Is it racist for a prostitute to reject black men?

[Sabine Grant]

But you don't know the reason. Maybe it's a constellation of reasons. Do you reject all of these reasons as legitimate?

So far the possible reasons invoked in this thread are the product of negative stereotyping of an entire ethnic group. As a reminder such negative stereotyping sets the stage for a prejudicial state of mind. Whether it be the STD bit or violence bit or financial status bit. The only reason I would accept as legitimate would be the case of a prostitute who was raped by a black man and that because her repulsion would be the direct result of PTSD. Considering the Op mentioned not just one but several instances of ads mentioning "no black men", I am somewhat skeptical that all those ads were the product of rape victims prostitutes experiencing PTSD.

I am also wondering how many prostitutes who were rape victims would be able to pursue their profession without a persistent fear towards men in general. In a professional setting such as a brothel where sex workers are not isolated, it certainly provides a sense of safety. However, not the case for an independent sex worker who will meet prospective clients "off the streets", in a motel room or other locale.

Can you tell me how many instances in the history of mankind when "no black X or Y" has popped up and it was not the product of a culturally induced ideology based on the belief that members of the specific black ethnicity are inferior to the dominant white ethnicity? Triggering racial discrimination and segregation targeting Blacks.

If I got a stripper for my birthday, I'd want it to be a white-European looking man. I am much less aesthetically attracted to Asian and Black men.

Does it follow that my parents taught me that Asians and Blacks were inferior to my Whiteness? No, it does not.

I am rather certain that what I specifically worded above as " Can you tell me in the history of mankind when "no black X or Y" has popped up and it was not the product of a culturally induced ideology based on the belief that members of the specific black ethnicity are inferior to the dominant white ethnicity? Triggering racial discrimination and segregation targeting Blacks" was meant to address the documented reality of an entire society producing laws and legislation legalizing racial segregation and racial discrimination affecting the specific ethnic group "Blacks". Rather certain that it was addressing a society feeding on a culturally induced ideology governing the type of laws and legislation enabling the institutionalization of racial discrimination and racial segregation. That it had NOTHING to do with a matter of aesthetics. Further, in a previous post, I recognized the difference between aesthetics and the culturally induced rejection of an entire ethnic group being 2 completely different motivations.

Again, if racial discrimination and segregation are not the product of a culturally induced mind state, what would be their cause?

There is no single cause of a complex social phenomenon. A two year old can burst into tears if she sees someone with a facial deformity in public, never having been exposed to such a thing, and without her parents 'teaching' her to be uncomfortable with facial deformities. Nature -- since you seem obsessed with 'natural' causes -- may have equipped us to prefer similarity with ourselves. When you see a prostitute advertising 'no blacks', you sure seem confident that you know that whatever reason she has, it's illegitimate.

The reason that were invoked in this thread were based on negative stereotyping of an entire ethnic group designated as Black. Setting the stage for a racially prejudiced state of mind. Again, if a matter of aesthetics such as in your case where like many other people the physical characteristics escorting Asian and Black are not a trigger for physical attraction to them, it is not the product of negative stereotyping inducing a prejudicial state of mind. Obviously, your preference is not the product of " Asians/Blacks carry STDs, they are susceptible to be violent, etc....".

I am also rather certain that nations who legalized racial segregation and discrimination targeting the specific ethnic group "Blacks" were not motivated by "nature" having "equipped" them "to prefer" "similarity with "themselves. I suppose we could start a thread in the WH Forum exploring the motivations behind European colonialism and under such colonialism the why and how native populations were duly exploited and treated as sub humans.

What is the most probable motivation behind anyone stating "no blacks" while not dismissing the number of times various societies and cultures have set multiple precedents of "no blacks" being the direct product of a mind state which was culturally induced and promoting race supremacy?

I don't know. Up until today, I didn't even know prostitutes did that. But someone in the thread has already stated any number of reasons. They might be personal (e.g. the prostitute has been raped by a Black man and is traumatically triggered by sexual intimacy with them) or they might be actuarial (Black men are more likely to have STDs, Black men have fewer financial resources, etc).

