"White Gentlemen Only"

[voodoo999 332]

The witch hunt is in full swing

[sandimoon 72517]

I agree, it is their choice. What nobody seems to want to say, is that it is also their problem.

I agree, not because she should have her rights trampled, but just blurting out,

" whites only " is so very 1950's Alabama water fountain.

Not good advertising regardless of her thoughts

because ALL prospective guests do not know her reason.

And a lot of white men will be put off with that statement.

no need to be so blunt and harsh about it. Just my opinion though, but racism is so 20 years ago.

Agreed, the bluntness is certainly offputting.

Sadly that is not true, things are slowly changing but racism is still very much alive.

Sad but true. I am always baffled by those who make 2013 sweeping remarks in my presence assuming that this freckled, blond, caucasian person will not say something.

I think the OP is asking a valid question if he is concerned about putting himself in an awkward situation upon arriving at a playdate. There can be a number of non racist reasons why a provider prefers to exclude a certain group. In my younger years I was married to a brown man and I didn't see East or West Indians because he was very well networked in those communities. I didn't want to open the door to a surprise visit from someone my husband may cross paths with.

 

Ladies have a life outside of work and if they feel there is a risk of either being found out or causing someone they love embarrassment, they may opt out because of personal ties to a community.

cat

 

The OP wanted to know if he should disclose his race before meeting a provider and the answer is "yes" if he wants to alleviate any concerns he may have. The truth of the matter is that most providers don't have a problem with race because we know all humans bleed red...

cat

As always Cat, level & rational with helpful feedback.

I'm curvy but will you marry me? :wink:

Seriously, I worked for an incall here in Van for a whole week, met an awesome girl, Black, who had moved from elsewhere to escape an abusive marriage.

He had national gang affiliations & for THIS reason, she would not entertain Black men.

Is she a racist? Of course not.

 

I'm gonna play the devil's advocate, but is racism actually happening here?

I too have my ethnic/cultural preferences in who I want to pay to see. Would one call that discrimination or racism or just selective purchasing?

So, I assume the SP has the same right of choice as do I. For an SP, that same right of choice is just labelled as racism? Is my understanding correct?

Fair enough & you are so right.

If a man wants to see a brunette spinner, should I be offended as a curvy blond?

No.

That said, I am not physically attracted to _insert whatever_, I don't want to offend anyone, but for ME, if guests are respectful, clean, don't barter, I will ALWAYS have fun.

But I have, as Cat pointed out, never had a bad date with a man from particular

racial demographic that has traumatized me.

If I had, I may have needed to qualify my advertising.

A gentleman looking for companionship but doesn't want to see a lady of a certain ethnicity can just do so from viewing ads without publicly stating he doesn't want to see someone of a certain ethnicity. He doesn't have to post "looking for white women only" But a lady not wanting to see someone of a certain ethnicity has only a couple ways to do it. First, post it in her ad, or second, in her contact form have the potential client state his ethnicity.

And another spin on this. Would a gentleman who is non white really want to see a lady who wants to see white gentleman only. Because that could mean she is going to end up getting pressured to have sex with a man she doesn't want to have sex with.

My advice is to move on, and be with a companion who wants to be with you. It sucks she restricts herself to white gentlemen only, but you also don't know why she has that restriction

RG

 

I agree there can be many non racist reasons why a provider excludes certain groups but "White Only" doesn't leave a lot for interpretation. Of course that is just my opinion.

It IS a bit harsh, I agree.

But that boundary may be for any reason, as many have stated.

Of course it could be that she is a bigot & so not great at marketing.

As consumers we have the right to choose where we spend our money for shopping, eating , etc... Some people may shop at Superstore while others may go to Sobeys. Now, for all the times I have walked into any one of these stores, I have never noticed a sign that said "White People Only". Now the only thing that makes the situation with this SP any different is the fact that nobody would dare report the situation to the authorities. Don't try to down play it, it's racism. Plain and simple, racism.

No it isn't simple because you don't know her reasons.

