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.
As soon as they are licensed by the state and taxed on their earnings, no. As long as they are forced into the shadows to ply their trade there are no laws that cover it.
You cannot pile discrimination laws on top of an activity that is already illegal.
BTW - I know a couple of prostitutes from back in the days I ran the streets. They would take on all comers, but really preferred republican white men. From their accounts they asked for mundane acts that they thought were kinky, and were willing to spend more money for them.
Right.....
Your prostitute friends had lots of political conversations with her clients and the GOP ones were overly generous!!! Or are successful people assumed to be Republican and ones scrapping by on the government dole assumed to be Democrats?
Is discrimination based on gender any better than discrimination based on sexual orientation?
Not necessarily.
I brought it up in reaction to what I know is the intention of the OP. Sex based discrimination has been illegal everywhere in the US for 50 years. There's a current movement to add sexual orientation to anti-discrimination laws.
The OP has a mission of preventing this from happening. You can find hundreds of posts where he argues that adding sexual orientation to anti-discrimination laws is antisemitic, and that those seeking to do it are Jew-hating neo-Nazis.
This is his attempt at pointing out another bad consequence of adding sexual orientation to anti-discrimination laws. I'm simply pointing out that he's wrong. This is discrimination based on sex, not sexual orientation.
This is a tough issue for me because I would not want to go back to the days of segregated luch counters. However, the logic of outlawing discrimination does inexorably lead us to the conclusion that a legal brothel could not discriminate against LBGT. Which, per the poll results, means that we have a reductio ad absurdum on our hands.
I find the efforts to distinguish between 'personal' and 'public accommodation to be arbitrary. Any distinction must be non-arbitrary or we risk losing 'rule of law' to 'rule of men.
This issue is really quite simple, and not the least bit difficult to handle intellectually. It boils down to the most fundamental concept of freedom ... the freedom of choice. You either have it, or you don't. It's a simple concept, complicated only by over thinking and rationalizing, and collectives jockeying for their own self interests, while losing sight of the broader, self destructive implications of their ideological pursuit to deny others said freedom.
Freedom of choice is an individual freedom, like freedom of speech ... in that popular speech needs no protection. Only unpopular speech requires protection. Consequently, in order to protect your own freedoms, one must necessarily resign themselves to honoring the freedoms of others and their individual choices.
The matter can be summed up with Brussels Sprouts. I hate them ... can't stand the taste of them, and even the smell of them cooking turns my stomach. I'd be fine with having Brussels Sprouts eliminated from the food supply entirely, and to hell with those who like them. They can live without them. But there is a much broader implication to this hypothetical ban .... that being the precedent set. Should I have my way, this would also make way for the ban on peas, carrots, spinach, tomatoes, etc., for those who dislike them. Then meat would be under attack from the vegans ... coffee an tea from the Mormons ...the list is as endless, because the list of likes and dislikes are endless. Eventually, food itself would be outlawed, one product at a time. The only way for me to guarantee my unfettered access to the food I enjoy, is to respect the choices of others, even if I have to tolerate the putrid smell of Brussels Sprouts cooking everywhere, because it is ultimately in my own self interests to do so ... if I possess the wisdom to think past the end of my own nose!
Regardless of your opinion of whether or not Prostitution should be legal
Should a prostitute be allowed to discriminate against a member of the same sex?
If they can, how come I can't "discriminate" against them by refusing to sell them an item used for a same gender "wedding"
PS I'm strongly against Prostitution
First, let's establish the fact that I do think people should be able to choose those people to whom they provide services.
I'd wager, with respect to your question, that the "service provided" is too.......close, if you know what I mean, for the gub-ment to get involved. For example, you can "discriminate" in housing all you want if you're looking for a housemate or roommate.
That was my point. Why do you think a prostitue should have a right to discriminate based on any factor while a bakery should be forced to bake and deliver a wedding cake depicting Ken and Ken or a swastika or a KKK symbol? Shouldn't the businesses have the right to refuse the service to anybody?
You see, this is why so many people have a problem with gay marriage and other pro-gay laws, it's not that they necessarily oppose the concept but are afraid that the laws will force certain things upon them, like admitting a child with gay parents to a Catholic school and accommodating that gay couple during parent teacher conferencing etc etc.
It's not that I think any gay couple would want their kid in a catholic school run by nuns bu knowing America some gay couple will pull that stunt just to observe the reaction of nuns and litigate, litigate and litigate.