And I contend that the "actuarial" reasons are highly prejudicial as they rely on negative stereotyping of an ethnic group.

Non. What I am saying is that the motivation is vastly different

No. You don't know the motivation behind a prostitute advertising 'no Blacks' unless you've asked each and every one of them. You just imagine the reasons can't be legitimate.

Can you please pay attention to the context which includes one statement or the other? I maintain that a motivation based on aesthetics is vastly different from a motivation rooted in a culturally induced ideology which advocates and promotes the belief that X ethnic group is inferior or deficient compared to our own ethnic group. I also maintain that a motivation based on aesthetics is vastly different from a motivation based on negative stereotyping of an ethnic group as it sets the stage for a prejudicial mind state.

and further I do not abide to the belief that female GI and straight persons discriminate against their own gender by excluding female partners. Do not abide to the belief that male GI and straight persons discriminate against their own gender by excluding male partners. Nor do I abide to the belief that gay males discriminate against females by excluding female partners. Nor do I abide to the belief that gay females discriminate against males by excluding male partners.

I am not aesthetically attracted to Asian men and I would never pay for sex with one. Should the government crack down on me, as a racist john?

How many times do I need to draw the line between aesthetically motivated attraction or lack of and culturally induced rejection of an entire ethnic group based on negative stereotyping or/and rejection based on race supremacy?

Therefor, there is no way I would cry out "discrimination" if you were a prostitute who advertises "no females" versus prostitutes who advertise "no black men" as specifically brought up in the Op content.

But it is discrimination; it's simply discrimination you think has a legitimate reason behind it (I think the reason is legitimate too).

In that case, you might as well qualify my preferring the taste of specific ethnic foods over let's say "Continental American cuisine" as being a matter of "discrimination". You might as well attach the term "discrimination" to any and all personal preferences.

bilby, on the other hand, is now backed so far in a corner in his 'prejudiced discrimination is never justified camp' he thinks a straight gigolo should have to service male clients (or indeed a gay rent boy should have to service female clients, or at least not refuse putting his penis in their mouth or anus).

I definitely disagree with his stance.

That was stated to reinforce my point that when it comes to sexual orientation eliminating partners of one gender or or the other and being advertised as "no males" or "no females", we cannot cry out "discrimination". Misogyny being another mind state induced by culture.

It is discrimination. It's just discrimination that we both believe is legitimate.

Maybe you and I are using different definitions. Have to beat feet to work for now but will get back later and see if we can agree on a definition of the term "discrimination" especially relating to how anti discrimination laws are formulated.

Let me explain then via several non fictive illustrations :

-what governed legislature depriving Blacks in the US from equal Constitutional Rights and Privileges (equal to the white majority) was the belief or ideology or culturally induced mind state that due to their ethnicity or what some refer to as "race", they were inferior and therefor to be socially separate (segregation) while not having access to privileges and rights to be conferred to whites only.

-what governed the South African Apartheid was the belief or ideology or culturally induced mind state that the Bantu people were inferior and therefor to be socially separate while not having access to privileges and rights to be conferred to whites only.

-what governs White Supremacist movements in the US is the belief or ideology or culturally induced mind set that the white ethnicity (which some will refer to as "race") is superior to others therefore promoting race separatism and unequal access to rights and privileges to be conferred to whites only.

The result of the first 2 is that those culturally induced mind states/ideologies/beliefs did govern how those societies behaved towards persons of black ethnicity and behaviors which were legally institutionalized.

The 3 one if deprived from "legally institutionalized" still governs how White Supremacists will behave towards persons of the ethnicity they believe to be inferior to their own. Still governs their wishful thinking of returning to race separatism and legally institutionalized race based discrimination.

I do not want to derail this thread by triggering an intense discussion on the source or root of race supremacy based ideologies governing human behaviors. I had to give you the above illustrations since you did not understand what I meant by " governed by ideologies".

So, the only way for me to be less aesthetically attracted to Asian men is because my parents and society taught me that White men were hotter, and my preference has nothing to do with biology and therefore my preference is ideology and completely illegitimate?

