Yes, I understand that. I am quite willing to accept the theoretical possibility that there are exemptions to the law which apply to the matter. However, if a law clearly and explicitly says one thing and no examples of exemptions to that law are given which apply to the matter under discussion, I am going to assume that they were never actually created and everybody needs to follow the law because they haven't been given an exemption from it. You can't just assert an exemption to a law based on a theoretical possibility of an exemption to it.
Does the Canadian lawbook clutter itself with a million and one exceptions to every law on the books? Or, does it scatter those through the rest of the laws, to be found where they might apply? Or I suppose I should ask, have you ever read a lawbook that is both comprehensive in the situations where a given law might apply or not apply AND clearly legible at the same time?
The Dutch anti-discrimination law is very specific and detailed on this matter. It's text even includes a number of cases where it wouldn't apply. This isn't one of those and you've provided no reason to assume that additional exemptions which would apply are real things.
Except it doesn't really NEED to provide an exception for something that doesn't even fall under its auspices to begin with, does it? If a country's lawbook makes it illegal for a business to engage in discrimination, and only lists a few exceptions to that rule then that's all well and good. But that doesn't mean that just because a particular profession isn't listed under the exceptions that the law therefore applies; NOT if that profession isn't legally defined as a business to begin with. You keep arguing as if it's established that prostitute = a business, when the law doesn't state that at all.
The rational course of action in this case is to assume that the law says what the law says and not something completely different from what the law says because of some vague and generic "maybe" which you can't back up.
No, the rational course of action is to look at the spirit of the law. We're dealing with an apparent (but not really) conflict between two sets of laws. Law A states that businesses can't discriminate, Law B states that prostitutes have the right to refuse service. Like I said, there's not necessarily any real conflict between these two laws because prostitutes are not necessarily defined as businesses that are subject to Law A. But let's assume for a moment that they are. You're trying to argue that because law A says what it says, that therefore the relevant part of Law B doesn't apply. Of course, you have no real reason to state that one supersedes the other on its own.
There's nothing in the lawbook that suggests one of these laws outranks the other (although the fact that Law B specifically deals with the specific profession we're talking about *should* suggest that it does in fact supersede law A); therefore we must look at the spirit of the law. Both Law A and Law B are designed to protect people. If we were to apply Law A in this profession the same way we do elsewhere, however, that *creates* harm for the prostitute in that the result would constitute rape at worst or loss of livelihood at best; while at the same time the prospective client would suffer harm that is much less severe in scope. So, therefore, based on the spirit of the law as a whole, Law B takes point here.