And I will speak here for a lot of us,

PLEASE stop referring to us kissing you, blowing you, fucking you as

any where NEAR the same as processing your debit card & handing

you back your groceries.

It is NOT the same & so incredibly dismissive of what we really do.

Thank you.

Some people just don't seem to understand that as escorts (or whatever term you want to call us), we have the right to choose who we see and do not have to explain why we decline to see some people.

Absolutely we have that right.

And if I decline an encounter, I do not feel the NEED to justify.

However, I do also feel in this case, the crux is the blunt,

harsh, "so there" message that comes across.

But I have seen sites & ads that state a racial preference but in a soft & explanatory fashion.

No means no but it came across as nicer & not at all racist.

" For personal reasons, I prefer not to see-___whomever___ men.

Thank you for understanding "

It reduces the incidence of hurt feelings or misconstrued intentions.

 

We are talking about consumers and businesses. It has nothing to do with sex. Being a SP is a business (and yes, it is a business) and the SP is refusing to provide service based on race. It is no different than a hairstylist or stylist shop refusing to provide service to people from the middle east. None of the other reasons matter or hold any real value, it's racism.

Sorry dude, it has everything to do with sex.

CERB doesn't stand for,

Cheese Eggs Recommendation Board.

It's a sex site, not a Zehr's.

It's against the law to discriminate, the store owner cannot have such a sign. There is no provision, that I'm aware of, in the Charter of Rights that says it's OK to discriminate based on your profession.

I find it amusing that you are OK with racism if the person who is racist is an SP.

Respectfully, not ONE person here has supported racism.

This is a pretty cool place where ALL are encouraged to participate.

It may be racism

But there are other possibilities too as previously mentioned in other posts.

But even if racism, a lady still has the right to have sex, or not have sex with whomever she chooses...it is her body not anyone else's. She cannot and should not be pressured, forced, coerced into having sex with someone she doesn't want too, even if her reasons are perceived to be wrong reasons by others. Forcing her, that is almost akin to sexual assault.

And if a gentleman chooses to see white only companions, does that make him racist? I guess guys have an advantage here, they can keep such preferences if they have them a secret.

Finally, which is better of the two. The lady announcing publically white gentleman only to avoid a potential conflict, or not announcing it, but if a non white gentleman shows up for an encounter, she refuses to see him

RG

Exactly!

Simply because she is an SP should never imply that a man having a full wallet gets to see anyone he wants, regardless of her boundaries, concerns, etc.

And honestly, who would want to?

What actual man wants to anally penetrate a lady who does not voluntarily offer greek?

Who wants to court a woman who is a CBJ provider then

shove his uncovered dick in her mouth & blow?

So, by extension, why would any man of colour wish to show up at the door of an SP who

does not see non-white gentlemen (for whatever reason) just to be denied or worse,

have a scene?

Is racism repugnant?

Hell yes.

So just spend your time with those who aren't, be they SP, friends, what have you.

And hope that the bigots just inbreed themselves out of the human gene pool into instinction.

Sandi

[WriteOn 3250]

 

Respectfully, not ONE person here has supported racism.

 

 

RoamingGuy said even if it is racist it's her right (not to pick on him others have said similar things). It is your right as an individual to have sex with whomever you want, but as a business person it is illegal to discriminate, that is a fact and I don't believe there are any exceptions, legally.

 

Personally I don't care if she's racist, I don't care her reason(s) for saying "White Only", like LeeRichards said, I will avoid her. I'm just pointing out there is a difference between personal and business.

 

Also, it's apples and oranges to compare a clients preference for say Ebony ladies to a provider saying "White Only", one is a preference, the other is discriminating.

 

I'm not saying anyone should be forced to be with someone they don't want to be, what I am saying is "White Only" is racist, personally I don't know how you say it isn't. I don't understand why when it's the sex business it isn't racist but use that phrase in any other part of our society and it's racist.

