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.
The media has managed to change the general perception and treatment of gay people by getting them viewed as almost a new race which should not be discriminated on. However I think this approach could be used on a lot of other out casted types. Could those who choose to do prostitution simply be viewed as a discriminated group and therefor be given amnesty?
I don't think it was just the media, but yes we have gotten to a point where it's generally accepted that people who are gay shouldn't be discriminated against. But I can't see the connection or parallel to prostitutes.
There's legal discrimination, and there's the more general social kind of discrimination. In most cases, the media combines with other institutions to get the message out that it's no acceptable to treat a certain group poorly, so social discrimination starts to become unacceptable. Then that gets followed by laws (that mostly only affect workplaces, government agencies, and some business transactions) that make discrimination in certain contexts legally unacceptable.
Then we have to ask, are prostitutes actually "discriminated" against? I mean, in the legal sense of the word. Are prostitutes unfairly treated differently than the general population with regard to hiring, treatment on the job, being able to rent or buy a home wherever they like, etc? If prostitutes do encounter problems in those areas, I would guess that it's not due to some unfair discriminatory beliefs about prostitutes per se, but due to some third factor. They might not get hired for a nice job, not because they sell their bodies, but because of how they dress for the interview. They might not get accepted to rent an apartment because of a low credit score or inability to produce proof of income, not because they sell sex.
And when it comes of workplace discrimination, if they are already in the "workplace" of a prostitute, it's kind of hard for them to go to HR, or file an EEOC complaint about their supervisor, the pimp, treating them like a wh*re, or people on the jobsite treating them like they're a prostitute, because, well, they're a prostitute.
I see the difference as this: to be a "protected class" (a group to get legal protections from discrimination) being a member of that class should be something that was involuntary. A person's race is not voluntary; you're born whatever color you are. If you have a handicap/disability, that's involuntary, and you shouldn't be discriminated against because of it. Ditto for age, gender. But most people (now) understand that being gay is not a choice (save the arguments on that for the 'great debates' forum). So if a person is born a certain way, and they experience consistent discrimination because of it, that class becomes a candidate for becoming a protected class, a group that is protected from discrimination.
I understand why religion is protected, even though many of us see it as a choice. Many people are born into a certain religion, and because of those beliefs, they don't see it as something they could change even if they wanted to. But other people convert to a religion--to them it's no so much a choice as a "calling" and something they can't resist. So because religion is a core part of who many people are, religion is a protected class.
Veteran status is a protected class, even though many vets are vets by choice, but I'm okay with that for two reasons: 1.) if a person is treated badly for being a veteran and he had been drafted against his will, but still served our country, he should be protected, and 2.) if a veteran joined the military voluntarily, and later gets treated badly because he/she is a vet, then I think that person still deserves legal protection because he or she risked their life for the rest of us.
I think that's why there is such controversy about obesity becoming a legally protected class. Many say it's mostly a voluntary condition, while many others say it's a condition that's totally involuntary.
Yes there are still a lot of people who see homosexuality as a choice, but I think the scales have recently reached the tipping point, and now the larger portion of people accept it's not a choice.
I think a lot of "out-casted" groups consist of people who are in those groups by choice. So it's a harder sell to get people to agree to avoid discriminating against them, whether legally or just socially. sure the media and other institutions can try to persuade us that people in those groups are equal to all of us, and that we should not treat them any differently, but as long as those groups consist of people doing something by choice, it'll be a hard sell. Right now, laws are being proposed and passed (sometimes via questionable means) to protect convicted criminals from discrimination. Obviously many people have problems with that, as is anyone is in that 'outcast' group, it's by choice.
Substance abusers also fall into that in-between category. They do enjoy some legal protections and some social protections, but nothing along the lines of how race, disability, or gender are protected.
Actually when it comes to prostitution, there already is a large "lobby" trying to get the public to be more accepting and less discriminatory against prostitutes. If you hear anyone referring to a hooker as a "sex worker" or "a member of the sex industry" then you've met someone who is probably pushing for wider acceptance of, and protection for, prostitutes.
The media has managed to change the general perception and treatment of gay people by getting them viewed as almost a new race which should not be discriminated on. However I think this approach could be used on a lot of other out casted types. Could those who choose to do prostitution simply be viewed as a discriminated group and therefor be given amnesty?
The notion for which you seem to be wanting about is suspect class.
Sexual orientation is not there yet (broadly, though it is in some states and on a very limited basis in some federal jurisdictions), but it likely will be in the near future. No profession has ever been held to be a category of suspect classification (for rather obvious reasons - see the second link below).
The above should disabuse you of the notion that court rulings striking down discriminatory practices targeting gays are some sympathy campaign rigged by the scheming media; rather, they are but a logical application of existing jurisprudence.
I don't think it was just the media, but yes we have gotten to a point where it's generally accepted that people who are gay shouldn't be discriminated against. But I can't see the connection or parallel to prostitutes.
...
Strange how you mention legal discrimination because that would suggest prostitutes have it worse since they are both legally and socially discriminated against.
Not understanding how you are trying to roll off the discrimination they have as a universal "anything else".
I disagree that your career path is a choice in all cases. Have you ever heard the term starving artist? I don't think they try to make a career out of it because they could make better for themselves with something else. Career choices are not detached from the person. Your calling idea towards religion supports this nicely.
Your are making this about the parts that make the whole though. The issue remains the same. Gay people and prostitutes are "a people" who are discriminated against. The whole idea towards ending discrimination against gay people was to set aside the reasons they were who they are. You haven't explained why this approach couldn't also be used for prostitutes.
The media has managed to change the general perception and treatment of gay people by getting them viewed as almost a new race which should not be discriminated on. However I think this approach could be used on a lot of other out casted types. Could those who choose to do prostitution simply be viewed as a discriminated group and therefor be given amnesty?
Well, prostitution is an act and a choice. Homosexuality isn't. FWIW, I don't think either should be illegal or legally discriminated against in any way.
isnt the basis for roe vs wade (pro choice-abortion law) is that government cannot legislate what a woman can do with her body? then why is prostitution illegal?
Location: On the "Left Coast", somewhere in "the Land of Fruits & Nuts"
8,852 posts, read 10,493,794 times
Reputation: 6671
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeNigh
The media has managed to change the general perception and treatment of gay people by getting them viewed as almost a new race which should not be discriminated on. However I think this approach could be used on a lot of other out casted types. Could those who choose to do prostitution simply be viewed as a discriminated group and therefor be given amnesty?
Actually the 'discrimination problems' wouldn't exist in the first place, were it not for the kinda thinking from bigots and other prejudiced folks that gays, or any other "minority", are somehow "different" or "not like us" (aka, a "new race"), so that they don't deserve to be treated like everyone else!
Well, prostitution is an act and a choice. Homosexuality isn't. FWIW, I don't think either should be illegal or legally discriminated against in any way.
So if homosexuality was a choice then we should continue discriminating against them?
No, it's different. One is something you are and the other is something you do.
We try our best not to discriminate against people of various identities in this country. Those identities can be of culture, religion, ethnicity, race, nationality, sexual orientation, (dis)ability, etc.
It's harder to protect people who are looked down upon for their occupation (prostitutes, cops, etc.), even when those occupations are more like a lifestyle. That's because there's a level of will on the part of the individual to be part of that occupation.
I'm ambivalent when it comes to the legalization of prostitution, but fall closer to the side of supporting its legalization. There are some great arguments in favor of it, but the argument that you presented isn't one of them.
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.
