People already throw parties and only allow certain types of people to participate. If I throw a party, I invite a select group of people that I have chosen for a particular reason: Maybe I'm marathoning cheesy movies, and I invite 'people who like cheesy movies'. Maybe I'm doing a 'stitch-n-bitch' and I invite 'people who stitch (and/or bitch)'. Maybe I'm doing a trip to the Renaissance Faire and I invite 'people who like Renaissance Faires'. Maybe I'm throwing a party for my daughter and I invite 'friends of my daughter'.
I do not invite the whole neighborhood, and if someone shows up who I am not comfortable with having at the party, I do not let them in.
I would consider that kind of stuff to be far closer to "character" than "player." In many ways, this fits physical and mental characteristics. (Since sexual orientation is genetic, I'm comfortable lumping it into physical characteristics, though I suppose it's possible that liking stitching, ren-faires and cheesy movies are all completely genetic as well.)
If somebody doesn't want to play Monopoly with a black person, it may be because they don't play Monopoly and it may be because they're black. We consider one of these reasons very acceptable and one of these reasons very unacceptable.
By the same token, though, I ponder the idea how acceptable it would be to block someone from coming on a Ren-Faire trip because they also like stitching, if someone thought that stitching was weird, or similar with mental characteristics. Certainly it seems silly, but I don't think that that'd be as big of a deal.
Last I was aware, people of varying hair colors were not systematically and catastrophically discriminated against (barring maybe like, the holocaust?) But that being said, such superficial discrimination is a no-no unless there's a specific reason. (Like, I don't know, you own a blonde-kink strip club? Or you're auditioning for the role of a blonde in a film?)
In cases of businesses that hire minorities, they do so to help compensate for the disadvantages those people face for being a minority.
Okay, so for you, it's purely whether people have been discriminated against in the past.
As I stated previously, my personal stance is that people should be free to write with whomever they want.
AndyZ, you haven't answered my question (which was originally Cycle's, which he has asked once again in this thread, and you have again not answered), so I don't really feel I owe you an answer. I'm not trying to be argumentative, but I think this is another example of his point that despite the attempts of others trying to explain their opinion, which is clearly different from yours, you basically repeat your opinion and tell us your view is the right one. You want me to answer a question, but you cannot return the favor.
In any case, Cycle has already answered the question you've posed exactly as I would answer it. I think it's an irrelvant example, because the relationship between a store owner and a customer is very different from a sexually themed RP writing relationship.
So now you're comparing writing sexual RP to prostitution? That seems like a really far reach. I think I agree with Cycle. You have a very different view of RP, and I think you've found your answer.
By the way, at the Bunny Ranch the sex workers are allowed to turn down any client for any reason.
From my perspective, if we say that it's acceptable for a Bunny Ranch worker to turn down any
client for any
reason, we should have a good reason for not having that for other jobs as well.
Now, you may or may not agree with that. There is obviously a line somewhere that you see which I do not see. Because of that line, you (presumably) consider it acceptable for a prostitute to turn a black man down because he's black, for a writer to turn a black man down because he's black, but not for a bartender to turn a black man away because he's black.
There are many things in this world which I don't do but would not stop others from doing. It's not really my job to pass judgment down on people, but I like to understand why some things are considered acceptable and some are not.
As I told Cycle, I disagree with the idea not to RP with your boss if your boss wants to RP, but that's on him. I don't think he's an evil person for it.
Believe me that if I thought you were a truly evil person and beyond discourse, I would not attempt this conversation in the first place.
Now, what I'm starting to think is that the line just appears in different places for different people, which is odd.
Let's try this again.
Can you accept the possibility that other people feel differently than you, and rather than judging them to be 'morally wrong' or labeling their behavior with negative terms such as 'banning,' and 'discrimination' to accept that they have a different opinion? - which is same the question Cycle asked you in the other thread, but never got answered.
I can absolutely accept the possibility that other people feel differently than I do.
Part of the issue is that you presume that my use of the words banning and discrimination are meant as a pejorative.
I've had this issue with people with talks like socialism. Sometimes people think that being called socialist is some kind of pejorative. However, it's just someone with a particular set of political beliefs.
I have an RL friend who has expressed discomfort when I use the word in D&D for a particular hazard that rogues usually spot and disarm, because it's also a pejorative for transfemales (or possibly all transpeople, I don't know).
Although I tried to use the word "blocking," it only made the situation more vague, because people started to think that I was demanding that they play in the kinds of games that people didn't like, as opposed to allowing players.
Please do not make the assumption that I mean words in their wost pejorative terms. If I say that someone is gay, I am not passing any sort of judgment beyond acknowledging that particular person's sexual orientation.