NO BLACK MEN! (That thread again, with a different slant to it.)

[Azprint]

Bare with me for a minute before dismissing.

So a Dyke walks into a Muslim barbershop, and they refuse to cut her hair.

True story, that was recently brought up to me and that came to a conclusion recently

Faith McGregor filed a complaint to the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario after Omar Mahrouk, owner of the Terminal Barber Shop, told her they couldn’t cut a woman’s hair because of their religion.

“It was reached through mediation, so it was decided upon by the both of us. We both came to a mutual agreement,” said McGregor, adding that she was happy with the outcome.

McGregor walked into the Terminal Barber Shop’s Bay St. location in June to get a haircut. Like many barbershops, they don’t do women’s styles — but McGregor has short hair and wanted a “businessman” cut — short on the sides, tapered, trim up the top.

Mahrouk explained that since he and all of his barbers were Muslim, they were unable to cut her hair, prompting McGregor to launch the complaint.

The nature of the dispute pitted freedom of religion against a woman’s right not to be refused service based on her gender.

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/201...dnt_cut_resolve_dispute_with_a_good_talk.html

So they made some sort of a deal, I think she was bribed, but it is irrelevant.

What matters is, considering that prostitution laws are under the review, and prostitution becomes legal. The popular issue of Escorts denying services to people based on ethnicity, will eventually be brought up, but not on review boards this time, in courts. And honestly I have no idea how it can be resolved, both sides have equally strong argument and it can go either way.

So any thoughts, comments?

 

[canada-man]

my my you folks are obsessed with black men don't ya?

 

[Azprint]

my my you folks are obsessed with black men don't ya?

Not at all. Right now I remain neutral stance on it, but the barber shop story made me think. If prostitution goes legal, it is going to be a problem.

 

[mur11]

Really dude?
This again?
Smh

 

[Azprint]

Really dude?
This again?
Smh

That is why disclaimer in the title dude, to save you time running up your post count.

 

[mur11]

That is why disclaimer in the title dude, to save you time running up your post count.

Haha you start a thread that has been brought up a million times before and I'm the one running up my post count?

 

[Azprint]

I'll LMAO and be ROFL if ever anyone questions the legality of escorts choosing not to see clients based on racial preference.

I know one thing for sure: nobody will ever be able to enforce anything on me that even remotely dictates with whom I choose to share my body with.

But, depending on the ruling, you might get your license revoked, so you will not be able to operate legally. All of this assuming prostitution is legal of course.

 

[shack]

I'll LMAO and be ROFL if ever anyone questions the legality of escorts choosing not to see clients based on racial preference.

I know one thing for sure: nobody will ever be able to enforce anything on me that even remotely dictates with whom I choose to share my body with.

It's actually an interesting scenario that azp brings up. (BTW, people he did not take a stand. Just asking a hypothetical "what would happen"?)

I thought the whole haircut thing was stupid, but look how much attention it got and how far it went. Human Rights Tribunal.

I don't see any reason why this might not come up in regards to escorts. There have been cases of cabbies declining fares or pharmacists refusing to fill subscriptions etc, so why not escorts?

The question is what legal arguments could escorts use to refuse certain clients the service they provide that are different than a barber might use to defend his position? Providing sex to strangers is their everyday business, as is cutting hair to a barber.

 

[mrsCALoki]

It's actually an interesting scenario that azp brings up. (BTW, people he did not take a stand. Just asking a hypothetical "what would happen"?)

I thought the whole haircut thing was stupid, but look how much attention it got and how far it went. Human Rights Tribunal.

I don't see any reason why this might not come up in regards to escorts. There have been cases of cabbies declining fares or pharmacists refusing to fill subscriptions etc, so why not excorts?

The question is what legal arguments could escorts use to refuse certain clients the service they provide that are different than a barber might use to defend his position? Providing sex to strangers is their everyday business, as is cutting hair to a barber.

1) Why would any client want to be with a woman who found him unacceptable? Daaaaaa dumb.

2) I did not mind he was black, I just did not provide him service because he looked like a jerk. Jerks are not covered under human rights.

 

[canada-man]

I don't see any reason why this might not come up in regards to escorts. There have been cases of cabbies declining fares or pharmacists refusing to fill subscriptions etc, so why not excorts?

escorting is not on the same level as pharmacists and cabbies.

pharmacists's jobs to give doctors prescriptions

cabbies provide transportation. both jobs do not involved intimate contact

 

[Mr Deeds]

Not at all. Right now I remain neutral stance on it, but the barber shop story made me think. If prostitution goes legal, it is going to be a problem.

