Word of mouth is enough? The clients communicate that much?
-
Features
Is it racist for a prostitute to reject black men?
- Thread starter NobleSavage
- Start date
Word of mouth is enough? The clients communicate that much?
Jason Harvestdancer
Contributor
I don't know about that. I think the ultimatum of "accept this person as a client or go out of business" is a pretty heavy handed threat of violence.
Yes, violence. If someone ignores a court order of non-discrimination, that person is held in contempt of court and violence is used to punish the offender. So yes, someone who doesn't comply with a non-discrimination order is subject to violence, and therefore someone who discriminates is subject to the threat of violence. When you accompany sex with the threat of violence if the sex is not offered you get rape.
WTF? Of course prostitutes can be raped. It would involve someone having sex with her without her consent.
She can always say no to the sex. There are zero instances where she does not have this right. It's the same way that there are zero instances where a pharmacist cannot say no to selling birth control pills and there are zero instances where an apartment manager cannot say no to renting to hispanics and there are zero instances where a business owner cannot decide to avoid declaring his revenue so that he doesn't have to pay taxes. They just can't do it legally. If they want to do any of those things, they're in the wrong line of business.
How is that any different than any other business in the world? The government is forcing racist restaurant owners to accept black clients under threat of violence. It's forcing racist apartment managers to rent to hispanics under threat of violence. It's forcing homophobic bakers to design cakes for gay weddings under threat of violence. It's forcing muggers to not bash people over the head and steal their money under threat of violence.
If that's how you define "under threat of violence" then every legal obligation in society happens under threat of violence.
Jason Harvestdancer
Contributor
Yes, you're right. All of those are done under the threat of violence. But "Serve this guy a sandwich or be subject to violence" is not rape while "have sex with this guy or be subject to violence" is.
Of course, your citing an example of a mugger makes an assumption that I don't make, that all violence is always unjustified. Is your case so weak that you have to include that strawman?
Of course, your citing an example of a mugger makes an assumption that I don't make, that all violence is always unjustified. Is your case so weak that you have to include that strawman?
dystopian
Veteran Member
"Take it or leave it" is never a compelling argument. You may say you're not forcing anyone to have sex with anyone, but that's actually pretty much exactly what's happening if the choice is between 'Stop being a prostitute or stop picking clients based on your preferences".
Once again, having sex for money is *not* analogous to a conventional job. Arguably, it isn't even a real 'job' to begin with. A prostitute is an independent freelancer; and as such fully entitled to enter into a business arrangement with whomever they please. A formal profession refusing service to someone based on race is against the law; the same law does not apply to some random individual deciding to sell something to some other random individual. Or do you expect the police to go and arrest people because they don't want to sell off their car to the guy looking for 2nd hand cars on ebay because he's black?
No, I'm saying that calling the obligation to follow the legal rules of doing business "under a threat of violence" is an invalid use of that term.
The same is true for any freelancer. If you have an ad for a car which says:
2010 Blue Ford Focus
80,000 km
$8,000 or best offer
NO BLACK MEN
Then there's a legal issue
Jason Harvestdancer
Contributor
What would be interesting is if in all those cases (except the mugger because that is a strawman) the business said "Don't bother paying me, I do not choose to engage in this transaction and would not do so if I were not forced by the threat of violence to do so. You will get your product so you can say I didn't discriminate, but you will not be able to salve your conscience by calling this a business transaction. Don't bring cash, I won't pick it up off the counter. Don't write me a check, I won't cash it. Don't hand me your credit card, I won't run it."
