Is it racist for a prostitute to reject black men?

[Nexus]

They can't. Are you arguing that they can?

No you were.

Nobody, prostitute, accountant, shokeeper or anything else, is allowed to refuse to do business with a class of individuals based solely on the race of said individuals.

If they aren't allowed to legally like you say then if they do discriminate against a race they would be penalized. If you are being legally threatened for not having sex with someone then you are being coerced. Just like if an employer threatened to fire an employee if she didn't submit to sexual advances.

 

[bilby]

No you were.

See, there you go again.

If you don't understand what I am saying, feel free to ask for clarification. You are NOT the arbiter of my opinion; please refrain from telling me what my opinion is, it makes you look like a moron.

Nobody, prostitute, accountant, shokeeper or anything else, is allowed to refuse to do business with a class of individuals based solely on the race of said individuals.

If they aren't allowed to legally like you say then if they do discriminate against a race they would be penalized. If you are being legally threatened for not having sex with someone then you are being coerced. Just like if an employer threatened to fire an employee if she didn't submit to sexual advances.

Quote mining my posts isn't helping. Check out the entirety of what I said, and perhaps you will have a chance of actually understanding my position.

 

[Toni]

Yeah, because doing taxes for a stranger is reasonably comparable to having sex with one. Let's pretend there's nothing else at all to consider here.

And let's pretend that all prostitutes are female, while we are at it.

 

[Angry Floof]

Yeah, because doing taxes for a stranger is reasonably comparable to having sex with one. Let's pretend there's nothing else at all to consider here.

And let's pretend that all prostitutes are female, while we are at it.

I didn't forget that some are men just because I didn't mention it. Same goes for them.

 

[dystopian]

There are two completely separate issues here; the conflation of which is getting lots of panties in a totally unnecessary wad.

1) Nobody, prostitute, accountant, shokeeper or anything else, is allowed to refuse to do business with a class of individuals based solely on the race of said individuals.

2) Prostitutes always have the right to refuse to do business with any single individual.

It is not OK to have an ad that says 'No black men' whether you are advertising prostitution, or car washes, or ear piercing.

It is OK for a prostitute to say 'No' to any potential customer, at an individual level. It is NOT OK for a prostitute to say 'No' to a whole race of customers.

It is OK for a prostitute to say no to a black man; or indeed to each and every black man who approaches her, as and when they do so. It is NOT OK for a prostitute to say no to 'black men' in general, as a pre-emptive condition for considering any black man as a possible customer.

the 'pre' in prejudice is the important part here. Discussion of whether or not prostitutes can be 'forced' to have sex with anyone are completely irrelevant - I don't see ANYONE in this thread advocating any such thing, it is a total red herring.

The problem with this logic is that by saying that a prostitute always has the right to refuse to do business with any single individual you are ALSO saying it is okay for them to say no to a whole race of customers. All you're doing by saying she can't say so upfront is to waste everyone's time; what's the point in forcing racist prostitutes to waste their own and black people's time by having her individually tell each of them that she won't have sex with them? It doesn't force her or inspire her (or anyone) to stop being racist; it is a completely pointless thing. The problem is that people are equating this to a regular business, where anti-discrimination laws DO serve a purpose in that they make it so that minorities can't be denied service that ought to be available to everyone. You can force a restaurant to serve anyone regardless of race; you can't do the same with a prostitute. Anti-discrimination laws therefore are meaningful when used against the restaurant, but not the prostitute.

- - - Updated - - -

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 hand over the money you earn (some or all of it) to someone else;

I find most of these rules are a good idea but I have a problem with this one.

The problem is that it precludes any agreement where you pay a percentage in exchange for facilities and bringing in customers. (A brothel advertizes, the individual prostitutes do not.)

No, it doesn't. It doesn't apply to (legal) contractual obligations, obviously. If you sign a contract (that you weren't forced into) that states you pay a percentage for the use of facilities, then that is perfectly legal.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

What if racial purity is the kink the prostitute is selling?

Keep in mind, sex workers don't all come in a one size fits all package. They can be quite specialized.

If a sex worker's specialty is Nazi dominatrix, her chosen cliental would expect her, as part of the fantasy, to not sleep with black men.

Or should such specialization be outlawed?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

What if racial purity is the kink the prostitute is selling?

Keep in mind, sex workers don't all come in a one size fits all package. They can be quite specialized.

If a sex worker's specialty is Nazi dominatrix, her chosen cliental would expect her, as part of the fantasy, to not sleep with black men.

Or should such specialization be outlawed?