 

I'm glad this discussion about race has been so civil :)

[roamingguy 300292]

RoamingGuy said even if it is racist it's her right (not to pick on him others have said similar things). It is your right as an individual to have sex with whomever you want, but as a business person it is illegal to discriminate, that is a fact and I don't believe there are any exceptions, legally.

 

Personally I don't care if she's racist, I don't care her reason(s) for saying "White Only", like LeeRichards said, I will avoid her. I'm just pointing out there is a difference between personal and business.

 

Also, it's apples and oranges to compare a clients preference for say Ebony ladies to a provider saying "White Only", one is a preference, the other is discriminating.

 

I'm not saying anyone should be forced to be with someone they don't want to be, what I am saying is "White Only" is racist, personally I don't know how you say it isn't. I don't understand why when it's the sex business it isn't racist but use that phrase in any other part of our society and it's racist.

 

I'm glad this discussion about race has been so civil :)

 

Hard to keep a discussion civil when you've implied I'm racist and misquote me

I didn't say even if its racist it's her right

What I said, in entirety is

"But even if racism, a lady still has the right to have sex, or not have sex with whomever she chooses...it is her body not anyone else's."

Do you think because a lady is racist she should be pressured into having sex with someone she doesn't want to see, that she loses the right to control her body including who she shares it with

RG

[voodoo999 332]

Do you think because a lady is racist she should be pressured into having sex with someone she doesn't want to see, that she loses the right to control her body including who she shares it with

RG

 

 

and essentially, this is what it boils down to. nobody should be forced to have sex with someone they don't want to have sex with. i don't care that you consider SP's to be a business like any other business. it will NEVER be like any other business. so you can't have the same rules/regulations regarding discrimination apply to this! If you think otherwise, then i'd question your morality, because essentially you're implying that rape is okay.

[cinelli 22184]

Next guys will be saying it's discrimination if nobody sees them because of their B.O,

[WriteOn 3250]

Hard to keep a discussion civil when you've implied I'm racist and misquote me

I didn't say even if its racist it's her right

What I said, in entirety is

"But even if racism, a lady still has the right to have sex, or not have sex with whomever she chooses...it is her body not anyone else's."

Do you think because a lady is racist she should be pressured into having sex with someone she doesn't want to see, that she loses the right to control her body including who she shares it with

RG

 

 

What ?!?!? I did not imply YOU were racist, I have no idea how you extracted that idea from my post. If you want to change this discussion to be adversarial I'm not interested.

 

You do not have a right as a business person to be racist, nobody has a right to be racist. Freedom of religion is a right, Freedom of Speech is a right, being racist is not a right, that is my point, that is my only point.

 

You need to separate business from personal, the escort business is a business, the services are intimate but in the end it is a business.

 

I'll ask again, what if I am a RMT. Can I advertise "White Only"? Would people see this as racist? Yes I think they would. Do I have a right to advertise "White Only"? No I don't. It's against the Law.

 

Please do not invent accusations where they do not exist, it is not helpful to the discussion.

[Kubrickfan 12836]

Jeez Louise ... the OP's post had nothing to do with racism or anything like that ... only MightyPen and Cat seems to be addressing the issue the OP raised which is simply if race is an issue, or if you are not sure, how do you address the issue. Everyone else turned this into a race issue.

 

The answer is simple ... just post in your inquiry what your race is a part of your description of yourself and don't worry about it. No surprises. I always do. And, yes, the lady in question has every right to choose who she has encounters with, be it race, hair color, size, weight, nose hair, bad breath, studliness, etc., etc..

[sandimoon 72517]

RoamingGuy said even if it is racist it's her right (not to pick on him others have said similar things). It is your right as an individual to have sex with whomever you want, but as a business person it is illegal to discriminate, that is a fact and I don't believe there are any exceptions, legally.

 

Personally I don't care if she's racist, I don't care her reason(s) for saying "White Only", like LeeRichards said, I will avoid her. I'm just pointing out there is a difference between personal and business.

 

Also, it's apples and oranges to compare a clients preference for say Ebony ladies to a provider saying "White Only", one is a preference, the other is discriminating.