You stated you could not understand what "governed by ideologies" meant. I gave you non fictive illustrations of historically documented instances of nations institutionalizing racially focused segregation and discrimination based on culturally induced ideologies. Nowhere did I contend in those illustrations that such are similar to your aesthetically motivated lack of attraction to Asian men.

I hope I did not waste my time illustrating what I meant by "governed by ideologies" as it appears you missed it.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

As I said many many pages ago, there are some who think it is a very good to force her to have sex with people she doesn't want to because racists should have no rights.

I think that some people are more than happy to invent a 'legal' way to force women to have sex with someone they don't want to have sex with. It's just more palatable when it's about certain women, and men although the fact that men are also prostitutes is really relegated to the sidelines in these discussions by all but a couple of people.

The sad thing is, like Tom Sawyer, they cannot come out and state plainly what they are arguing. They always use euphemisms and the passive voice to disguise their argument from everyone else, and from themselves as well.

 

[fromderinside]

As I said many many pages ago, there are some who think it is a very good to force her to have sex with people she doesn't want to because racists should have no rights.

I think that some people are more than happy to invent a 'legal' way to force women to have sex with someone they don't want to have sex with. It's just more palatable when it's about certain women, and men although the fact that men are also prostitutes is really relegated to the sidelines in these discussions by all but a couple of people.

Look the target is about as big as it an be. You just insist on missing it. If you are in business and businesses are regulated on discrimination and you break the regulation you are a racist is if the regulation you broke is about accepting clients. No inventions. Just plain consistency. As Tom Sawyer just wrote if you don't want to consort with a specific group of those likely to want a service don't become a provider of that service. Yes what I just wrote is discriminating against racist women who want to be prostitutes. So fucking what. A person has to know her limitations!

 

[Toni]

I think that some people are more than happy to invent a 'legal' way to force women to have sex with someone they don't want to have sex with. It's just more palatable when it's about certain women, and men although the fact that men are also prostitutes is really relegated to the sidelines in these discussions by all but a couple of people.

Look the target is about as big as it an be. You just insist on missing it. If you are in business and businesses are regulated on discrimination and you break the regulation you are a racist is if the regulation you broke is about accepting clients. No inventions. Just plain consistency. As Tom Sawyer just wrote if you don't want to consort with a specific group of those likely to want a service don't become a provider of that service. Yes what I just wrote is discriminating against racist women who want to be prostitutes. So fucking what. A person has to know her limitations!

You are confused between racism which cannot be regulated by law and discrimination which can be.

 

[none]

there is 504 replies to this thread..
what about black women, is it racist for a prostitute to reject black women?

 

[maurile]

If an accountant can't advertise that he doesn't want black clients or turn them away due to their race when they show up, would a prostitute be able to legally discriminate in that manner?

I haven't read all 500+ posts in this thread, so I apologize if I'm repeating what others have said.

It seems to me that we humans tend to value a number of mutually inconsistent freedoms, including:

1. The freedom to do business, or to refuse doing business, with anyone we want.

2. The freedom not to be discriminated against based on race.

3. The freedom to refuse having sex when we're not in the mood.

That list is in increasing order of importance. So when they conflict, #1 often gives way to #2, and #2 gives way to #3. That's why prostitutes, but not accountants, should be able to discriminate based on race.

 

[Unbeatable]

I think that some people are more than happy to invent a 'legal' way to force women to have sex with someone they don't want to have sex with. It's just more palatable when it's about certain women, and men although the fact that men are also prostitutes is really relegated to the sidelines in these discussions by all but a couple of people.

The sad thing is, like Tom Sawyer, they cannot come out and state plainly what they are arguing. They always use euphemisms and the passive voice to disguise their argument from everyone else, and from themselves as well.

How is that sad? That's how the game is played. Not just by Tom, or bilby, but by you, Loren, Athena, Derec, Underseer, the majority of regular posters in this subforum. This is the culture you people have created; a culture which promotes sophistry, closed-mindedness, polarization, and rationalization, and discourages honest, rational discussion. You enter threads with your minds already made up and spend your time coming up with different ways of saying "I'm right and you're wrong"/"I'm good and you're evil", which at times includes tricking each other into rhetorical traps.

