I would be reluctant to book with an SP who does ban all Black clients. "No thugs"? Sure. "No clients under 30"? Understandable. "No clients who have lived in Canada for fewer than x years"? Getting a little harsh, but alright. "No penises that exceed y units of volume"? 100% reasonable. But banning all men of an entire race is just ridiculous. If you have a problem with some characteristic that might be associated men of a certain race, why not name that instead? Make it clear that you reserve the right to refuse service if the client has that characteristic. Yeah, it's all tougher to prove than "darn, I see a Black person when I look through the peephole," but I don't believe the ease of that makes it right. Besides, the probability that an SP would ban all Black men but would be willing to genuinely forgive other minority men for their negative stereotypes has got to be pretty close to zero. With all of that said, this is mainly an issue on BP, and BP is a joke... so there's that.
Actually, I feel the same way about clients with disabilities. I don't have any obvious disabilities myself, but I wouldn't book with an SP who expressly doesn't see clients who do have one or more disabilities. I mean, as an escort, you're essentially being paid to put the client's needs ahead of your own (within reason) temporarily. If you can't even see a client with a disability (one that doesn't make him threatening), I don't have much of a choice but to assume that you do not have the desired level of respect for the fact that clients who are seeking your help come from all walks of life and differ in their abilities. If that doesn't matter to an SP—and frankly, there are some to whom that doesn't seem to matter enough for me—I wouldn't consider seeing her.
I didn't vote for any of the options because none of them accurately describe how I feel. I'd rethink, then I may or may not book depending on context/special circumstances.