It absolutely is not.

What you are essentially saying is that because a white man wants to see an

Asian provider, it's his "preference" & that's ok.

And because of that she should automatically say yes?

What if her husband is white?

What if her day job is in a male-white-30+ demographic?

Would it not make sense to limit her client pool to those

who do not fall into this category out of an abundance of caution?

But if a white woman does the same, she is automatically branded a racist?

I am NOT saying she isn't a bigot.

The fact is that I really don't know. None of us do.

And for the record, RG, who BTW we know you aren't picking on,

never said he supported anyone being a racist, he said it was her right.

This may be picking fly shit out of pepper,

but to me, it is very much a clear distinction.

She has the legal right to be a sloped forehead,

backwards ass,

country inbred,

ears flat back,

cross eyed redneck,

perched on a rock &

nekked huntin' for her meal with a slingshot......

but that doesn't mean, EVER , that I support or agree with it.

It does however mean, as repulsive as she may be,

I will defend with my dying breath her right to show us all how putrid she is.

That is the downside of a free speech society that I WILL never relinquish,

no matter how I feel about what has been said.

Because if I get to quash HER words,

who gets to choose which of MINE are spoken?

It is not a balance at all!

I'm not saying anyone should be forced to be with someone they don't want to be, what I am saying is "White Only" is racist, personally I don't know how you say it isn't. I don't understand why when it's the sex business it isn't racist but use that phrase in any other part of our society and it's racist.

 

I'm glad this discussion about race has been so civil :)

I personally agree with you.

It is a ridiculous sentence that I also find offensive.

And others, clearly.

But if we start censoring every word on the planet, we may as well delve into

book burning, blacked out news papers & online censoring.....think about that!

I would much rather be offended by some twit's post, respond & have discourse than

the alternative which is that MY voice is also silenced.

Free speech, baby, love it or move to Cuba, lol.

But for the record, this is a very passionate & intelligent discussion.

And I am also enjoying the good manners involved.

Sandi

[zorobaby 4121]

What ?!?!? I did not imply YOU were racist, I have no idea how you extracted that idea from my post. If you want to change this discussion to be adversarial I'm not interested.

 

You do not have a right as a business person to be racist, nobody has a right to be racist. Freedom of religion is a right, Freedom of Speech is a right, being racist is not a right, that is my point, that is my only point.

 

You need to separate business from personal, the escort business is a business, the services are intimate but in the end it is a business.

 

I'll ask again, what if I am a RMT. Can I advertise "White Only"? Would people see this as racist? Yes I think they would. Do I have a right to advertise "White Only"? No I don't. It's against the Law.

 

Please do not invent accusations where they do not exist, it is not helpful to the discussion.

 

you do realise that women arent machines programmed to spend their time with who ever has the cash right? if i dont feel comfortable spending my time with a certain person, be it because or race or religion, i have the right to move on and seek someone else... why dont the women have that choice?

[roamingguy 300292]

What ?!?!? I did not imply YOU were racist, I have no idea how you extracted that idea from my post. If you want to change this discussion to be adversarial I'm not interested.

 

You do not have a right as a business person to be racist, nobody has a right to be racist. Freedom of religion is a right, Freedom of Speech is a right, being racist is not a right, that is my point, that is my only point.

 

You need to separate business from personal, the escort business is a business, the services are intimate but in the end it is a business.

 

I'll ask again, what if I am a RMT. Can I advertise "White Only"? Would people see this as racist? Yes I think they would. Do I have a right to advertise "White Only"? No I don't. It's against the Law.

 

Please do not invent accusations where they do not exist, it is not helpful to the discussion.

 

Your words about me in a previous post in this thread

 

"I find it amusing that you are OK with racism if the person who is racist is an SP."

 

Well only a racist can be ok with racism, so the inference is clear to me

 

RG

[WriteOn 3250]

This may be picking fly shit out of pepper,

 

 

"Picking fly shit out of pepper" Thank You, I will store this away for future use. Perhaps I have led a sheltered life but this is a new one for me.

