The sex industry and Descrimination?

[rld]

To some it may be - who knows. The point is the same. You say don't work if you won't take all cocks, so where is the line drawn then?????

Cheese dick is not a health risk as far as an STD, it is just gross. Can someone not make the argument that hygiene should not matter either? Or that all clients who pay for it must do so for a reason like below average looks, low morals, low health and personal care so it shouldn't matter what his issue be - she still has to suck it or fuck it how he wants.

Can we then add that SP's have to preform GREEK, get fucked in the ear if that is a guy's thing? She has to do BBBJ over CBJ. Because that is what the client is paying for? She has to do face fucking, CIM, etc?

Based on what you say, she has to preform for anyone who brings her money.

No, what people are saying is that she must offer the same services to all customers regardless or enumerated grounds including race.

Welcome to the real world.

Let's say a doctor refused to do rectal exams on black people because they were black. I guess you would think that is cool.

 

[Ms.FemmeFatale]

No, what people are saying is that she must offer the same services to all customers regardless or enumerated grounds including race.

Welcome to the real world.

Let's say a doctor refused to do rectal exams on black people because they were black. I guess you would think that is cool.

Oh ya - That is what I think. I am a fully racist bitch who knows nothing. I am surprised I am even able to type this at all. :frusty:

So ladies you heard it here from a lawyer.

Cheese dick sufferers of the world rejoice because all ladies have to service you as you all come with the same color that is of any importance - green! And regardless of whether your ass hurts or their cock is too big - you do that damn GREEK. No more YMMV either.

Ladies if you are not bi-sexual, be prepared to eat muff because if a lady wants to book you, you can't say no - you only do men now either. That is sexism!



Thanks for clearing that up RLD!

 

[rld]

Oh ya - That is what I think. I am a fully racist bitch who knows nothing. I am surprised I am even able to type this at all. :frusty:

So ladies you heard it here from a lawyer.

Cheese dick sufferers of the world rejoice because all ladies have to service you as you all come with the same color that is of any importance - green! And regardless of whether your ass hurts or their cock is too big - you do that damn GREEK. No more YMMV either.

Ladies if you are not bi-sexual, be prepared to eat muff because if a lady wants to book you, you can't say no - you only do men now either. That is sexism!



Thanks for clearing that up RLD!

You have an amazing ability to be dishonest. I did not say any of the things you attribute to me. I guess your lies are what you turn to when you know you are plain old wrong.

Do you think the current law allows an SP to discriminate based on race?

You really should stop lying, you are just making a fool out of yourself on a fairly serious subject.

 

[fuji]

Show me the law you are relying on.

See post #60. Again, you are smoking some serious drugs if you think that an Ontario court judge is going to order that a woman be raped because of a line in the OHRC. This is typical RLD--you've got yourself so far off into the abstract nuances of the debate that you have missed the blindingly obvious. A Canadian court is not going to be complicit in a rape. Period.

 

[Ms.FemmeFatale]

You have an amazing ability to be dishonest. I did not say any of the things you attribute to me. I guess your lies are what you turn to when you know you are plain old wrong.

Do you think the current law allows an SP to discriminate based on race?

You really should stop lying, you are just making a fool out of yourself on a fairly serious subject.

Do you not understand sarcasm? You should - you are a lawyer right?

The difference is that our Human Rights Code does not list a transmissable illness as an enumerated grounds. In fact our Workplace Safety legislation covers that issue quite well.

But our Human Rights Legislation guarantees equal access to services no matter what your race. Try reading it. It is more interesting than F-stops and you might one day know what you are talking about.

That didn't answer the question I asked you.

I did not just bring up clients with visible STD's, I brought up service levels, hygiene etc.

So please explain to the class how with these changes in the law - were the change in the legality of prostitution was not affected as it has always been legal - is any governing body going to force an escort to see any client and serve them all with the same level of service or hold them responsible to damages/fines like they would for a business/other type of service based occupation?

 

[breadman]

This is old ground. Been covered many times before.

Yes it is old ground but its over in Germany where there aren't as many blacks. I was interested in the response from a more diverse board than those who frequent the fkk forum from which this topic comes from.

So if the girl telling the guy 'no' is descrimination, what is it when a black girl comes up to a guy and asks him for sex and he say's 'no'? Does the money exchanging hands in a certain direction have anything to do with how we view descrimination?

 

[rld]

See post #60. Again, you are smoking some serious drugs if you think that an Ontario court judge is going to order that a woman be raped because of a line in the OHRC. This is typical RLD--you've got yourself so far off into the abstract nuances of the debate that you have missed the blindingly obvious. A Canadian court is not going to be complicit in a rape. Period.

You are stupid and shrill. And also have no idea who the HRC works. Let me give you an example. Let's say I went to a barber and I was a black guy, and the barber said "I don't cut black hair." The HRC does not order you to cut the person's hair, they fine you and send you off for courses. No compulsion to carry out the service required.

You should also no that no "judges" are involved.

You really have an ability to be remarkably silly.

Now, show me the law in Ontario that you say exists that says SPs can discriminate on the basis of race.

Then tell us about how many HRC cases you have read.

 

[rld]

Do you not understand sarcasm? You should - you are a lawyer right?



That didn't answer the question I asked you.

I did not just bring up clients with visible STD's, I brought up service levels, hygiene etc.

So please explain to the class how with these changes in the law - were the change in the legality of prostitution was not affected as it has always been legal - is any governing body going to force an escort to see any client and serve them all with the same level of service or hold them responsible to damages/fines like they would for a business/other type of service based occupation?

You are right, being a lawyer gives me a special ability to discern sarcasm in text.

The answer to your question is, photographer lady, the same way they enforce it with anybody else.

