Poll: Discriminatory practices of providers
- Thread starter Cloud Nine
- Start date
Originally posted by justme
If I cheat on my wife because she'll only have sex with me twice a day, it is certainly my choice to do so. Moreover, it's not even illegal.
But is it so absurd for someone to tell me, hey, that's pretty unethical?
If I cheat on my wife because she'll only have sex with me twice a day, it is certainly my choice to do so. Moreover, it's not even illegal.
But is it so absurd for someone to tell me, hey, that's pretty unethical?
Originally posted by justme
You are telling me that a law firm, say, with fewer than 15 employees can openly and legally have a policy of not hiring African Americans? That if an African American applies for an advertised job as an associate, that the partners of the firm can tell him, "No, we aren't going to hire you because you are an African American," without any fear of recourse from regulatory bodies?
Is this truly what you are telling me?
You are telling me that a law firm, say, with fewer than 15 employees can openly and legally have a policy of not hiring African Americans? That if an African American applies for an advertised job as an associate, that the partners of the firm can tell him, "No, we aren't going to hire you because you are an African American," without any fear of recourse from regulatory bodies?
Is this truly what you are telling me?
Originally posted by justme
You are telling me that a law firm, say, with fewer than 15 employees can openly and legally have a policy of not hiring African Americans? Is this truly what you are telling me?
You are telling me that a law firm, say, with fewer than 15 employees can openly and legally have a policy of not hiring African Americans? Is this truly what you are telling me?
-Ww
Exactly. It's like if everytime you had a discussion of whether it's wrong to cheat on your spouse, it degenerated into a discussion of why it shouldn't be illegal to cheat on your spouse.
If you're deciding whether or not to cheat on your spouse, does whether or not it's legal even enter your mind?
If your friend came to you and asked, "What do you think? Should I cheat on my spouse?", you might answer "yes" or you might answer "no". But you wouldn't say, "Sure, because it's legal."
If you're deciding whether or not to cheat on your spouse, does whether or not it's legal even enter your mind?
If your friend came to you and asked, "What do you think? Should I cheat on my spouse?", you might answer "yes" or you might answer "no". But you wouldn't say, "Sure, because it's legal."
Originally posted by Daddycool
No body in this day and age of living in a litigious society would ever say that directly. You can sue anyone or anything, making it stick in court is another matter, but you'll find it really funny that there aren't any minorities working there. But the firm is under 15 people so they do qualify.
No body in this day and age of living in a litigious society would ever say that directly. You can sue anyone or anything, making it stick in court is another matter, but you'll find it really funny that there aren't any minorities working there. But the firm is under 15 people so they do qualify.
So your legal opinion, as a lawyer, is that such a policy would be completely legal (even if it were not ruled as such)?
Originally posted by justme
No. I think every time I cheat on my wife it is completely unethical.
But if we extend the metaphor, all that any of the 'anti-discrimination' people are asking for is the right to say that my cheating on my wife is unethical.
No. I think every time I cheat on my wife it is completely unethical.
But if we extend the metaphor, all that any of the 'anti-discrimination' people are asking for is the right to say that my cheating on my wife is unethical.
Originally posted by justlooking
Yeah. That's his point. It's unethical. You don't hear any nonsense about how he has a right to choose to cheat on his spouse. Of course he does. He's just wrong if he does it.
Just like racist prostitutes.
Yeah. That's his point. It's unethical. You don't hear any nonsense about how he has a right to choose to cheat on his spouse. Of course he does. He's just wrong if he does it.
Just like racist prostitutes.
Please for give me here, but aren't we looking at this backwords? He, the husband, is looking for the service not providing the serivce. The escort is providing the service, thus being able to choose who she wants to serivce and why?
Originally posted by justlooking
Yeah. That's his point. It's unethical. You don't hear any nonsense about how he has a right to choose to cheat on his spouse. Of course he does. He's just wrong if he does it.
Just like racist prostitutes.
Yeah. That's his point. It's unethical. You don't hear any nonsense about how he has a right to choose to cheat on his spouse. Of course he does. He's just wrong if he does it.
Just like racist prostitutes.
Last edited:
Originally posted by Daddycool
Please for give me here, but aren't we looking at this backwords? He, the husband, is looking for the service not providing the serivce. The escort is providing the service, thus being able to choose who she wants to serivce and why?
Please for give me here, but aren't we looking at this backwords? He, the husband, is looking for the service not providing the serivce. The escort is providing the service, thus being able to choose who she wants to serivce and why?
2. In any event, I think a service provider has much LESS latitude in deciding who to service than a consumer does in deciding who to buy services from. A consumer can exercise whatever preferences he or she wants. But if a service provider advertises to the general public, I think there are limits to how picky they can be. (At least Foxy Monica is upfront about her exclusions.)
Last edited:
Originally posted by Daddycool
I think we are missing each others point. I am not saying that the racist prostitute is right, I am just saying its her choice to be so. Like the Asian only places, or us just wanting to see 21 year old hard bodies.(or at least me) lol. Anytime we choose something over another we are discriminating. Why choose a German car over an American car? Maybe for whatever reason, but does that make me Anit-American? We are talking about my own preferrence, my choice.
I think we are missing each others point. I am not saying that the racist prostitute is right, I am just saying its her choice to be so. Like the Asian only places, or us just wanting to see 21 year old hard bodies.(or at least me) lol. Anytime we choose something over another we are discriminating. Why choose a German car over an American car? Maybe for whatever reason, but does that make me Anit-American? We are talking about my own preferrence, my choice.
2. As I said above, I think consumers have a much greater ethical latitude to act on preferences than service providers do. At least service providers who do mass advertising. (Do you think a movie theater can take out an ad in the Post and then pick and choose who they'll let in?)
Last edited:
To further muddy the waters...
It occurs to me that there is a connection between this topic and the old, much discussed issue of whether a provider commodifies herself, her very person, when she engages in prostitution or only a service she provides, in principle not so different from the services an attorney or a carpenter etc. sells as though it were a good or commodity.
If you take the former point-of-view, that providers sell themselves rather than a service, then I think that all of the analogies to other types of businesses that might refuse to deal with certain customers on racial grounds are vastly weakened and mostly irrelevant. This point of view makes prostitution a relatively unique commercial activity (and an inherently immoral one in the views of some) and thus unique ethical standards might be argued to apply.
-Ww
It occurs to me that there is a connection between this topic and the old, much discussed issue of whether a provider commodifies herself, her very person, when she engages in prostitution or only a service she provides, in principle not so different from the services an attorney or a carpenter etc. sells as though it were a good or commodity.
If you take the former point-of-view, that providers sell themselves rather than a service, then I think that all of the analogies to other types of businesses that might refuse to deal with certain customers on racial grounds are vastly weakened and mostly irrelevant. This point of view makes prostitution a relatively unique commercial activity (and an inherently immoral one in the views of some) and thus unique ethical standards might be argued to apply.
-Ww