Umm ... Yes.

Explain exactly what the difference is between that and a specialized restaurant where the patrons, as part of the dining experience, don't have to eat with the darkies or a specialized shopping mall where, as part of the shopping experience, the shoppers don't have to be in the same building as any Spics?

 

[Keith&Co.]

What if racial purity is the kink the prostitute is selling?

Keep in mind, sex workers don't all come in a one size fits all package. They can be quite specialized.

If a sex worker's specialty is Nazi dominatrix, her chosen cliental would expect her, as part of the fantasy, to not sleep with black men.

Well, as part of the fantasy, she should SAY she doesn't sleep with black men. But it IS a fantasy that she's selling. And the law should not hew to the fantasy. So if a black man wants to hire a Nazi dominatrix whore to punish him for being an American, the opinion of other Johns has no bearing.

People who make movies about Nazis can choose whites to play all the Nazi roles, because the race is important to make the role believable. They don't have a right to only hire whites to work behind the scene, as the race of the gaffer doesn't impact the movie plot's credibility.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

What if racial purity is the kink the prostitute is selling?

Keep in mind, sex workers don't all come in a one size fits all package. They can be quite specialized.

If a sex worker's specialty is Nazi dominatrix, her chosen cliental would expect her, as part of the fantasy, to not sleep with black men.

Or should such specialization be outlawed?

Umm ... Yes.

Explain exactly what the difference is between that and a specialized restaurant where the patrons, as part of the dining experience, don't have to eat with the darkies or a specialized shopping mall where, as part of the shopping experience, the shoppers don't have to be in the same building as any Spics?

we have that dining experience in America.

It's called a restricted private club.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

What if racial purity is the kink the prostitute is selling?

Keep in mind, sex workers don't all come in a one size fits all package. They can be quite specialized.

If a sex worker's specialty is Nazi dominatrix, her chosen cliental would expect her, as part of the fantasy, to not sleep with black men.

Well, as part of the fantasy, she should SAY she doesn't sleep with black men.

so she should make a blantantly false claim in her advertising?

But it IS a fantasy that she's selling. And the law should not hew to the fantasy. So if a black man wants to hire a Nazi dominatrix whore to punish him for being an American, the opinion of other Johns has no bearing.

which means she should be legally obligated to sleep with a man against her will?

People who make movies about Nazis can choose whites to play all the Nazi roles, because the race is important to make the role believable.

so there are jobs that by their nature must practice discrimination?

They don't have a right to only hire whites to work behind the scene, as the race of the gaffer doesn't impact the movie plot's credibility.

we aren't talking about the prostitute's maid who makes the bed, but the sex worker herself.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

What if racial purity is the kink the prostitute is selling?

Keep in mind, sex workers don't all come in a one size fits all package. They can be quite specialized.

If a sex worker's specialty is Nazi dominatrix, her chosen cliental would expect her, as part of the fantasy, to not sleep with black men.

Or should such specialization be outlawed?

Umm ... Yes.

Explain exactly what the difference is between that and a specialized restaurant where the patrons, as part of the dining experience, don't have to eat with the darkies or a specialized shopping mall where, as part of the shopping experience, the shoppers don't have to be in the same building as any Spics?

we have that dining experience in America.

It's called a restricted private club.

Ew. One more reason that America ranks alongside Somalia on the "Places we should emulate" list.

Be a pal and change places with Mexico, would you?

 

[PyramidHead]

This has been raised a few times so far, but I wonder if it's really been considered: are male prostitutes equivalent to female prostitutes in the positions you all take on the issue? If a male prostitute refused to sleep with black women, would that make him racist?

 

[AthenaAwakened]

What if racial purity is the kink the prostitute is selling?

Keep in mind, sex workers don't all come in a one size fits all package. They can be quite specialized.

If a sex worker's specialty is Nazi dominatrix, her chosen cliental would expect her, as part of the fantasy, to not sleep with black men.

Or should such specialization be outlawed?

Umm ... Yes.

Explain exactly what the difference is between that and a specialized restaurant where the patrons, as part of the dining experience, don't have to eat with the darkies or a specialized shopping mall where, as part of the shopping experience, the shoppers don't have to be in the same building as any Spics?

we have that dining experience in America.

It's called a restricted private club.

Ew. One more reason that America ranks alongside Somalia on the "Places we should emulate" list.

Be a pal and change places with Mexico, would you?

it is not a question of emulation, but of freedom of association. Public places are just that, public. They are paid for by the public and are necessary to the enhancement of life for the public.

