Prejudice and SmallTownJohn1

[Rod Hagen]

RE: anything new?

 

>Well put DCeBoy...........or as parliamentary procedure

>would have it..........let's call the question

 

Well, maybe Sports, fucking pussy that he is, would like to add something. As I stated earlier, he doesn't actually care, otherwise he would have at least said BOO within his 7-day old thread. Rather, he gets off simply by attempting to discredit established escorts. He failed, again. What a Putz.

[Guest regulation]

>There are only two ways I can think of to prove that someone

>is in violation of a public accomodation statute - either he

>says so up-front or explicitly, or the complaintant can

>demonstrate that that person exhibits a pattern of

>discrimination. One woman complaining that an employer

>wouldn't hire her because she is a woman won't have a leg to

>stand on if that employer has a solid record of hiring

>women, unless she was told explicitly that she wasn't hired

>because of her sex. The discrimination case against

>Coca-Cola, for example, rested on a demonstrable pattern of

>discrimination against black employees that stretched over

>years. With regard specifically to how an escort could be

>found to violate these statutes, can you please explain how

>else this might come to pass?

>

>Michael

 

 

You do not seem clear on the difference between the federal and state civil rights laws and the state public accommodation statutes to which I have several times made reference. I say this because you take as an example in your post a case of discrimination in hiring, and the public accommodation statutes do not address the hiring of employees. They have to do with businesses such as hotels, restaurants, barber shops and others that hold themselves out as providing services to members of the public. The statutes prohibit such businesses from refusing service to any person on the basis of certain enumerated characteristics of that person, such as race and religion (and not only from refusing service, but also from discriminating in other ways such as differential pricing of services). I have not read the public accommodation statutes of all fifty states, but those I have read, including the one from Devon's home state, contain no requirement that a plaintiff prove a "pattern of discrimination." Under that statute, if a black man makes an appointment with a chiropractor, for example, and if when he shows up for the appointment the chiropractor turns him away telling him, "I don't serve black people," the statute is violated. Does that clear it up?

[Guest regulation]

RE: anything new?

 

Ethan, have you forgotten how many people have complained about the many threads you have started on this message board? I haven't forgotten, I remember it well. I remember that you always replied to such complaints by saying "If you don't like it, don't read it," isn't that true? I often supported you when you made that argument and I still think it is a reasonable one. Why don't you take your own advice?

[Guest Bitchboy]

RE: anything new?

 

Of course it doesn't make him prejudiced - he might be, but not because of that remark of his. What's next? Clients forced to hire 87 year-old-wrinkly-assed escorts??

[Guest Bitchboy]

RE: anything new?

 

P.S. I couldn't suck an uncut dick if my life depended on it, but I'd be more than happy to fuck your hole or even have lunch with you.

[Guest DCeBOY]

RE: anything new?

 

>Ethan, have you forgotten how many people have complained

>about the many threads you have started on this message

>board?

 

forgotten? well, no... i just don't care, asshole.

 

>I haven't forgotten, I remember it well. I remember

>that you always replied to such complaints by saying "If you

>don't like it, don't read it," isn't that true? I often

>supported you when you made that argument and I still think

>it is a reasonable one. Why don't you take your own advice?

 

because the thread which i started regarding law school was locked, supposedly because the question had been answered. i'm simply calling for fair enforcement of the rules, as opposed to actions born from pathological lying and irrational hatred of me.

[+ deej]

RE: anything new?

 

>i'm simply calling for fair enforcement of the rules, as

>opposed to actions born from pathological lying and

>irrational hatred of me.

 

Last I checked, you're not involved in management of this site. This call is not yours to make.

[Guest regulation]

RE: anything new?

 

>>Ethan, have you forgotten how many people have complained

>>about the many threads you have started on this message

>>board?

>

>forgotten? well, no... i just don't care, asshole.

 

 

But I do care. It amuses me to point out that you're making a complaint that is very similar to the complaints others have made about you, complaints that you often rebuffed with the same sort of childish insult you posted above. This website was created to provide clients with information about escorts, and in your case it has provided us with plenty. :-)

 

>Why don't you take your own advice?

>

>because the thread which i started regarding law school was

>locked, supposedly because the question had been answered.

>i'm simply calling for fair enforcement of the rules, as

>opposed to actions born from pathological lying and

>irrational hatred of me.