Confession: I provided sexual services to men many years ago when I was in my 20s. Over the years, I did get a couple of calls from women, and I turned them down. I guess that makes me an anti-woman, sexist bigot in the eyes of some. Good thing the statute of limitations has run out or else I'd be getting a call from the Justice Department! Whew! Dodged a bullet there!
Last edited by AnUnidentifiedMale; 03-08-2014 at 10:16 AM..
That was my point. Why do you think a prostitue should have a right to discriminate based on any factor while a bakery should be forced to bake and deliver a wedding cake depicting Ken and Ken or a swastika or a KKK symbol? Shouldn't the businesses have the right to refuse the service to anybody?
No. I agree with anti-discrimination laws that prevent commercial enterprises that serve the public from discriminating based on innate characteristics of customers (race, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, disability). I even agree with extending such laws to cover certain chosen chosen characteristics like religion.
There's a fundamental difference, however, between a bakery and a prostitute. The service a prostitute provides implicates a Constitutional right whereas the service a bakery provides does not.
A baker sells cakes. Making those cakes requires blending various plant byproducts together, applying heat, etc. None of those acts butts up against a Constitutional protection.
A prostitute sells sex. Sex involves the invasion of one's privacy and requires her consent to violate the right she has to control her own physical self. That is a Constitutionally protected right. No law - including commercial anti-discrimination laws - can violate that right. A law cannot require a person to submit to being raped.
This issue is really quite simple, and not the least bit difficult to handle intellectually. It boils down to the most fundamental concept of freedom ... the freedom of choice. You either have it, or you don't. It's a simple concept, complicated only by over thinking and rationalizing, and collectives jockeying for their own self interests, while losing sight of the broader, self destructive implications of their ideological pursuit to deny others said freedom.
Freedom of choice is an individual freedom, like freedom of speech ... in that popular speech needs no protection. Only unpopular speech requires protection. Consequently, in order to protect your own freedoms, one must necessarily resign themselves to honoring the freedoms of others and their individual choices.
The matter can be summed up with Brussels Sprouts. I hate them ... can't stand the taste of them, and even the smell of them cooking turns my stomach. I'd be fine with having Brussels Sprouts eliminated from the food supply entirely, and to hell with those who like them. They can live without them. But there is a much broader implication to this hypothetical ban .... that being the precedent set. Should I have my way, this would also make way for the ban on peas, carrots, spinach, tomatoes, etc., for those who dislike them. Then meat would be under attack from the vegans ... coffee an tea from the Mormons ...the list is as endless, because the list of likes and dislikes are endless. Eventually, food itself would be outlawed, one product at a time. The only way for me to guarantee my unfettered access to the food I enjoy, is to respect the choices of others, even if I have to tolerate the putrid smell of Brussels Sprouts cooking everywhere, because it is ultimately in my own self interests to do so ... if I possess the wisdom to think past the end of my own nose!
It is not that simple. Suppose you are a Jew living in Saudi Arabia and 99.999 percent of grocery stores decided that they will not sell to Jews. If you then starve to death, is it A-OK?
Brussel sprouts are one of my all time favorite foods. I cooked some last night. Good, and good for you. Brussels sprouts
There's a fundamental difference, however, between a bakery and a prostitute. The service a prostitute provides implicates a Constitutional right whereas the service a bakery provides does not.
You lost me here. What "Constitutional right" is implied by the service provided by a prostitute?
Quote:
Originally Posted by hammertime33
A baker sells cakes. Making those cakes requires blending various plant byproducts together, applying heat, etc. None of those acts butts up against a Constitutional protection.
And no reasonable baker would ever refuse selling those cakes to gays. We're talking about custom wedding cakes here. That's more than just mixing ingredients, a little bit of art.....
Quote:
Originally Posted by hammertime33
A prostitute sells sex. Sex involves the invasion of one's privacy and requires the consent to violate the right one has to control over her own physical self. That is a Constitutionally protected right. No law - including commercial anti-discrimination laws - can violate that right. A law cannot require a person to submit to being raped.
C'mon. You can do better than to equate prostitution to voluntary invasion of privacy. That's BS and you know it, pal.
If prostitue can refuse services based on gender than anybody should.....
I think a hairdresser should be able to specify "women only" and only deal with women. Etc etc.
Let's let life sort it out. If there's an LGBT unfriendly bakery someone else will open LGBT friendly one right next door and take their LGBT business. This happened before to many other minority groups and in most industries. If someone doesn't want you business, take it elsewhere and let your money support a business that supports, or at least is friendly to your cause.
Last edited by Liberal01; 03-08-2014 at 09:53 AM..
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.