But we, the public, can't force each and everyone of our members to be good and kind and wise. Nor can we say that people have a right to privacy and then publicly regulate what goes on in people's private lives. And if part of that private life is bigotry, in order for the rest of us to do what we do in private and unmolested, we must suffer the existence of LEGAL acts we find loathsome.

Now if we find such acts too loathsome, we can then change the law, but right now in the US, we still have venues that practice legal discrimination. Bet they even have such venues in that bastion of all things good and kind and wise called Canada too.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

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.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

it is not a question of emulation, but of freedom of association. Public places are just that, public. They are paid for by the public and are necessary to the enhancement of life for the public.

But we, the public, can't force each and everyone of our members to be good and kind and wise. Nor can we say that people have a right to privacy and then publicly regulate what goes on in people's private lives. And if part of that private life is bigotry, in order for the rest of us to do what we do in private and unmolested, we must suffer the existence of LEGAL acts we find loathsome.

Now if we find such acts too loathsome, we can then change the law, but right now in the US, we still have venues that practice legal discrimination. Bet they even have such venues in that bastion of all things good and kind and wise called Canada too.

But we can force them to have certain standards of conduct in how they do business. I find it despicable that your country allows business to put up signs on the sidewalk saying "Private Dining Club. No Black Men Allowed. Come sign up and eat in racial purity". I assume that's how it works - I don't know but I think that's how they get around anti-smoking laws up here. It shouldn't be allowed that certain members of a society be excluded from certain activities or places as a result of their race.

Legal discrimination should be outlawed and the fact that it's a private entity as opposed to a public entity shouldn't affect that. When you're conducting business, there are higher standards that you need to abide by than when you are just doing something as a private individual.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

it is not a question of emulation, but of freedom of association. Public places are just that, public. They are paid for by the public and are necessary to the enhancement of life for the public.

But we, the public, can't force each and everyone of our members to be good and kind and wise. Nor can we say that people have a right to privacy and then publicly regulate what goes on in people's private lives. And if part of that private life is bigotry, in order for the rest of us to do what we do in private and unmolested, we must suffer the existence of LEGAL acts we find loathsome.

Now if we find such acts too loathsome, we can then change the law, but right now in the US, we still have venues that practice legal discrimination. Bet they even have such venues in that bastion of all things good and kind and wise called Canada too.

But we can force them to have certain standards of conduct in how they do business. I find it despicable that your country allows business to put up signs on the sidewalk saying "Private Dining Club. No Black Men Allowed. Come sign up and eat in racial purity". I assume that's how it works -

no, that is not how it works.

I don't know but I think that's how they get around anti-smoking laws up here. It shouldn't be allowed that certain members of a society be excluded from certain activities or places as a result of their race.

Legal discrimination should be outlawed and the fact that it's a private entity as opposed to a public entity shouldn't affect that.

so a support group for battered women should be forced to allow men to join? no organizations in the entirety of society should be allowed to limit its membership based on race, creed, color, religion, gender, handicap, sexual orientation, etc.?

When you're conducting business, there are higher standards that you need to abide by than when you are just doing something as a private individual.

so you see no difference in public and private transactions?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

it is not a question of emulation, but of freedom of association. Public places are just that, public. They are paid for by the public and are necessary to the enhancement of life for the public.

But we, the public, can't force each and everyone of our members to be good and kind and wise. Nor can we say that people have a right to privacy and then publicly regulate what goes on in people's private lives. And if part of that private life is bigotry, in order for the rest of us to do what we do in private and unmolested, we must suffer the existence of LEGAL acts we find loathsome.

Now if we find such acts too loathsome, we can then change the law, but right now in the US, we still have venues that practice legal discrimination. Bet they even have such venues in that bastion of all things good and kind and wise called Canada too.

But we can force them to have certain standards of conduct in how they do business. I find it despicable that your country allows business to put up signs on the sidewalk saying "Private Dining Club. No Black Men Allowed. Come sign up and eat in racial purity". I assume that's how it works -

no, that is not how it works.

So how does it work? Where does the "NO BLACK MEN" sign go?

I don't know but I think that's how they get around anti-smoking laws up here. It shouldn't be allowed that certain members of a society be excluded from certain activities or places as a result of their race.

Legal discrimination should be outlawed and the fact that it's a private entity as opposed to a public entity shouldn't affect that.

so a support group for battered women should be forced to allow men to join? no organizations in the entirety of society should be allowed to limit its membership based on race, creed, color, religion, gender, handicap, sexual orientation, etc.?