Of course, that would make it too obvious to the recipient of the goods or services that the transaction isn't a voluntary one, so you'd probably want to pass a second law that forces them to accept payment.
dystopian
Veteran Member
I don't think so. There may be an issue with the TOS of the service used to place the ad; but I really doubt your laws are such that they'd have the cops go after a little old lady who just wants to sell her old car to a 'nice white boy'. If so, that's pretty messed up. If such a law exists, and yet it's perfectly allowed to refuse to sell the car to all black people so long as you don't say that up front, then the law is meaningless. Anti-discrimination laws are meant to make it impossible for proper places of business with a regular revenue stream to exclude people based on race and thereby exclude them from areas and services otherwise freely available to all members of society. They're *not* meant to force individuals just selling their old car (or their body, or whatever) to do the same. If you as an individual are legally allowed to be a racist and not want to interact with black people (and I don't see how you could legally force people to interact with people they don't want to interact with), then you also ought to be legally allowed to be a racist and not sell your old car or body to a black person. You can't apply the same standard to a regular place of business and someone selling their junk or body. They're not the same thing.
AthenaAwakened
Contributor
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2003
- Messages
- 5,354
- Location
- Right behind you so ... BOO!
- Basic Beliefs
- non-theist, anarcho-socialist
so a car is legally the same as access to a human orifice?
Fair enough. Even if it's OK for someone just selling their car to specify that they won't sell to blacks and the guy's just a racist dick but not someone who's breaking any laws, the same is not true for someone who owns a car dealership putting up a sign that says no black customers. If he's the sole proprietor of his business, then the actions that he takes while running the business are actions taken as the owner of that business, not actions taken by him as a private individual.
The same would be true for a prostitute. The selling of her body is her business. It's not a private transaction by an individual, it's a corporate transaction by a business owner and different sets of rules apply. She's an independent business woman engaging in in actions on behalf of her company. The taxes she pays are corporate taxes. The condoms she buys are business expenses. Customers aren't giving money to Sheila Jones, they are giving money to Mistress Dakota's Escort Agency. The rules she needs to follow are the rules of conducting a business transaction in that jurisdiction. She is not a private individual selling her body, she's a businesswoman selling her company's product.
I can't even parse what you said there.
Going back to your rape example, however, take two situations:
1) A man approaches me on the street and tells me to give him my wallet or he'll beat me senseless.
2) An auditor for Revenue Canada comes into my business and tells me that I owe some back taxes and I need to pay them or I'll be taken to court.
Your position is that both of these people have committed the same crime because they demanded money from me under the threat of violence. Am I accurately summarizing your position or have I misunderstood you?
dystopian
Veteran Member
No, it wouldn't. A prostitute isn't "a business' in the way that a car dealership is.
I have no idea where you're getting this from. A prostitute isn't a company nor is she as such representing one. A prostitute having paid sex with someone else IS engaged in a private transaction between individuals; legally or otherwise. You're not going to find that the law in jurisdictions where prostitution is legal agrees with your rather bizarre definition of prostitution.
This is complete nonsense; it certainly doesn't work that way where prostitution has been legalized; probably because it would lead to some very fucked up situations. And just because someone pays income tax doesn't mean those are corporate taxes, that they're a company, and that therefore they have to fuck whoever's willing to pay or find some other means to make a living. I'm really glad that prostitutes here don't have to deal with laws based on your bizarre brand of egalitarian logic; they'd be in a hell of a lot worse a situation if they did.
doubtingt
Senior Member
STDs are much much more common among black men (and women). Compared to white men Chlamydia is 8 times higher, Gonorrhea is 15 times higher, Syphilis is 6 times higher, and Congenital syphilis 15 times higher.
Is it racist for a women to significantly reduce objective threats to her life by not having sex with black men (whether for $ or pleasure)? If racism means responding to assumptions about differences in group averages, regardless of whether those assumptions are invented or stem from objective evidence, then Yes it is racism.
Is it also rational? Yes
Is it immoral? No
Is it racist for a women to significantly reduce objective threats to her life by not having sex with black men (whether for $ or pleasure)? If racism means responding to assumptions about differences in group averages, regardless of whether those assumptions are invented or stem from objective evidence, then Yes it is racism.
Is it also rational? Yes
Is it immoral? No
AthenaAwakened
Contributor
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2003
- Messages
- 5,354
- Location
- Right behind you so ... BOO!