Discrimination in this industry will never be a problem even if it becomes legal. You cant compare getting a hair cut to selling sexual services. A woman will always have the right to choose who they sleep with weather they are paid or not. I have also noticed on bp Indian providers stating the only cater to Indian men. Now can you picture some white guy filing a complaint because this woman wouldn't fuck him.

 

[shack]

escorting is not on the same level as pharmacists and cabbies.

pharmacists's jobs to give doctors prescriptions

cabbies provide transportation. both jobs do not involved intimate contact

I believe part of the barber's reasoning was having to be in physical contact with the woman.

I understand the different levels of interaction but the legal arguments put forth at a tribunal would have to be better than your's (no offense). Being in intimate physical contact is an escorts routine procedure.

BTW, I don't dispute an escort's right to choose her clients one iota. I am curious as to what the legal arguments would be for someone to deny their everyday business to a client based on their race.

 

[shack]

2) I did not mind he was black, I just did not provide him service because he looked like a jerk. Jerks are not covered under human rights.

That argument would be very convincing when the SP has already stated in her ads, "no black men".

 

[Ladyraven]

You can not force a SP to see/fuck someone she is not wanting .. RAPE wether the man paid or not .. She does not want to and someone makes her.. not ever gonna happen for that reason ...

 

[freespirit]

I would think if prostitution becomes fully legal, the courts/law will have to come up with some "new" rules regarding customer biases. Obviously this line of work is subject to significantly more risks than a "normal" job; ie: barber. Seriously, if a barber can refuse to cut someone's hair based on gender, an escort should be able to refuse a client based on certain aspects.

Personally, I don't understand these escorts that paint every member of one race with one brush, but then again, they may have had some unpleasant experiences that I've been fortunate enough not to have. To each his/her own, I say.

 

[shack]

I imagine anyone with half a brain will re-think their wording if she is subjecting herself to legal action.

One would think so, but we know that people do a lot of dumb things in this world.

 

[Azprint]

It's actually an interesting scenario that azp brings up. (BTW, people he did not take a stand. Just asking a hypothetical "what would happen"?)

I thought the whole haircut thing was stupid, but look how much attention it got and how far it went. Human Rights Tribunal.

I don't see any reason why this might not come up in regards to escorts. There have been cases of cabbies declining fares or pharmacists refusing to fill subscriptions etc, so why not excorts?

The question is what legal arguments could escorts use to refuse certain clients the service they provide that are different than a barber might use to defend his position? Providing sex to strangers is their everyday business, as is cutting hair to a barber.

Thank you.

 

[shack]

Seriously, if a barber can refuse to cut someone's hair based on gender, an escort should be able to refuse a client based on certain aspects.

That's the problem. He did refuse and then got taken to the tribunal, had to defend himself and in the end it was not a clear cut victory but a compromise.

One must also keep in mind the sensitivity of such a politically correct hot topic as racial bias. I don't think any government agency or court would want to be seen in the public eye as approving of racial discrimination by siding with the escort.

Interesting topic.

 

[Azprint]

hahaha I love it! No court is ever gonna tell me who to share my body with either Alona.

They can go ahead and try to force me to sleep with someone I don't want to. If it comes to that, personally I will just lie. I will lie and say he was rude and disrespectful. Or that he smelled funny. Fuck it.

He might still press charges not because he wants to have sex with you, maybe for material gain. And those kind of lawsuits will make you bankrupt eventually. Again, I am discussing it with the hypothetical scenario of prostitution going full out legal in mind.

 

[DELETDrileydaniels]

Every week is the same shit, men complaining when a Sp chooses not to see a certain race. My body is not a consumable product like some iphone this whole race thing is just becoming extremely irritating. The whole point of the up coming prostitution ruling is to allow us sex workers the right to work in a safe environment and the ability to choose who they hire to work with if they decide to hire a driver and other staff members. and you can be damn right certain there will be another fight of what decriminalization will look like if the ruling changes in our favor. The bigger point of this fight is to stop the government from trying to control us what we do with our bodies and how we choose to work.

The idea that some man with money thinking he can use it to see any escort and then chooses to do whatever he wants with her is damn right despicable
. It's definitely not book an escort use her body and then give it back to her later like some blow up doll.

Just like people have the right to choose they associate with in business, friends and other relationships it goes the same way with an escorting choosing who her client is going to be. People need to get over the fact just because you pick up the phone and call an escort doesn't mean she is going to want to see you.

No one makes a fuss about strippers or massage girls choosing to see a certain type of client. but for some reason when it comes to escorts everyone wants to dictate who they choose to see.