If you don't want people to obfuscate, abandon the practices of springing "gotcha!"s on them; judging their moral character based on the content of their current beliefs; using their uncertainty to attack their credibility; looking for opportunities to publicly shame them, etc.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

If an accountant can't advertise that he doesn't want black clients or turn them away due to their race when they show up, would a prostitute be able to legally discriminate in that manner?

I haven't read all 500+ posts in this thread, so I apologize if I'm repeating what others have said.

It seems to me that we humans tend to value a number of mutually inconsistent freedoms, including:

1. The freedom to do business, or to refuse doing business, with anyone we want.

2. The freedom not to be discriminated against based on race.

3. The freedom to refuse having sex when we're not in the mood.

That list is in increasing order of importance. So when they conflict, #1 often gives way to #2, and #2 gives way to #3. That's why prostitutes, but not accountants, should be able to discriminate based on race.

Except what's in conflict is #1 and #2, so it's #1 that gives way. It's her (or his) ability to hold a business licence that's in question. You can't hold a legal licence while implementing an illegal business plan.

She can always refuse a customer because she's not in the mood for sex with absolutely no consequences resulting from that whatsoever. She cannot, however, publically and specifically bar members of a certain race from her business and continue to hold a legal licence for that business because that action is against the law. She has no "right" to be a prostitute and only has the freedom to legally operate a business as one when she abides by the legal obligations of doing business.

If you know that you cannot abide by the terms required of you to have a business licence, then you shouldn't apply for the licence in the first place. If you have the licence and can't abide by the terms, you should lose the licence.

 

[maurile]

She cannot, however, publically and specifically bar members of a certain race from her business and continue to hold a legal licence for that business because that action is against the law.

Do you have a particular jurisdiction in mind where that's the rule for prostitutes? I don't know of any. Moreover, that shouldn't be the rule for prostitutes. People should have the right to decline having sex with anyone for any reason without being penalized by the state, even if that conflicts with the state's (less important, IMO) interest in banning overt racial discrimination in commercial contexts.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

I think that some people are more than happy to invent a 'legal' way to force women to have sex with someone they don't want to have sex with. It's just more palatable when it's about certain women, and men although the fact that men are also prostitutes is really relegated to the sidelines in these discussions by all but a couple of people.

Look the target is about as big as it an be. You just insist on missing it. If you are in business and businesses are regulated on discrimination and you break the regulation you are a racist is if the regulation you broke is about accepting clients. No inventions. Just plain consistency. As Tom Sawyer just wrote if you don't want to consort with a specific group of those likely to want a service don't become a provider of that service. Yes what I just wrote is discriminating against racist women who want to be prostitutes. So fucking what. A person has to know her limitations!

Because, what you are saying is "have sex with someone you don't want to have sex with." That is what happens when you strip out all the euphemisms and passive language. "You do not choose to have sex with that person, but I say you must."

 

[Tom Sawyer]

She cannot, however, publically and specifically bar members of a certain race from her business and continue to hold a legal licence for that business because that action is against the law.

Do you have a particular jurisdiction in mind where that's the rule for prostitutes? I don't know of any. Moreover, that shouldn't be the rule for prostitutes. People should have the right to decline having sex with anyone for any reason without being penalized by the state, even if that conflicts with the state's (less important, IMO) interest in banning overt racial discrimination in commercial contexts.

In your personal life, you can do what you want. When you're conducting business, however, there are more constraints on your behaviour than when you're doing something on your own. One of those is that the business model you use can't be based on illegal behaviour.

 

[Metaphor]

So far the possible reasons invoked in this thread are the product of negative stereotyping of an entire ethnic group. As a reminder such negative stereotyping sets the stage for a prejudicial state of mind.

So would you agree that insurance companies should not charge more to insure younger drivers and male drivers?

Whether it be the STD bit or violence bit or financial status bit. The only reason I would accept as legitimate would be the case of a prostitute who was raped by a black man and that because her repulsion would be the direct result of PTSD. Considering the Op mentioned not just one but several instances of ads mentioning "no black men", I am somewhat skeptical that all those ads were the product of rape victims prostitutes experiencing PTSD.