- Basic Beliefs
- non-theist, anarcho-socialist
not be necessarily
First, I doubt the prostitute is incorporated so corporate law would not apply. Now let's look at this situation a little differently. For example, my grandmother worked as a cook in private homes. Now suppose she answered an ad for a cook and when she arrived at the home, she found that the head of the household was a grand wizard in the KKK. Should she be forced to work for him? And if not, must she give up working as a cook anywhere, anytime and for anyone in order not to work for the Klansman? Now say, my grandmother had a preference to only work for black families. And the man who placed the ad was not a bigot, but he was white. Should she be forced to work for him?
You don't seem to understand how business works. This is their job. If they're self-employed, they are still considered to be a business.
http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tx/bsnss/sm/menu-eng.html
They are engaging in business transactions to make a profit, not private transactions.
Even if they're not incorporated, self-employed individuals are considered businesses. They really should incorporate themselves, however, since the tax advantages can be huge.
If your grandmother discriminates against her customers due to their race, then she is legally in the wrong. If she finds the Klansman to be distasteful because of his bigotry, then that's a valid reason to not do business with them and not related to the discussion.
NobleSavage
Veteran Member
The Bunny Ranch in Nevada is an LLC http://nvsos.gov/SOSEntitySearch/CorpDetails.aspx?lx8nvq=ojRDvDlwu1nK7YdCcwr1kg%3d%3d&nt7=0
Where legal a prostitute could incorporate. Most states allow single member LLCs. If a prostitute is not incorporated ( or employed by a corporation) , as Tom said, they are sole proprietors and considered a business.
Where legal a prostitute could incorporate. Most states allow single member LLCs. If a prostitute is not incorporated ( or employed by a corporation) , as Tom said, they are sole proprietors and considered a business.
dystopian
Veteran Member
You don't seem to understand that not all 'businesses' are the same before the law. Incidentally, your link doesn't actually apply to prostitutes in Canada; since while it is legal to sell sexual services, prostitution in Canada is *unregulated*. As such, your argument doesn't apply. However, even in jurisdictions where prostitution IS regulated, your argument still doesn't follow. Different jurisdiction define 'business' in different ways (and even then apply different standards between different types of businesses).
In the Netherlands, prostitution is legal and regulated. A prostitute can either be employed in a wage-labour setting, in which case they must sign a contract (but even so they must still give consent, so they can not be made to have sex with potential clients they don't want to) and *do* become part of a business (again, the business *itself* may not discriminate, but since prostitutes must give consent they can not be denied the right to refuse sex on any grounds. Or, alternatively, they can be self-employed (NOT part of a business, and not themselves a business as such).
Dutch law EXPLICITLY criminalizes the act of forcing a prostitute to have sex. Forcing a prostitute to have sex is defined and understood to include ANY of the following criteria (this list is from a brochure on the subject put out by the dutch government to help identify forced prostitution):
• You have to do work that is different to what you were promised;
• You are aged under 18 and are working as a prostitute;
• You are being forced to work as a prostitute, for example by someone who has
arranged the work for you, or by a so-called lover boy;
• The person you are working for is threatening to report you because you are in the
Netherlands illegally;
• You do not have your own passport or travel documents in your possession;
• You have to hand over the money you earn (some or all of it) to someone else;
• You have to work even when you are ill;
• You have to pay off a large debt to the person you are working for;
• You have no say about where you work or live;
• You have to work in different places and often do not know where you are;
• You are not allowed to go back and forth by yourself between where you live and
where you work;
• You are not allowed to go shopping or buy new clothes by yourself;
• You or your family are being mistreated, blackmailed or threatened;
• You work in unpleasant or poor conditions;
• You are forced to have unsafe sex;
• You are forced to perform specific sexual acts;
• You are not free to refuse customers;
• You have to work long hours;
• You are only allowed to finish work when you have earned a certain amount of money,
or after you have had a minimum number of clients.