To be more specific, hygiene is not an enumerated ground.

And limiting services based on race...is prohibited. I could image someone like CM making just such a complaint...

 

[Buick Mackane]

If a musician on stage asks if there are any requests and I yell out "Freebird!", is he compelled to play it?

Of course he is, I would call the police if he refused.

 

[Ms.FemmeFatale]

You are stupid and shrill. And also have no idea who the HRC works. Let me give you an example. Let's say I went to a barber and I was a black guy, and the barber said "I don't cut black hair." The HRC does not order you to cut the person's hair, they fine you and send you off for courses. No compulsion to carry out the service required.

You should also no that no "judges" are involved.

You really have an ability to be remarkably silly.

Now, show me the law in Ontario that you say exists that says SPs can discriminate on the basis of race.

Then tell us about how many HRC cases you have read.

There are many barbers however who don't cut "black hair". Not because it is black or on the head of a black person {must clarify for the lawyer - you know how they like to twist things} but because it is a different texture, etc. There are a lot of products that are made strictly for "black hair". Any black person can attest to this.

So if a barber said I don't cut black people's hair because I am not experienced with that type of hair - that would make it different and not discriminatory.

Honest but a different context. You are a lawyer - you should like that.

 

[great bear]

No, what people are saying is that she must offer the same services to all customers regardless or enumerated grounds including race.

Welcome to the real world.

Let's say a doctor refused to do rectal exams on black people because they were black. I guess you would think that is cool.

Could the Doctor refuse to do a rectal exam on a black/brown/red/white man because he had not washed his ass for two weeks?

 

[Ms.FemmeFatale]

Could the Doctor refuse to do a rectal exam on a black/brown/red/white man because he had not washed his ass for two weeks?

Sorry. No, only those who wipe their ass with a flurry white rabbit are allowed to be refused medical treatment. Because they were racist in the first place and didn't use brown or black bunnies equally.

 

[rld]

Could the Doctor refuse to do a rectal exam on a black/brown/red/white man because he had not washed his ass for two weeks?

I expect he/she could.

 

[rld]

There are many barbers however who don't cut "black hair". Not because it is black or on the head of a black person {must clarify for the lawyer - you know how they like to twist things} but because it is a different texture, etc. There are a lot of products that are made strictly for "black hair". Any black person can attest to this.

So if a barber said I don't cut black people's hair because I am not experienced with that type of hair - that would make it different and not discriminatory.

Honest but a different context. You are a lawyer - you should like that.

So do you think it is legal for an SP to refuse service or offer a different (lower) level of service to someone based on their race?

And I didn't make up that fact situation, it comes from an HRT case where the owner used the same excuse you suggested...what do you think the outcome was?

 

[scarlet6969]

i have sex with anyone i want to... and if i was forced to do it with people i didnt want to id quit the biz

 

[Ms.FemmeFatale]

So do you think it is legal for an SP to refuse service or offer a different (lower) level of service to someone based on their race?

I am not a lawyer - I don't know if it is legal. I assume if looking at an SP as solely a sex provider - it could be. But SP means Service Provider.

Also, I do know that forcing someone to have sex is illegal. So who wins I guess it up to another court to decide. Escorting is "quite" not prostitution. That was the reference I was making earlier about services like SC/MPA and BDSM work. It is "implied" so you being the law guy - you tell me. If a lady clearly states in all ads the whole "time and companionship" line, as long as she give him his time and companionship, is her service contract not fulfilled?

And I didn't make up that fact situation, it comes from an HRT case where the owner used the same excuse you suggested...what do you think the outcome was?

That depends - who was barber's lawyer. If it was you - then I can see him winning. You tired the shit out of me in 5 minutes. I can only image what you do to others.

 

[fuji]

You are stupid and shrill. And also have no idea who the HRC works.

I very much understand how the HRC works, and what I understand is that it is a creation of the Ontario Legislature. As such it does not have the power to over-ride a charter right to security of person. It's a slam dunk claim to argue that women have a charter right not to have men fuck them against their will.

At the end of the day you have a code that says the SP cannot discriminate on race but it is unenforceable because any enforcement order would be tantamount to rape, and would not stand the laugh test at the SCC. I think the average Ontario court judge is also clever enough not to have the courts be complicit in a rape. You can cite all the Ontario law you like. It's not happening. It would be a direct and blatant violation of the Charter, aside from being so far beyond the pale that any judge worth his salt would move mountains to find a way to avoid issuing that ruling. An Ontario court judge is not going to order that a woman be raped. Period. Full stop.

This thread is CLASSIC rld. You've got your hooks on this one little nuance, and you've tunnel visioned in on it, and you think it is the answer to the whole thread--but you are missing the blindingly obvious reality of the situation: An Ontario court is not going to order a rape.

Shake your head, throw some water on your face, do whatever it is you need to do to take three or four steps back and see what sort of ridiculous things you're really saying.

 

[wigglee]

Because sex is such an intimate thing and because the usually weaker woman is to be alone and naked with a strange man and exposed to a number of diseases he may have, including mental,, she therefore has the right to decline service for no reason at all or any reason at all.....that may not appear in law but it is reasonable, fair and rational . It is the accepted code of behaviour whether or not the various laws and charters have caught up to it. The sp survives by her judgement and intuition.......after all, if things go wrong, Rid and the Human Rights Charter aren't gonna be there to save her ass.

 

[Mod100]

There is fresh hot buttered popcorn being served in the Mods lounge.

 

[great bear]

There is fresh hot buttered popcorn being served in the Mods lounge.

Is the butter yellow or white? Did you ask the pop corn before buttering it what colour of butter you were going to put on it? Did you ask the pop corn if it even wanted to be buttered?