So to summarise so far, PTSD is a legitimate reason, actuarial evaluations are not. What about aesthetic preference?

Can you tell me how many instances in the history of mankind when "no black X or Y" has popped up and it was not the product of a culturally induced ideology based on the belief that members of the specific black ethnicity are inferior to the dominant white ethnicity? Triggering racial discrimination and segregation targeting Blacks.

It's irrelevant. Let's say there are three situations

i) "No black men" from a woman who was raped by a particular Black man and sex with anyone aesthetically similar would trigger PTSD

ii) "No black men" from a woman who has a strong aesthetic preference against them and her regular rate is not enough for her to overcome that preference

iii) "No black men" from a woman who, on an actuarial basis, does not want Black men as johns, because of an increased prevalence of low economic resources, criminal convictions, and STDs

iv) "No black men" from a bone-racist woman who wants nothing to do with Blacks

Which of these signs do you object to and think the State should stop?

Obviously, your preference is not the product of " Asians/Blacks carry STDs, they are susceptible to be violent, etc....".

So if I had an aesthetic preference against them, would I be able to advertise against them, if I were a prostitute?

I hope I did not waste my time illustrating what I meant by "governed by ideologies" as it appears you missed it.

Well, it looks as if you did, because you did not explain why a "no Black men" sign ruled out being motivated by aesthetic preference. Or doesn't it matter what the motivation is?

 

[maurile]

Do you have a particular jurisdiction in mind where that's the rule for prostitutes? I don't know of any. Moreover, that shouldn't be the rule for prostitutes. People should have the right to decline having sex with anyone for any reason without being penalized by the state, even if that conflicts with the state's (less important, IMO) interest in banning overt racial discrimination in commercial contexts.

In your personal life, you can do what you want. When you're conducting business, however, there are more constraints on your behaviour than when you're doing something on your own. One of those is that the business model you use can't be based on illegal behaviour.

Do you have a particular jurisdiction in mind where a prostitute's refusal to accept black clients constitutes illegal behavior? As I said before, I don't know of any.

 

[Bomb#20]

The distinction being made is between criminal coercion and coercion by law, which is a major distinction. An argument can be made that all government is based on coercion and that the government imposes its authority by the threat of negative consequences. If you want to use the same word for them then fine, but that doesn't make them the same concept.

If two people tell you need to give them $100,000 or they'll lock you in a room for a few months, there's a huge distinction between the situations if one of them is saying "because I have a gun to your head and feel like robbing you" and the other is saying "because you owe a lot of back taxes". Both are coercing you to give them money through the threat of negative consequences, but the usage of the word is not comparable between them.

I'm not following your reasoning. Of course "criminal coercion" and "coercion by law" are two different concepts. They're disjoint narrowings of the concept "coercion". That's how adjectives work. "Black pawn" and "white pawn" are different concepts too, and there's a huge distinction between the situations if a black pawn is one diagonal step on the far side of your queen or a white one is; but that doesn't make the usage of the word "pawn" not comparable between them.

The government has the authority and the right to "coerce" people to obey the law.

That's a very odd argument for you to make. In most places there isn't actually any law requiring prostitutes not to discriminate. A vagina is not a place of public accommodation. But in post #74, after Athena pointed out that the law makes this sort of nuanced distinction, you called the law a foul name and said it needs to be repealed. What grounds do you have for that? According to you the government has the authority and the right to enforce its policy preferences. Is "That's the law" a good argument when it's a law you like but a bad argument when it's a law Athena likes? You appear to be trying to have your cake and eat it too.

It's not the same thing as someone without that authority and right illegally coercing someone to do things.

So who said they were the same thing? Two things do not have to be one and the same thing in order for them to share a property, and in order for them to be reasoned about on the basis of that shared property.