 

She has the legal right to be a sloped forehead,

backwards ass,

country inbred,

ears flat back,

cross eyed redneck,

perched on a rock &

nekked huntin' for her meal with a slingshot......

but that doesn't mean, EVER , that I support or agree with it.

 

You don't have a legal right to discriminate. I get that you don't support her and don't agree with her, all I'm trying to say is discrimination is against the law. As an individual you can discriminate in your personal life, as a business person you cannot, legally.

 

Jeez Louise ... the OP's post had nothing to do with racism or anything like that ... .

 

I disagree, the title of the thread is "White Gentlemen Only" , the OP was asking about SP's having racial preferences.

[sandimoon 72517]

"Picking fly shit out of pepper" Thank You, I will store this away for future use. Perhaps I have led a sheltered life but this is a new one for me.

It's an Army saying, I don't own it.

Have at 'er!

You don't have a legal right to discriminate. I get that you don't support her and don't agree with her, all I'm trying to say is discrimination is against the law. As an individual you can discriminate in your personal life, as a business person you cannot, legally.

Actually I do.

I never would, but I do have that right.

Freedom of thought (also called the freedom of conscience or ideas) is the freedom of an individual to hold or consider a fact, viewpoint, or thought, independent of others' viewpoints.

 

For the freedom of speech in specific jurisdictions, see Freedom of speech by country.

"Freedom of expression" redirects here. For other uses, see Freedom of expression (disambiguation).

For other uses, see Freedom of speech (disambiguation).

Freedom of speech is the political right to communicate one's opinions and ideas using one's body and property to anyone who is willing to receive them. The term freedom of expression is sometimes used synonymously, but includes any act of seeking, receiving and imparting information or ideas, regardless of the medium used. In practice, the right to freedom of speech is not absolute in any country and the right is commonly subject to limitations, as with libel, slander, obscenity, sedition (including, for example inciting ethnic hatred), copyright violation, revelation of information that is classified or otherwise.

The right to freedom of expression is recognized as a human right under Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and recognized in international human rights law in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Article 19 of the ICCPR states that "[e]veryone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference" and "everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice". Article 19 goes on to say that the exercise of these rights carries "special duties and responsibilities" and may "therefore be subject to certain restrictions" when necessary "[f]or respect of the rights or reputation of others" or "[f]or the protection of national security or of public order (order public), or of public health or morals".[1][2]

Freedom of speech may be legally curtailed in some religious legal systems and in secular jurisdictions where it is found to cause religious offense, such as the British Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006.

 

The above are from Section 2 of the 1982 Charter of Rights & Freedoms.

Should you take issue with it, petition the courts....but you will lose.

Sandi

[WriteOn 3250]

"In practice, the right to freedom of speech is not absolute in any country and the right is commonly subject to limitations, as with libel, slander, obscenity, sedition (including, for example inciting ethnic hatred), copyright violation, revelation of information that is classified or otherwise."

 

 

Freedom of speech has "some" limitations. I can't argue the law because I'm neither a lawyer or that intelligent. I do feel comfortable saying discrimination based on race is against the law.

 

I could be wrong.

 

 

[cat 262460]

I discriminate on a regular basis...

 

I discriminate against those that send me emails with vulgar language or ask blatantly stupid questions.

 

I discriminate by denying services to those who arrive at my location drunk, under the influence or set my spidey senses off.

 

I discriminate against those that send me cock shots.

 

If I have two gentlemen vying for the same appointment time, I discriminate against the newer client by allowing my regular to have the spot.

 

I discriminate against men who are negative and want to bitch at me about their wives by showing them the door.

 

I discriminate against those that have poor hygiene.

 

I discriminate against anyone who will not follow the basic principle of treating me with the same respect I show them.

 

I discriminate against anyone whom I feel is vile, crass, unethical or in any way violates my personal sense of universal balance.

