German FKK Clubs - Lounge and chat area

This post seemed to have completely missed the points that have been discussed in the last few days, on so many levels.

[QUOTE=XXL;1824148]Some twenty years ago I was refused entry to a Munich disco. The doorman told me I needed a "Clubausweis" which I took to mean a membership card. That was bosh as this was a disco like any other where people just trickled in from the street. I then phoned anonymously to ask what were the requirements for entry and if anyone could get in. After some hesitation and confusion I was told "anyone from central Europe was welcome" ("Jeder mittleeuropische Person hat Eintritt").

I'm sure prostitution places have the same rights as discos to refuse entry to anyone. [/QUOTE]It has already been explained that it is against German laws to prohibit entry on the grounds of race. As the disco confirmed by phone to you that they had a racist policy in place then they were acting illegally. They did not have a legal right to refuse you.

[QUOTE=XXL;1824148]As regards girls refusing clients, it's even in another league altogether (women's "human rights" etc.).

Note that court action by frustrated clients could have a paradoxical effect, that of showing the whole world that prostitutes are anything but slaves. I'm sure most of us here have had jobs where they have been less allowed to turn down work than girls are allowed to turn down johns. [/QUOTE]Whether someone is self-employed and working from an establishment or employed directly by the establishment the situation is still similar. If someone was working at / from a restaurant but refused to serve certain ethnic races then the restaurant could be sued for allowing someone to work from their premises who is breaking the law.

Once a woman has 'licensed' her body for sex then I am not so sure where human rights comes into it. She has commercialized her body and this is not in the same league as a normal woman at a nightclub sleeping with everyone except guys from certain races. Someone who is self-employed can choose to carry out work or not as long as it is not for illegal reasons. If a tailor working on his own refuses to 'use his body' to make suits for certain races then I am sure that he could be sued if this can be proven. Proof might be difficult to obtain but under civil law the burden of proof is less than a criminal prosecution. Only the balance of probabilities is required.

Prostitutes in the UK sometimes posts ads online that state that they do not service certain races. I can't recall seeing similar adverts for German prostitutes. Maybe prostitution has less of a stigma in Germany because it is in the open and therefore guys would be happy to sue prostitutes in Germany but not in the UK because they don't want the public to know that they are using prostitutes. Or maybe it is the difficulty in suing. By the time you come to court the prostitute will most likely have moved premises and you may not know her real name.

[QUOTE=XXL;1824148]Note also that doctos for example are allowed to advertise they will only take patients with private insurance. They're not allowed to turn down patients in cases of emergency though.[/QUOTE]What has this got to do with the discussion? Are you saying that a prostitute can turn away punters who don't have a certificate to prove ability to pay or who haven't already paid upfront but they still need to have sex with him if he is sufficiently desperate for sex?

[QUOTE=XXL;1824148]Regarding court action against German FKKs, wouldn't it be more usefull to contemplate class action against the prostitution ban in the US ?[/QUOTE]Why more useful considering that this is the German FKK lounge and chat area?

[QUOTE=TheCane;1824154]In the United States, this phony distinction between employee versus independent contractor has been successfully challenged in recent years.

Don't know if there have been any recent challenges in Germany, but watch out if there are! There too the phony wall of difference might begin to crumble.[/QUOTE]Same here, they are trying to prove that the girls are not self employed. If they were not the FKK club business model wouldn't work out, see recent development in CH. Until now the girls are self employed and the club owner doesn't have too much authority to give directions, it's a thin line.

HB.

[QUOTE=UltraHappy;1824189]No, discos and other establishments do not have the right to refuse entry to anyone. [/QUOTE]They do. It's private business, it's private property, they can decide who to let in or not. They have all the domiciliary rights or domestic authority and can forbid entrance or ask persons to leave at any time.

HB.

[QUOTE=HessenBub;1824229]They do. It's private business, it's private property, they can decide who to let in or not. They have all the domiciliary rights or domestic authority and can forbid entrance or ask persons to leave at any time.

HB.[/QUOTE]The links provided below in my post #5157 say otherwise. Or perhaps you are saying that Judge Birgit Passoke (Hanover District Court) interpretation of the 2006 General Act of Equal Treatment was incorrect? See [URL]http://goo.gl/VG27Et[/URL].

Even back in late 2011, the Higher Regional Court of Stuttgart awarded 900 to a plaintiff because the evidence showed "males were at least occasionally denied access to the nightclub because of their dark skin color. " The case didn't even include indications that the bouncers had mentioned skin color as part of their door policy. See [URL]http://goo.gl/VG27Et[/URL].

