Discrimination is something bandied about all too often, having a personal sexual preference is not discrimination.
Your analogy would only become discrimination if accompanied by some other situation not involving sex.
I do not agree with these statements. Whether or not something is permissible does not change what it is. I am on the opposite side to you and think that various isms and discriminations are lazily dressed up as 'preference' because people do not want to be considered prejudiced. Saying I prefer to date blondes does not mean that I will not date non-blondes and therefore I do not consider that discriminatory. Saying I will not date Asian women (for whatever reason), on the other hand is clearly excluding an entire race of people, and I would consider that discrimination. But discrimination in the sexual realm is permissible. I accept that. I do not think anyone should have to date any race they do not want to, either.
Discrimination based on sex, age, religion, nationality or whatever else is illegal so what you are saying sex workers who say "no blacks" or "no whites" "No overweight" or "no whatever else" are breaking the law and can therefore be prosecuted? Good luck with getting the CPS to sanction a prosecution.
I have searched the internet and various CPS publication yet can't find any reference to it being illegal for a prostitute to refuse service based on something that would under any other circumstances be illegal.
I would be grateful if you could link to the legislation you have used that shows escorts choosing who to see is discrimination.
I was wondering if full legalisation of sex work would mean that those laws would apply in the same way it does to other services. As mentioned already I have since been informed that it would not. But again, it is still discrimination, in my view.
If a brothel existed and had a sign on the doors that stated "No blacks and no Irish" I would consider that discriminatory. If one of those groups took the brothel to court, I would expect the judgement to be something similar to "Is this brothel discriminating against blacks and Irish? Yes, they are. However, the right of a woman to consent to who she will and not see supercedes this fact as sex without consent is rape, and a woman cannot be forced to have sex against her will, therefore the brothel is entitled to continue doing so. The fact that this constitutes discrimination is immaterial". I would not expect the judgement to be "This sign is not discriminatory because it involves sex work."
On the legality points, hopefully I have adequately explained what my earlier thoughts on legality were (which were wrong), and how I have no issue on being corrected on them by previous posters. We both seem to agree that an SP should
always be able to choose who she will and won't see. We do not agree on whether this is discriminatory, and I suspect we never shall. Can we leave things there?
