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.
Actually, it does mean that it's a business. That's what "self-employed" means in your country. It doesn't limit itself to certain professions or how you've registered yourself but has to do with conducting transactions for the sake of making a profit.
And where the fuck are you getting this? All businesses MUST be registered with the Chamber of Commerce; however, a 2009 change to prostitution laws was EXPLICITLY rejected by the senate on the grounds that it would force prostitutes to be registered. Do you really not see the disconnect there?
I'm not following you here. Are you saying that unless you are registered with the Chamber of Commerce, you're not actually doing work? Or is it that only certain types of jobs are classified as work? You are, of course, aware that there are many prostitutes who
are registered with the CoC. What's the difference between what those prostitutes are doing and what unregistered prostitutes are doing? Given that the tax men in your country are going around nailing the unregistered ones for back taxes and the like, they seem to think there's some kind of business going on there. Also, was the lack of forcing prostitutes to register based on the fact that they're not doing business or because they didn't want to force women to publically declare themselves as prostitutes?
Take a few of situations.
You have two computer programmers who are hired as freelancers with a Dutch company. One of them properly registers and gets that id number and files all the correct paperwork and everything and the other doesn't bother. At the end of the year, the tax office finds out that one of them hadn't registered. Do they feel that he wasn't doing business during that time and was just a private individual at the company as opposed to a self-employed business person? If the unregistered person yells out to a customers "Hey, no niggers allowed! Get out of here!", is that OK because he's not there on business? If he exposes himself to one of the female employees, is that not considered sexual harassment because he's not a co-worker?
A unionized construction worker is on a job. To save some money on extra work, the manager hires a couple of illegal immigrants under the table. The two of them are hammering alongside each other, but is one of them engaging in business and the other not? If the illegal one drops a brick and it hits a passerby on the sidewalk, does that guy not have a case against the construction company for damages because it wasn't an employee who harmed them, but just some private individual?
A prostitute is working in the red light district. She properly registers as a self-employed businesswoman, files all the correct paperwork, had an accountant do her taxes and everything like that. In the room next to her, an unregistered prostitute is there. She charges the same rates, sees the same number of clients, does the same things during the sessions, etc. What is the difference between the two of them? Are neither of them actually engaging in business, are both of them engaging in the exact same business, or is one doing business and the other not simply as a result of the paperwork that was filed? Please explain your answer.