You're analyzing coercion in terms of governments' authority and rights. I think that's a losing argument for you. If it were correct, then all your earlier "There's zero amount of rape going on." posts would have been meaningless red herrings. So what if nobody is being forced to have sex with black men? The government could pass a law making "specific performance" applicable to prostitution contracts as easily as they could pass one making anti-discrimination rules applicable. Then if a prostitute refused a paid-up john when she found out he was black, he could sue, win, and then legally rape her, and your analysis would imply that's okay too because the government has the authority and the right to coerce people to obey the law.

I propose an alternate analysis. The legality of coercion is like the legality of anything else. When we outlaw certain behaviors, there are basically three reasons we do that. (1) What we're outlawing is a bad thing to do. (2) It's not a bad thing to do, but it's a bad thing to have everybody doing his own way willy nilly, stepping on everybody else's toes in the process, so we have the government do it or at least control how everybody else does it. Or (3), we're a bunch of self-righteous tyrannical pricks.

Telling somebody to give you $100,000 or you'll lock him in a room is a bad thing to do, period. So we outlaw it, period. We outlaw it for reason 1. It doesn't matter whether the guy owes back taxes or not and whether you're a government official or not -- the back taxes he owes aren't owed to you personally even if you're a tax collector. If you do your job honestly then you don't tell him he has to give you $100,000; you tell him he has to give the public treasury $100,000. That means you're actually coercing him to do a different thing from what the kidnapper is coercing him to do, which means you aren't comparing apples to apples. Making people give money to the public treasury isn't a bad thing to do -- if people were allowed not to give some of their money to the public treasury we'd all be in deep trouble. We outlaw random people from forcing their neighbors to pay taxes under threat of violence not for reason 1 but for reason 2. It would be a bad thing for nobody to know how much tax he has to pay to stay out of jail and for everybody's tax to be however much is the maximum that any of his neighbors want him to have to pay, not counting neighbors without guns.

In my last post I asked you a question and you didn't explicitly answer it; but jumping directly to making a distinction between legal and illegal coercion looks like an implicit answer. So I'll presume you agree that when your boss tells you you'll be an unemployed homophobic bigot if you don't blow him in the conference room, what he's doing is not okay. I take it you regard it as criminal coercion. Correct?

So here's the follow-up question: Why do you think we outlaw your boss telling you you'll be an unemployed homophobic bigot if you don't blow him in the conference room? Reason 1, 2 or 3? (Or 4, if you think I missed a reason for outlawing actions.)

If you want to argue that making people pay taxes is extortion because they're coercing you to pay them money and traffic cops are assaulting you <snip>.

But I don't want to argue that; I want to argue the arguments I'm writing. If you choose to reinterpret what's said to you in order to be able to tell yourself it's libertarian dogma and not outrage at governments committing quid pro quo sexual harassment, then you'll be following in Bilby's footsteps. That leads to calling everybody who disagrees with you a racist.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

If you know that you cannot abide by the terms required of you to have a business licence, then you shouldn't apply for the licence in the first place..

That depends on the case.

For example, let's say that a government decides to license most activities, and actually cracks down on those who work without a license. Let's further suppose that one of the conditions to get a license is to accept Jesus as lord and savior. Alice believes it's not the case that Jesus is lord or savior, but she needs to work for a living, and only has skills to work on licensed fields. If there are no further relevant factors (no alien invasions, nuclear bombs, etc.), it's not the case that she should not apply for any license. All other things equal, it's okay to lie and apply anyway. In fact, there are possible further specifications of the scenario in which she should apply – e. g., she has to sustain her kids as well.

Another example: let's say that Sage is a prostitute who works illegally because prostitution is illegal. But then, prostitution is legalized, and at the same time, the government cracks down on illegal prostitution, so Sage has to choose between getting a license, and not working anymore. However, one of the conditions is that she must have accept female clients as well as male clients, which would be a huge burden for her, so while she can do that, she won't. But still, it's not the case that she should not apply in the first place, barring other factors.
Granted, in that case she can – she just won't -, so if you actually meant “cannot” rather than “will not”, or “refuse to”, etc., this one is not a counterexample – but the previous one is; Alice cannot bring herself to believe that Jesus is lord and savior -, but if you actually mean “cannot”, then I don't see what point you're trying to make in this context.
Still, we may change the scenario and say that one of the conditions is that the prostitute feel sexually attracted to the client, regardless of race, sex, age, etc., and then there are plenty of scenarios in which prostitutes cannot meet the conditions, but it's not the case that they should not apply in the first place.

