Oh I don't agree. I think refusing to do business with someone based on race, religion, gender, sexual orientation is wrong and should be illegal. The exceptions would be in cases where there is a high degree of intimacy: sex work would be one. example. Some domestic work would be another. I might adamantly t oppose the reasons you do not wish to hire a male nanny or an Hispanic nanny--but it would be your right to choose who you like using whatever criteria you wish to use.
So you are saying that an individual's preferences matter more than the racism when there's intimacy.
So, a woman, say, might prefer not to have her body intimately examined by a black gynecologist. Ditto for a white man who doesn't want to have a rectal exam from a black doctor.
I'm not really comfortable with saying that's ok. I'm not saying it should be illegal. Illegaility is a slightly different issue. But it would still be racist, imo, and regrettable.
Also, all of these, including the people hiring the nanny, are 'customer side' perspectives. There is also the issue that a prostitute is arguably, like the doctor, the one providing the service, so isn't it a bit like saying that the black doctor ought to be free to have racial preferences regarding their customers? Similarly, would it be ok for a nanny to place an ad saying 'no blacks' because she doesn't like changing the dirty nappies of black kids?
I'm not totally comfortable with it, either. It's racist and racism is bad, to state it very plainly. In my ideal world, it wouldn't matter to anyone, but it does. Racism is not illegal. We cannot legislate how people feel.
What I am saying is that a person's rights over their own body are more important than concerns over racism. Anyone has the right to refuse any sexual contact with any other person for any reason. Good reason/bad reason. It doesn't matter if I agree with it or not. I think we all know that there are plenty of people who only are interested in say: blondes or people with big boobs or red hair or all sorts of preferences. We don't automatically assign racism to a guy who only gets it up for blonde, blue eyed chicks, even though they are almost certainly white. We aren't crying RACIST! to the customer who selects the blonde, blue eyed prostitute over the black haired, dark eyed, dark skinned prostitute. And we all know that people make those choices, have those attractions and have aversions to certain characteristics that might or might not be race related. Some people would actively avoid anyone who reminded them of say, a parent or an ex, or someone who had been abusive towards them in the past. Some might be drawn to the same.
Prostitutes remain people and should have the same choices over sex partners as the rest of us.
Sex and sex work is more intimate and intimate in a different way than any medical care we might receive. Physicians take an oath to provide care for their patients. Physicians/medical providers do not allow access to intimate parts of their own body. They might establish a friendly relationship with the patient and most attempt to do so, in an attempt to put the patient at ease and to be able to gather more information aiding in the diagnosis and treatment of the patient. But that is a one way flow of information. Doctors do not discuss their own parents' medical histories, or their own with patients. It's not the same kind of relationship, physically, or emotionally or professionally. It doesn't have the same goals or the same code of ethics.
Nannies can and do screen prospective clients, just as parents do. There is no purity test for criteria. Ideally, both nanny and parent are looking for a situation where the nanny and parents will get along, and will be in agreement with what is best for the child being cared for and most importantly, the child will like and possibly love and bond with the nanny and all will regard the nanny as a part of the family.
I am not suggesting that it is ok to use race as a criteria for selecting a physician or a nanny or a client. I'm saying we all do make such choices on characteristics that are not just things we check off on a list of qualifications. We want an affinity, a kind of relationship and it needs to be mutual.
Ok, so, I can see where you're coming from and I'm not saying it's unreasonable and we are just doing some thought experiments. Broadly, I think I agree with you, so bear that in mind if I now do some counter-examples. Also, I can't guarantee I won't flip-flop if someone else's argument sways me later.
If it were a male prostitute or porn actor (and I accept that we are mostly thinking of female prostitutes for understandable reasons) then him putting his penis into someone else's body with (hopefully) a latex wrapper is not all that different in terms of bodily integrity of the service provider to the doctor putting another part of his (or her) body into either of the two 'most relevant orifices', and I don't think you'd go along with doctors saying 'no blacks'. Ditto the nanny who may have to get his or her hands dirty*.
I take the point about the differences between medical contexts and sex work contexts but I wonder if you aren't applying at least some 'non-sex-worker' attributes to the sex work (such as when you say,
"we all do make such choices on characteristics that are not just things we check off on a list of qualifications. We want an affinity, a kind of relationship and it needs to be mutual").
Hypothetically, if a prostitute is going to turn away a black person, then a few minutes later he or she is going to be intimate with another non-black person that is a stranger. The only difference is that we are allowing the prostitute to discriminate on grounds of skin colour (assuming there's nothing else involved). The intimacy with a stranger thing is arguably already a non-issue, at least in principle, of itself, again assuming there's nothing other than skin colour involved, nothing like not having washed or being aggressive or whatever. That's not to deny the prostitute any degree of personhood or autonomy, by the way. But he or she is arguably not in a relationship where affinity is a priority.
The other question I'm wondering is, what about other sexual intimacies. An actor, for example could refuse to kiss or get into a naked sex scene (simulated) with a black person. On their resume they could say 'no blacks'. They could use a version of the intimacy argument, albeit without penetration, they could say that they have a lower threshold for what they consider intimate. But then, as I said, the prostitute already accepts penetration by strangers, so all that's relevant is the skin colour preference.
Bottom, line, I think I mostly agree with you, with some reservations. My guess is that if prostitution were to be legal that it might not be possible for prostitutes to get away with advertising 'no blacks' even if in practice that's their unstated policy. I'm having a bit of trouble setting aside the racism and the fact that someone is providing a service and not just going about their private personal business. So, in a way, I could see how someone more concerned about racism than about bodily integrity could come to a different stance.
By the way, that suggestion of yours that at least for some people, what this is about is forcing women to do stuff they don't want to, is not necessarily far-out or ridiculous. I just don't know if you can tell whether it's operative for a person you're discussing with on the internet. That said, it's something I personally would keep in mind, as a possibility.
Another thing to bear in mind is that many many prostitutes aren't doing their work entirely out of free choice, so I would have more sympathy with them in terms of choosing generally, I think. This might even be an elephant in the room, 'prostitute choice' mostly not being free.
*I was almost going to cite a white vet who won't stick his or her arm up the rear end of cows with certain markings, but I guess that's not as controversial.