If this is not the law in Germany, then why are German judges finding violations of nightclub owners for racially discriminating against individuals?

Of course businesses can ask people to leave at any time for any reason -- unless the reason is an illegal one, which according to the links I provided below in post #5157, there are several ways to illegally exclude individuals from an establishment such as a restaurant or a nightclub.

The crux of the question is whether they can be denied service solely on the basis of race.

The Murat case cited by UH, from that Spigel article, clearly says NO.

Here it is copied again, for reference.

"Four weeks ago, the Hanover District Court awarded the student 1,000 ($1,325) in compensation. Judge Birgit Passoke found that the club's rejection of Murat at the door violated the General Equal Treatment Law of 2006, which prohibits discrimination based on a number of factors including ethnic origin, religion and sexual orientation. She wrote in her decision that the evidence proved that "while the plaintiff was refused entry to the nightclub, guests without a recognizable immigrant background were able to enter. ".

So, the court was categorical in saying that race and ethnicity used as a reason to deny admission is ILLEGAL. She cites the specific law here.

So, all the posters arguing the other side. Are you saying that something already ruled illegal, ought to be legal instead?

If you claim that denial of entry was not based on race and ethnicity, well, that is something that will be decided in the court on a case by case basis. But if the stats are so overwhelming, where the club denies 95% to 100% of a specific race, while it blocks say, only 30% to 50% of a different race from entering, courts will increasingly find it for the plaintiffs.

[QUOTE=HessenBub;1824229]They do. It's private business, it's private property, they can decide who to let in or not. They have all the domiciliary rights or domestic authority and can forbid entrance or ask persons to leave at any time.

HB.[/QUOTE]

Here is a link to what's protected and provided for, in that law.

[URL]www.antidiskriminierungsstelle.de/EN/TheAct/theAct_node.html[/URL]

One more thing. People asking "what about this, what about that" such as doctors turning away specific insurances, discos turning away non cool people, etc etc.

The law prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, religion, gender, .

I. e. A few specific things.

It says nothing about an employer, a commercial establishment choosing to do business with (or not) based on other factors.

In other words, the law clearly makes a distinction between race, religion, gender, sexual orientation etc and some superficial other factors.

Posters can try to obfuscate this issue all day long, but it does not change that some fundamental discriminations such as race and religion are quite illegal. And they will be contested in courts, and increasingly fines will escalate. Just a matter of time. After all, this law was signed in 2006. Civil rights laws were signed in the US nearly 50 years ago. It takes a long time to fix these things.

[QUOTE=Jnpr30;1824260]So, the court was categorical in saying that race and ethnicity used as a reason to deny admission is ILLEGAL. [/QUOTE]It is. Still the owner can deny entry to anbody. For reasons that are not based on race and ethnicity. I'm out of this discussion, it is leading nowhere.

HB.

Racist: "I'm not being racist. ".

Reasonable Person: "But you just turned away all the Turkish people from your nightclub. You just refused them entry on the basis of their race. ".

Racist: "No, no, no! I never denied anyone on the basis of their race. That's not why I wouldn't let those guys in. ".

Reasonable Person: "Oh? Then, why did you turn those guys away?

Racist: "Because they would have been troublemakers. I just don't want any troublemakers in my club. I didn't exclude them because of race, only to keep out the troublemakers. ".

Reasonable Person: "Oh? Well, how did you know which men would be the troublemakers?

Racist: "Well, it's the Turks obviously! The Turks are always the troublemakers. Everyone knows that!

Reasonable Person: "So, you are not turning them away because they are Turks. You are turning them away because you *know* that they are likely to be troublemakers. And you know that they are likely to be troublemakers because they are Turks? ".

Racist: "Yes. But I'm not racist -- because I've heard that is bad or something. ".

Next thing you know, we'll be denying entry to blacks to shopping places because we all know that the blacks are the ones who are always stealing.

[QUOTE=UltraHappy;1824296]Next thing you know, we'll be denying entry to blacks to shopping places because we all know that the blacks are the ones who are always stealing.[/QUOTE]So, the logic goes, a nightclub turns away Turkish, so therefore the stores will soon after have a discriminating policy against the Blacks. Haha.

In DE, there are many clubs, some owned by the Turkish, biker gangs etc.

The logic goes: You can't turn away no one or you'll be charged for being a racist and discrimination.

HB.

I agree the discussion is going nowhere. No one is changing their minds.

