Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You guys realize you are talking about rape right?
No, I don't think that we are.
After all, individuals would still be able to choose not to have sex with someone if that is what they want. They simply won't be able to prevent someone from purchasing sex with them because of this other individual's sex/gender if they are already selling sex to some people.
(And for the record, I still need to think over my position on the OP's question more.)
After all, individuals would still be able to choose not to have sex with someone if that is what they want. They simply won't be able to prevent someone from purchasing sex with them because of this other individual's sex/gender if they are already selling sex to some people.
(And for the record, I still need to think over my position on the OP's question more.)
Forcing someone to have sex now if it is a job or not is still rape.
Forcing someone to have sex now if it is a job or not is still rape.
With this reasoning it could be argued that forcing someone to do something unwillingly is also a form of rape albeit just a different degree of magnitude. We can all agree that nobody likes or wants to be forced or bullied.
Last edited by JobZombie; 03-08-2014 at 02:42 PM..
Reason: spelling error
For the sake of debate--I am not entirely sure that your point here is a good one. After all, don't we have a right to own property? Also, aren't the ingredients with which someone bakes a cake someone's property?
Yes, we have a right to own property. However, property rights in every type of property are restricted in some way. In terms business ownership and this these types of anti-discrimination laws, the Supreme Court has already decided the issue (and did so unanimously).
Last edited by hammertime33; 03-08-2014 at 03:00 PM..
Nope. Sex trade is a commercial activity and not any right protected by constitution.
We're just going to have to agree to disagree. I can't imagine any court anywhere in the US upholding as Constitutional an application of a law that requires a person to submit to being raped.
Quote:
Neither are gays....
I guess that's a true statement since "gay" is not a protected class anywhere. However, "sexual orientation" is a protected class in many jurisdictions, including where I live in Colorado and in Oregon where the most prominent bakery discrimination case took place. Also, the fact you mentioned "gay" when talking about protected classes rather than "sexual orientation" indicates to me you don't really understand what protected classes are.
Quote:
It's related. Gays want to marry, which to many people is absurd as two people of the same sex are absolutely incompatible to be married as they can't have natural offspring. Now, how about me asking Medicare to cover a hormone therapy so I could bear children... Why not?
I don't understand the connection you're trying to make. The Girl Scouts is a private organization. They can do whatever the hell they want since anti-discrimination laws don't apply to them. Gay marriage is about allowing equal access to civil marriage law and the legal rights it confers. Gay marriage doesn't have anything to do with anti-discrimination in public accommodation laws. And you're Medicare thing is just bizarre. I have no clue what point you're trying to make there.
You opened Pandora's Box. You argued that a business cannot discriminate against LGBT.
Now what do you do ?
Start an "exception list" ?
Having specifically carved out exceptions would be a very easy way to handle this too. We do it in other areas of anti-discrimination law.
There are very similar anti-discrimination laws when it comes to employment and hiring. When hiring, you likewise can't discriminate based on race, sex, religion, national origin, and is some places sexual orientation.
However, there are exceptions to this general law. For instance, if I'm hiring an attendant for the ladies restroom at my club, I am not beholden to the aspect of the law that says I can't discriminate based on sex and I can refuse to consider men for the position. If I'm selling a line of men's swimwear and am looking to hire models to show my product, I can refuse to consider women for the position.
Again thought, the exception with prostitutes would not be an exception allowing people to discriminate based on sexual orientation - it would be an exception to allow prostitutes to discriminate based on sex.
We're just going to have to agree to disagree. I can't imagine any court anywhere in the US upholding as Constitutional an application of a law that requires a person to submit to being raped.
Raped? What does prostitution has to do with rape? It's a business transaction. Just like in case of pornstars who can be fired for refusing to have sex and have no recourse in courts claiming they were coerced to be raped.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hammertime33
I guess that's a true statement since "gay" is not a protected class anywhere. However, "sexual orientation" is a protected class in many jurisdictions, including where I live in Colorado and in Oregon where the most prominent bakery discrimination case took place. Also, the fact you mentioned "gay" when talking about protected classes rather than "sexual orientation" indicates to me you don't really understand what protected classes are.
It's not a protected class according to federal standards, that's all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hammertime33
I don't understand the connection you're trying to make. The Girl Scouts is a private organization. They can do whatever the hell they want since anti-discrimination laws don't apply to them. Gay marriage is about allowing equal access to civil marriage law and the legal rights it confers. Gay marriage doesn't have anything to do with anti-discrimination in public accommodation laws. And you're Medicare thing is just bizarre. I have no clue what point you're trying to make there.
But a male can't marry another male just like I can't give birth to children as a guy.
Raped? What does prostitution has to do with rape? It's a business transaction.
But we're talking about a government law that would require prostitutes to have sexual intercourse regardless of the sex of the person requesting sex from them. If the prostitute were a heterosexual women and did not want to have sex with a female trying to buy sex with her, the law puts the prostitute in a position requiring her to have sex against her will and without consent. Sex without consent is rape.
Quote:
Just like in case of pornstars who can be fired for refusing to have sex and have no recourse in courts claiming they were coerced to be raped.
Completely different issue. The situation you're describing here is a contractural relationship between two private entities.
Quote:
It's not a protected class according to federal standards, that's all.
And........?
Quote:
But a male can't marry another male just like I can't give birth to children as a guy.
It's different when you have people being excluded. But in the case of prostitutes they can use "I don't feel a chemistry" to bypass any such requirement.
The point of using a prostitute is that the service bypasses the whole "chemistry" necessity. If you have chemistry, then no money needs to change hands.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ceist
Uh.... you think a judge can rule that a cake has a sexual orientation?
How long have you been off your medication?
Well it depends.
If sexual gratification is the "product" for sale from a prostitute, it's no different than a cake, it has no sexual orientation. If a prostitute provides a personal service (and not a product), then that is no different than any other personal service including the custom manufacture of a specific cake.
So on one hand, either a prostitute cannot refuse service regardless of personal misgivings to any protected class, or, any business providing personal services can refuse service for any reason, assuming that we agree that all businesses should be treated equally under law.
If we determine that we should not treat all businesses equally, then what by criteria do we segregate those that can discriminate, with those that cannot?
But we're talking about a government law that would require prostitutes to have sexual intercourse regardless of the sex of the person requesting sex from them. If the prostitute were a heterosexual women and did not want to have sex with a female trying to buy sex with her, the law puts the prostitute in a position requiring her to have sex against her will and without consent. Sex without consent is rape.
Well, if you chose to be a prostitute you chose not to discriminate. Young and old, good looking and ugly, men and women you take it all. It's not about attraction but profit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hammertime33
Completely different issue. The situation you're describing here is a contractural relationship between two private entities.
Just like prostitution.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hammertime33
Men absolutely can marry other men.
Nope. That's absurd.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