 

I don't know whether the management is acting out of hatred of you, but considering the many rotten things you've said about them I hardly think you could call them "irrational" if they are. You've spent a great deal of time and effort vilifying them in the past, so if they dislike you, it's a very natural reaction on their part. :-)

[Guest DCeBOY]

RE: anything new?

 

but there you're wrong, deej. any of us can call for fair enforcement of rules. in fact, i would suspect most of us would & should call for such.

what IS NOT mine is to expect to get it, apparently, or to reasonably await any action on my call. published guidelines indicate that all are welcome & will be treated equally. of course, it surely IS the "right" of the "management" to ignore those rules and to continue to behave capriciously and maliciously. i've always maintained the "right" of the powers that be to do anything & everything desired, within certain parameters of the law--even when such action is against me or to my detriment. even now, in so clear a case of discrimination, i defend the right of the "administration" to so discriminate. i continue to defend that right to behave like the soviet politburo, meting out favor to some, and mistreatment to others.

 

let's don't forget, there is a huge difference between having the right to do something & having that action be the "right thing" to do.

 

the DECISION isn't mine, that much i grant, but the call is most certainly mine to make. are we squabbling over semantics? if so, i'd be more than happy to rephrase. i invite you to talk to me privately about exactly where you think i'm wrong and i trust we'll find a phrasing that suits us both.

[Guest DCeBOY]

RE: anything new?

 

>But I do care.

 

well, good on you, but that doesn't affect me.

 

>It amuses me to point out

 

good! if it amuses you, by all means, continue to do so. life is far too short not to enjoy yourself.

 

>This

>website was created to provide clients with information

>about escorts, and in your case it has provided us with

>plenty. :-)

 

well, if the site has helped anyone decide whether to engage my talents or not, i'm glad--be the decision arrived at positive or negative.

 

>I don't know whether the management is acting out of hatred

>of you,

 

but i'm sure you'll hazard a guess.

 

>I hardly think you could call them "irrational"

>if they are.

 

i'm glad you didn't disappoint me. not only can i call "them" (it isn't "them" & we all know that; it is "he") irrational, but i HAVE.

 

[Guest Sports]

All the responses were thoughtful and covered multiple aspects of the problem. Prejudice is an issue that we all have to deal with everyday and I don't think it's necessary to see it in print on an escort's profile. Escorts are not "sex slaves", most get paid very well and yes, they can certainly decline a trick, however that does not give them a right to publicly discriminate against one group. To deal with it correctly it would have been good of SmalltownJohn1 to remove the "NO BLACKS" from his profile and explained to people the situation on an individual basis. While it may not seem much of a big thing, the public discrimination of one group is not right and it encourages others to publicly discriminate.

 

My favorite reponse to this topic has been Rick Monroe's. Instead of closing the door to one particular group, Rick has open the door and in a very short and witty remark reminded us all why he is a good guy and certainly deserves the coveted Hooboy Escort of the Year award.

 

As far as an answer to your taunts Hagen, I don't know why you resort to personal attacks and untruths but I will not drop to your level; instead I will stick with the issues.

[Guest regulation]

RE: anything new?

 

>>But I do care.

>

>well, good on you, but that doesn't affect me.

 

 

We'll see. :-)

 

 

>>It amuses me to point out

>

>good! if it amuses you, by all means, continue to do so.

 

 

Count on it. :-)

 

 

>>I hardly think you could call them "irrational"

>>if they are.

>

>i'm glad you didn't disappoint me. not only can i call

>"them" (it isn't "them" & we all know that; it is "he")

>irrational, but i HAVE.

 

In fact I was using the word "you" in a collective rather than in an individual sense, so the locution is quite correct. And no, we do not "all" know that the management of this website consists of only one person. In fact, we know of a good deal of evidence to the contrary. Or perhaps I should say that those of us who pay attention know of such evidence. :-)

[duke37]

I'm sure this horse is very dead but I noticed a point that didn't get made.

 

First of all as everyone who has read this board for a while knows, John is a funny smart and valuable member of this community. IF there was ever legitimate cause for concern, he has certainly earned the benefit of the doubt.

 

Sports somewhat breathless reporting of John's profile may or may not be meanspirited but it certainly proves that it hard to post something actually new on the web.

 

I think the notion of whether an escort should or would discriminate has been pretty well aired. I think the idea that an escort or anyone would be compelled to have sex with someone to uphold some ideal of inclusiveness seems somewhat fantastic.

 

The main responsibility I think escorts have is to be clear and upfront about their service limitations. And of course they should be respectful and polite while refusing someone's business. I think John has been all of these things.