If you have the licence and can't abide by the terms, you should lose the licence

That also depends on the case. The previous examples work here too, assuming the licenses are granted.

In your personal life, you can do what you want. When you're conducting business, however, there are more constraints on your behaviour than when you're doing something on your own. One of those is that the business model you use can't be based on illegal behaviour.

If by “can't” you mean “can't” (in a usual sense of the word), then that depends on the case. There are plenty of case in which a person can have a business model based on illegal behavior, and even be successful.

If by “can't”, you mean [morally] “shouldn't”, then that also depends on the case. There are plenty of cases in which – say - a law is deeply unjust and it's okay to have a business model based on illegal behavior. For example, prostitutes who work in a state where it's banned are usually not behaving immorally just for working as prostitutes.

If by “can't”, you mean “you're not legally allowed”, that's trivially tautological. But a trivially tautological statement clearly does not provide any good reasons in support of the view you're defending, and the moral issue remains.
If by “can't”, you mean something else, please explain what you mean by “can't”.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

If a law is unjust, then the conversation would be about repealing the law and that would be a different conversation. We are talking about a just law here. Anti-discrimination laws are good things and societies with them are better places than those without them. Places where you don't have to walk down the street or read through the paper without seeing "No blacks" or "No Jews" are better places than ones which allow the signs. They are a positive step forward and should not be weakened. This isn't a discussion about laws in general, but anti-discrimination laws specifically.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I'm not following your reasoning. Of course "criminal coercion" and "coercion by law" are two different concepts. They're disjoint narrowings of the concept "coercion". That's how adjectives work. "Black pawn" and "white pawn" are different concepts too, and there's a huge distinction between the situations if a black pawn is one diagonal step on the far side of your queen or a white one is; but that doesn't make the usage of the word "pawn" not comparable between them.

Right. That's the whole point. They're different things.

When you have a boss coercing his employee to have sex with someone or lose her job, that's not comparable to a government threatening to pull someone's licence to be a prostitute if she discriminates against black men.

If you weren't one of the ones making the argument that there was an equivalence between the two and saying that the latter situation amounts to the government coercing her to have sex or lose her job the same as the first one, then my response wasn't relevant to your post.

 

[whichphilosophy]

If a law is unjust, then the conversation would be about repealing the law and that would be a different conversation. We are talking about a just law here. Anti-discrimination laws are good things and societies with them are better places than those without them. Places where you don't have to walk down the street or read through the paper without seeing "No blacks" or "No Jews" are better places than ones which allow the signs. They are a positive step forward and should not be weakened. This isn't a discussion about laws in general, but anti-discrimination laws specifically.

Back to the original point, a prostitute could be termed racist but if she has refused to do an illegal act with an Afro-American or other non white person, that in itself could not be racist in terms of doing business if she refused to engage in an illegal act

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Back to the original point, a prostitute could be termed racist but if she has refused to do an illegal act with an Afro-American or other non white person, that in itself could not be racist in terms of doing business if she refused to engage in an illegal act

No, refusal to do an illegal act would be a case of her refusing to do an illegal act.

 

[Toni]

MoNique and Jasmine are both prostitutes working for a legal brothel. MoNique is black with flowing curls with a figure and face worth of a Playboy centerfold. Jasmine is equally beautiful, white, with long blonde hair and blue eyes. They are both 21, and are considered to be quite skilled in the full range of services offered by the brothel.

However, Butch, the owner/operator of the brothel pays Monique about 60 percent of what he pays Jasmine because that is what customers are willing to pay for each woman's services. The customers agree that MoNique and Jasmine are equally skilled but prefer a blonde, white girl for whatever reason and are willing to pay more to enjoy Jasmine's services.

Although Jasmine and MoNique are equally skilled and equally hard working, MoNique needs to service more customers to cover her room rent at the brothel, not to mention her other bills.

Should this be allowed? If so, why? If not, what is the remedy?