 

I would gently suggest to those who claim she should take all comers who have the cash to sit quietly and imagine what it would be like to kiss someone they would never want to be intimate with. Imagine someone you feel a physical revulsion to and then try and feel their tongue forcing your lips apart, their saliva mixing with yours and all you want to do is spit it out and bite the invading tongue. Imagine the feel of their hands roaming your body while your skin crawls in an unwinable attempt to escape. Imagine you having to part you legs and let them penetrate you while not only are you controlling the urge to throw them off you but you have to pretend you are enjoying it simply for cash that you don't want; in order to maintain the Canadian politically correct line of thinking or keep your name off the negative review boards. Imagine trying to perform oral while controlling the gag reflex to lose your dinner and constantly reswallowing your own vomit while smiling because he's watching you. Imagine having to look at them 3 inches from you, feeling their sweat dripping on your face, their exhales defiling your inhales and their body on top of you and you can't leave because...

 

It's illegal to discriminate!

 

For once, just try walking or imagine walking in our shoes. This isn't about being politically incorrect, it's about knowing what our boundaries are and respecting them. Service industry or not, you can't compare what we do to massage therapy, hairdressing, dentist, doctor, chiropractor or any other hands on service professional. I believe that I have the right to choose who I share my body with based on any criteria I deem important to my physical, mental and spiritual state and like Sandi, I may not share this providers belief system but I support her right to choose who she lets enter her most intimate of space, her body.

 

I lived the above experience once and I will never do it again, I don't care if it's illegal to discriminate or not. I will continue to screen my clients as I see fit and if I want to post an ad that contains a "DON'T BOTHER CONTACTING ME IF ANY OF THIS APPLIES TO YOU" list, I will...

 

cat

[cyclo 30131]

An sp can legally refuse to engage in sexual activity with anyone they choose, regardless of the reasons.

 

The question of whether an sp can legally refuse to see clients of a specific ethnicity also applies to whether they can legally refuse to see clients of certain cultures, nationalities, religion, age, gender, size, hygiene, manners, ability to follow instructions, reputation, previous contact... Every reason that's ever been discussed on CERB. You name it! They are legally justified.

 

The Canadian Human Rights Act prohibits the "denial of service" based upon "race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, family status, disability...". Therefore if you only look at the Canadian Human Rights Act, you might think an sp cannot refuse to provide service to a client based upon race. However it's not that simple.

 

Regardless of what the Canadian Human Rights Act says, neither the state nor a client can compel an sp to have sex with someone they don't want to have sex with. Why? Because compelling/forcing someone to engage in sexual activity conflicts with the sexual assault provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada. When there's a conflict between the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code of Canada, the Criminal Code takes precedence.

 

The Criminal Code protects the person who doesn't "consent" or want to engage in sexual activity, regardless of what their reasons are for not consenting. Even if their reasons for not consenting conflict with the Canadian Human Rights Act, they are protected by the Criminal Code. The harm caused by legally forcing someone to have sex against their will is greater than the harm caused by denying sex to a prospective client.

 

The Criminal Code of Canada provisions for sexual assault require that "consent" be given when engaging in sexual activity. Sexual activity without "consent",regardless of why consent is withheld, is sexual assault. The Criminal Code also states that "Consent" "requires the voluntary agreement... to engage in the sexual activity in question."

 

If an sp felt legally "obliged", "compelled" or "forced" to engage in sexual activity with someone because of the Canadian Human Rights Act they would be engaging in sexual activity under "duress". In other words, there would be no "voluntary agreement... to engage in the sexual activity." This is the very definition of sexual assault. This is also a good example of why "No means no." Not, "No means no... but only if you have a good reason."

 

There's a fundamental principle at work here. Neither the state nor another individual can compel us to do something with our bodies that we do not want to do, regardless of whether our reasons are reasonable or unreasonable. This is a very good thing!

[Brad 49548]

WriteOn, let's maybe try this another way since you don't seem to accept all the arguments being made already.

 

Consider this: sometimes rights conflict with each other. For instance, my right to life often outweighs someone else's right to freedom (it's why when someone murders another they forfeit their right to freedom and we can put them in jail).