 

If I remember correctly John has a part of his website about his clients being "height and weight proportionate". Since I'm not proportionate but rather a multiple I wont be able to hire John. Too bad I think he is great. Sure I'm disappointed but not offended. Why would I be? I dont WANT to be with someone who is uncomfortable and knows he wont be able to perform at his best.

 

Jeff

[Guest Musclebearshare]

>services). I have not read the public accommodation

>statutes of all fifty states, but those I have read,

>including the one from Devon's home state, contain no

>requirement that a plaintiff prove a "pattern of

>discrimination." Under that statute, if a black man makes

>an appointment with a chiropractor, for example, and if when

>he shows up for the appointment the chiropractor turns him

>away telling him, "I don't serve black people," the statute

>is violated. Does that clear it up?

 

No. I'm not saying the only way to violate any of the various statutes is to exhibit a pattern of discrimination. I'm asking how - absent any other evidence, such as the escort advertising the fact upfront - one could prove that an escort is violating the statute other than by demonstrating a pattern of discrimination. The statute itself doesn't have to require it in order for it to be the only way to prove that the escort is in violation. In that, accomodation statutes are similar to civil rights laws - if a business fires one person because he's 55, even if they have a dozen other 55-year-old employees, they have violated his civil rights. But he has to be able to prove that his age was the primary reason he was fired. But forget the hiring analogy if you don't think it's appropriate, it doesn't matter. As with a chiropractor, hotel, etc., I don't see how you could successfully prosecute an escort who's reasonably careful in his choice of wording and advertising without demonstrating a pattern of discrimination. I believe that was Devon's point, which is what I thought you were questioning.

 

Michael

[vladimir101]

I disagree. I actually appreciate SmalltownJohn's straightforwardness. I would rather know an escort's preference upfront than to be led on thinking that there's not a problem, only to be stood up many times by an escort that doesnt have the balls to admit that he won't see black clients . Take for instance Mikel of Atlanta. He does not give any indication on his profile that he only sees white clients. But yet he has stood me up countless times. He gets raving reviews because he has a great "colt magazine" type look. And he probably is a very nice guy like they say he is, but i know now that he only accepts "white clients" and instead of being upfront about it he will lead you on a wild goose chase until you just give up, which is what i did. He was very nice at first until he found out i was black. His attitude did a 180 degree turn. I tried to submit a review a couple of months ago but it was never printed. I wish all escorts were as honest and straightforward as smalltownjohn. I respect a guy like that!

[Guest regulation]

>No. I'm not saying the only way to violate any of the

>various statutes is to exhibit a pattern of discrimination.

>I'm asking how - absent any other evidence, such as the

>escort advertising the fact upfront - one could prove that

>an escort is violating the statute other than by

>demonstrating a pattern of discrimination. The statute

>itself doesn't have to require it in order for it to be the

>only way to prove that the escort is in violation.

 

 

The term "pattern of discrimination" is a legal term of art from federal civil rights law. There are in fact some federal civil rights statutes that require proof of a pattern of discrimination, not merely an individual act, in order to justify certain remedies. It's a bit confusing that you continue to use that term when what you are really talking about is how to meet the burden of proof in a case that is about an individual act of discrimination. It's like using the term "appendectomy" to refer to something other than surgical removal of the appendix.

 

>In that,

>accomodation statutes are similar to civil rights laws - if

>a business fires one person because he's 55, even if they

>have a dozen other 55-year-old employees, they have violated

>his civil rights. But he has to be able to prove that his

>age was the primary reason he was fired. But forget the

>hiring analogy if you don't think it's appropriate, it

>doesn't matter. As with a chiropractor, hotel, etc., I

>don't see how you could successfully prosecute an escort

>who's reasonably careful in his choice of wording and

>advertising without demonstrating a pattern of

>discrimination. I believe that was Devon's point, which is

>what I thought you were questioning.

 

If an escort's goal is to screen out black customers, how is he going to do that without mentioning that in his ad or asking a customer's race when making the appointment? If he does either of those things it should not be hard to make the case. The only other way to find out a customer's race is to ask for a picture, which many customers of all races will decline to submit. If an escort accepts only those clients who submit pictures beforehand, my sense is that he won't be able to stay in business.

 

I don't want to speak for Devon, but I believe he was saying that language such as that in smalltownjohn's ad would not be sufficient to prove a violation of the statutes I mentioned because it doesn't prove a "pattern of discrimination." But as I've already explained, that is not true.