Dear All: This goes back in time a bit, but I have had a busy weekend and wanted to respond to those who wondered why I think the racist prostitute should be subject to anti-discrimination laws.
One feature of several rights is that we do not allow people to commodify them, or at least commodify them in certain ways. So while people have the right to vote, and may choose when exercising the right to vote may vote only for persons of color (or white persons), we do not allow persons to sell their right to vote. We think the reason people ought to have a right to vote is justified by the same principle that supports forbidding the right to sell the vote. Consider sex. One reason we think persons have a right to certain sexual relationships is that we think government should not ban intimate relationships. One reason many people think prostitution should be banned is that intimacy is not the sort of good that should be bought and sold. But now imagine we live in a world in which people have no problem commodifying sex. The best reason for thinking this is that they do not regard commercial sex as intimate behavior. They regard sex as more akin to back rubs, and or ice cream, but of which are subject to anti-discrimination rights. But if people do not think commercial sex is intimate behavior than the main reason why we allow discrimination has been rejected. In short, my claim is that if sex is just business, then sex is not intimate, and only intimate relationships and actions should enjoy immunity for anti-discrimination rules. MAG _______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
