Tom Sawyer, who always uses the passive voice to disguise from himself what he is saying, thinks saying "I take this job" is affirmative consent.
It is. They can quit that job at any time. They would not be forced to have sex with anyone. Thus, it isn't rape. Just like a diner forced to serve blacks is not being forced into slavery. Rather, they are prohibited from having sex for money (or serving breakfast for money), if they choose not to provide that service to people based on race. See my above post for more and discussion of how this issue does still highlight the balance of concerns and rights that is inherent to discrimination laws.
I argue the free market side of many issues. When the need for government to intervene in the employer-employee relationship comes up, I have been known to say that employees who are dissatisfied with one employer should seek another employer.
That is apparently a horrible thing to say, because simply going to get another job is apparently one of the most difficult things a person can do. My position, that employees have some agency, is considered anti-progressive and therefore horrible.
Now that we are discussing work when the job includes sex, I am being told that in the name of anti-discrimination, that the worker can simply quit their job at any time.
Again, you're trying to make "sex" the determining factor here, when the same rule applies to all jobs. All those progressives would tell you that any employee in any business should be fired if they refuse the same service to various people base on race.
Actually, the legal obligation is and should be to whomever owns the business to ensure the service is provided. They can do that by having a different willing employee perform the task or replacing that employee with someone who will.
Employers being required to do business in a way that doesn't threaten the public safety and thus requiring employees to abide by such codes is not remotely comparable to and employer doing whatever he wants to employees with their only recourse being to quit.
That is the false equivalence you are making.
In the case of August Ames, she wouldn't have sex with men who had sex with men. She would have sex with men who had not had sex with men. She would have sex with women. She just wouldn't have sex with men who had done gay porn. That was horribly anti-progressive apparently, and the progressive position is that she should simply find another job.
Her position was so horribly anti-progressive that the right thing to do was harass her into suicide.
Really? Please cite the widespread endorsement by progressives of wanting this woman to commit suicide.
99.99% of progressive would find such a sentiment abhorrent, and the majority probably have no problem with her refusal to have sex with men who've had gay sex. She got a couple tweets about it from a few idiots who don't grasp that not wanting to get HIV from someone who definitely exposed themselves to a high risk of it by doing gay porn says nothing about your views of homosexuals in general.
And just maybe she committed suicide because she was severely damaged by the repeated rape by her grandfather and that her dad refused to believe her (do you suspect progressive or conservatives are more likely to endorse not believing rape victims?)
Her scenario relates directly to the what I discussed in terms of STDs being the thing that makes sex work unusual from other jobs, where providing the service exposes the worker to severe risks and those risk levels are strongly tied to membership in groups protected by discrimination laws. Like I said, its rational for her to make that choice, as it would be for prostitutes to not want to have sex with black men. And in that context, discrimination laws don't even apply, because if they other actor is not hired based on her demands as a fellow employee, then it is not because he is gay but because he has previously worked in gay porn (which does not even mean the actor was gay, and is not something that is true of most gay men).