No, those are legitimate business reasons as to why you'd exclude certain individuals and can be exempted on the same type of reasoning that it's not discrimination to reject a white woman from auditioning for the Malcom X role. The "We don't want no fags here" reason is not a comparable reason.

When you're conducting business, there are higher standards that you need to abide by than when you are just doing something as a private individual.

so you see no difference in public and private transactions?

Not in the matter of exeptions from discrimination laws, no.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

it is not a question of emulation, but of freedom of association. Public places are just that, public. They are paid for by the public and are necessary to the enhancement of life for the public.

But we, the public, can't force each and everyone of our members to be good and kind and wise. Nor can we say that people have a right to privacy and then publicly regulate what goes on in people's private lives. And if part of that private life is bigotry, in order for the rest of us to do what we do in private and unmolested, we must suffer the existence of LEGAL acts we find loathsome.

Now if we find such acts too loathsome, we can then change the law, but right now in the US, we still have venues that practice legal discrimination. Bet they even have such venues in that bastion of all things good and kind and wise called Canada too.

But we can force them to have certain standards of conduct in how they do business. I find it despicable that your country allows business to put up signs on the sidewalk saying "Private Dining Club. No Black Men Allowed. Come sign up and eat in racial purity". I assume that's how it works -

no, that is not how it works.

So how does it work? Where does the "NO BLACK MEN" sign go?

I don't know but I think that's how they get around anti-smoking laws up here. It shouldn't be allowed that certain members of a society be excluded from certain activities or places as a result of their race.

Legal discrimination should be outlawed and the fact that it's a private entity as opposed to a public entity shouldn't affect that.

so a support group for battered women should be forced to allow men to join? no organizations in the entirety of society should be allowed to limit its membership based on race, creed, color, religion, gender, handicap, sexual orientation, etc.?

No, those are legitimate business reasons as to why you'd exclude certain individuals and can be exempted on the same type of reasoning that it's not discrimination to reject a white woman from auditioning for the Malcom X role. The "We don't want no fags here" reason is not a comparable reason.

When you're conducting business, there are higher standards that you need to abide by than when you are just doing something as a private individual.

so you see no difference in public and private transactions?

Not in the matter of exeptions from discrimination laws, no.

you do accept that certain situation demand a certain degree of discrimination, but you don't agree that sex is one of those things, or just sex you pay for? A woman is free to turn down any man for any reason if she is acting as a private citizen, but once sex becomes her job, she looses her right of refusal unless for acceptable reasons? And if the reason is unlawful, her John has the right to demand to fuck her and she must acquiesce, against her will?

The problem here,as I see it, is not so much about race discrimination as who has the right to control the body and actions of the woman. With regard to acts of an intimate nature, just how much power should the state have, even when there is a business transaction involved?

 

[ksen]

I can't wait to see the first class action lawsuit against the prostitute that won't fuck black guys.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

you do accept that certain situation demand a certain degree of discrimination, but you don't agree that sex is one of those things, or just sex you pay for? A woman is free to turn down any man for any reason if she is acting as a private citizen, but once sex becomes her job, she looses her right of refusal unless for acceptable reasons? And if the reason is unlawful, her John has the right to demand to fuck her and she must acquiesce, against her will?

The problem here,as I see it, is not so much about race discrimination as who has the right to control the body and actions of the woman. With regard to acts of an intimate nature, just how much power should the state have, even when there is a business transaction involved?

Once something becomes a business transaction, different rules apply. I can tell anybody to get the fuck out of my house because I don't allow niggers in there. Once I start running a home-based business, however, I can no longer do that for anyone who comes in as a customer because they are entering a business and the fact that it's also a private home isn't relevant to my interactions with them. I can't assert my right to do what I want with my private property when I'm using that property as a business in the same way that I can when it's just my house. This in no way forces me to allow niggers on my property and I can put up a sign saying "NO BLACK MEN ALLOWED" if I feel like it, but there are legal consequences to doing so which will impact my ability to run my business in such an overtly racist manner.

It's the same with prostitutes. If they're using their body as a business transaction, then different rules apply than if they pick up some guy in a bar. This is no way forces them to have sex with black men but there are legal consequences to doing so which will impact their ability to run their business in such an overtly racist manner.

If you don't want black people coming into your home, you don't operate a home-based business which involves customers coming into your home. Full stop. Your racist attitude is at odds with your ability to operate your business.

If you don't want black people sticking their penis into you, you don't operate (or work for) a business which involves customers sticking their penis into you. Full stop. Your racist attitude is at odds with your ability to run your business.