people belonging to groups that are more statistically likely to be problems?

Another reason I heard of:

Most pimps are black. Sometimes "no black men" is from her pimp and about keeping other pimps from trying to recruit their girls.

 

[Lion IRC]

Isn't cool that we don't live in a black and white world?

Yeah. Cool.
Hypocrites love grey areas.

 

[Elixir]

Isn't cool that we don't live in a black and white world?

Yeah. Cool.
Hypocrites love grey areas.

And self righteous religious fanatics love their black and white dualism.
*yawn*

 

[funinspace]

Isn't cool that we don't live in a black and white world?

Yeah. Cool.
Hypocrites love grey areas.

Well, if 50 shades of grey floats your boat, who am I to argue. Personally, I prefer technicolor...

 

[Arctish]

Is it racist for Milo Yiannopoulis to reject white men?

Milo once claimed he carries around a paint sample so he can check it against a guy's skin to see if he's black enough for Milo to have sex with him. Is that racist?

 

[Keith&Co.]

Milo once claimed he carries around a paint sample so he can check it against a guy's skin to see if he's black enough for Milo to have sex with him. Is that racist?

It's an affectation.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Milo once claimed he carries around a paint sample so he can check it against a guy's skin to see if he's black enough for Milo to have sex with him. Is that racist?

It's an affectation.

No, it's racist. However, if you want to be racist in your own personal relationships, that's really your own concern and nobody else's. It's only when people are bigots in a professional capacity that it's a problem.

I do like it when Christians resurrect things, though. Their religion has a theme and it's nice when they go with it.

 

[Keith&Co.]

It's an affectation.

No, it's racist. However, if you want to be racist in your own personal relationships, that's really your own concern and nobody else's. It's only when people are bigots in a professional capacity that it's a concern.

I would agree. But I figure, one can have sex with people that turn one on, that's one thing.
Making a big public deal about 'black enough' moves it away from lust to an affectation.
Like the difference between seeking out blonde women, for example, or telling people you're carrying a ruler to see if their blond hair is long enough.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

No, it's racist. However, if you want to be racist in your own personal relationships, that's really your own concern and nobody else's. It's only when people are bigots in a professional capacity that it's a concern.

I would agree. But I figure, one can have sex with people that turn one on, that's one thing.
Making a big public deal about 'black enough' moves it away from lust to an affectation.
Like the difference between seeking out blonde women, for example, or telling people you're carrying a ruler to see if their blond hair is long enough.

Well ya, that's because he's a racist. Racist are going to do idiotic things on account of the fact that racists are idiots. He's also a big jerk.

That's not a real problem, though. If you don't like people who carry rulers to see if women's hair is long enough, simply don't associate with those people. How they live their own lives is their isn business.

 

[Arctish]

I would agree. But I figure, one can have sex with people that turn one on, that's one thing.
Making a big public deal about 'black enough' moves it away from lust to an affectation.
Like the difference between seeking out blonde women, for example, or telling people you're carrying a ruler to see if their blond hair is long enough.

Well ya, that's because he's a racist. Racist are going to do idiotic things on account of the fact that racists are idiots. He's also a big jerk.

That's not a real problem, though. If you don't like people who carry rulers to see if women's hair is long enough, simply don't associate with those people. How they live their own lives is their isn business.

Which would also apply to prostitutes as long as their trade isn't legal.