 

Now you keep saying people don't have the right to discriminate in a business.

 

But presumably you also agree that people have the right to choose who they share their body with.

 

So which right takes precedence?

 

See, in most businesses--these two rights don't come up against each other so of course there's no question; there's nothing that outweighs someone's right not to be discriminated against. This is why the grocery store can't put up a "white's only" sign (or say they won't serve women, people with bad hygiene, or Hab fans).

 

But as we keep trying to point out to you that you can't compare this to other businesses and a lady is not a grocery store! In this case her right to choose--based on whatever criteria she wants--who to share her body with outweighs anything else.

[Gabriella Laurence 301887]

...

There can be a number of non racist reasons why a provider prefers to exclude a certain group. In my younger years I was married to a brown man and I didn't see East or West Indians because he was very well networked in those communities. I didn't want to open the door to a surprise visit from someone my husband may cross paths with.

 

Ladies have a life outside of work and if they feel there is a risk of either being found out or causing someone they love embarrassment, they may opt out because of personal ties to a community.

As always, well said, Cat!

 

An acquaintance of mine, a black lady, before leaving the lifestyle had a strict rule about not seeing any black clients. Why? She was (is still) married to a black man. Why did she exclude black men as an SP? For the same reasons you mentioned above. Is she a racist? Absolutely not! This couple has been together for 10+ years and now working on

child #3.

 

I also know two (white) ladies that exclusively date black men (never dated a white man before) and when they entered the industry, they chose not to see black clients. Now, should they be perceived as racists for not dating white men in their personal lives or should they be called racists for not seeing black clients as SPs'?

 

I think we all know the answer if the blindfolds get removed.

[guttermouth 125]

this has turned into a very interesting discussion and I think Gabriella has it right, that said I find it ironic that this massive chain was started over a review of an ad which is blatantly fake, just my two cents

[cinelli 22184]

Megan Fox refuses to answer any of my emails inviting her to an intimate liason.

 

Could WriteOn please refer me to a lawyer who will compel her to put out for me?

[zorobaby 4121]

Megan Fox refuses to answer any of my emails inviting her to an intimate liason.

 

Could WriteOn please refer me to a lawyer who will compel her to put out for me?

HAHAHAHAH! thats funny!

 

but totally inappropriate... shame on you!

[bcguy42 38594]

Ah, what the heck... everyone else has had a kick at this can. Here's my contribution.

 

The point is continually being raised that a business cannot discriminate on the basis of race (among other things). That is more or less true. There are exceptions that have nothing to do with forcing someone to have sex with someone.

 

Housing. Cannot discriminate. Period. Wrong.

 

If you operate a rooming house where you reside and the persons to whom you rent share common areas and a common dining area, you are deemed to be personally living with these people and can therefore pick and choose, using whatever criteria floats your boat, to determine to whom you will accept. In this circumstance, discrimination is legal.

 

That being said, add my name to the list of people who wholeheartedly support the notion that no person under any circumstances is required to have sex with anyone against their will.

 

The other random thought that comes to mind is that in my experience, nothing in law is absolute. One may think generally the law holds one way, but the key word there is "generally". There are always loopholes. That's why God, in her infinite wisdom, created lawyers.

[cat 262460]

The other random thought that comes to mind is that in my experience, nothing in law is absolute. One may think generally the law holds one way, but the key word there is "generally". There are always loopholes. That's why God, in her infinite wisdom, created lawyers.

 

Oh no no no you don't! Everyone knows lawyers were spawned from Lucifers loin after he was cast out of the heavens as part of his revenge on man. I read it online so it must be true! I'm quite sure she had nothing to do with it... ;)

 

cat

[Moviefan 1238]

Who cares why? She advertises "White Gentlemen Only"

 

We as hobbyist have the luxury of choosing our provider, I don't see anyone questioning our choices. Why do we have the right to question the choice of any given lady's preference.

 

Her body her choice, plain and simple....

[WriteOn 3250]

ok troops