As for your third sentence, as I said in my comment below, discrimination is illegal only on specific factors. If a fat person is turned away, he can sue the club, and while I think it is a repugnant practice, I don't know if the courts provide protection. At least the law is not very clear on equal rights to fat, having squint eyes, having bad parents, having a funky accent, smelling badly, etc etc. But it is very clear that race based discrimination is illegal.

It will be decided in the courts, as it should be. Will take time.

[QUOTE=HessenBub;1824294]It is. Still the owner can deny entry to anbody. For reasons that are not based on race and ethnicity. I'm out of this discussion, it is leading nowhere.

HB.[/QUOTE]

The owner of a club could be Turkish and practice discrimination and turn away Turks or blacks or whatever, if he thinks it brings in more whites and Asians. It is his business decision.

The issue is not that he will be branded a racist. The issue is that his club's practice is illegal. The club will be fined, and if it persists and does not change its business practice, fines will get larger and larger.

It is fine for any individual to hold racist attitudes, or even practice in his own life. It is not legal for a commercial establishment to flout laws related to this or else they be fined. The distinction here is between individual vs commercial, and what is legal and not.

[QUOTE=HessenBub;1824335]The logic goes: You can't turn away no one or you'll be charged for being a racist and discrimination.

HB.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=HessenBub;1824228]Same here, they are trying to prove that the girls are not self employed. If they were not the FKK club business model wouldn't work out, see recent development in CH. Until now the girls are self employed and the club owner doesn't have too much authority to give directions, it's a thin line.

HB.[/QUOTE]This part I'm not so clear on. Girls are self employed, yet the pricing is standardized. So, this means that the girls had to agree upon the pricing of the session with the club, no? Some clubs, the pricing is lower, but extras are included depending on the girl's choice. I could understand that girls are self-employed since they pay entry, and they get paid directly, but at the same time they abide by the standard pricing of the club. Somebody pointed out that there is a statement where the pricing is agreed upon BY the girls. So, does that mean that the pricing is agreed upon with the girls on the club's requirements? Of course it does as when there is pricing conflict, the desk knows the pricing what is included or not. Anyway, it's legal stuff. Legal stuff typical means what is written is complied.

What I don't understand is on the wiki and another site states, pimping is legal in DE, yet not in NL.

In SixSens (NL), the desk will state you must agree upon the pricing with the ladies(perhaps a way to dodge issues, but yet wouldn't this create conflicts if so happens the client and the provider isn't on the same line?), and I'm curious if it's to abide by the local law in the region. Dunno if Yin Yang(NL) does the same. Although I had no issues with pricing, I paid the same as in DE.

Spain is different. Couple clubs seems standarized. And then, other clubs the girls can reduce the pricing on their choice. Which I don't feel at easy with (since I'm used to DE standards), but it seems more independent.

The positives to standard pricing is the customer and the provider are on the same page which decreases chances of conflicts. This all depends on the club, and the additional services that are not clear cut. But, there are establishments, not consider a club, that itemizes pretty much everything.

PL- The point UH is making, and I don't want to put words in his mouth. Just the way I interpret, Is that we all are part of several sub groups. Skin color, race and ethnic profile is one. Gender, age, height, look, body shape, accent, language, national origin, etc etc could all be sub groups.

Right now, the discrimination is against a couple of groups based on race and ethnicity. Negative characteristics of that sub group are ascribed to every one in that subgroup. Members of that subgroup are no longer treated as individuals, their identity is ignored and they are just that "Turkish, black, Arab" whatever.

If this discrimination was done along a different plane, say men above 60, men who are taller than 5'9" or men who weigh 200 lb, men whose native language is not German, etc etc, there would be other people crying wolf here.

There are 4 billion people in Asia. In the US, the stereotype of Asians is that they are good in math, eat just rice, can't speak English, and are sneaky, Hispanics are lazy, blacks are violent, etc etc. If you are an Asian, you Will be baffled how you are not treated as an individual, as you yourself, but how you are similar or identical to 4 billion others.

[QUOTE=PussyLiccker;1824328]So, the logic goes, a nightclub turns away Turkish, so therefore the stores will soon after have a discriminating policy against the Blacks. Haha.

In DE, there are many clubs, some owned by the Turkish, biker gangs etc.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Jnpr30;1824339]I agree the discussion is going nowhere. No one is changing their minds.[/QUOTE]Discussions at times people will have conflicting opinions, and as stated some topics just will go circular. Don't think for a sec that people are not aware of what's been fed. People read the textbooks, and have ran into things. Don't undermine others for having their opinions.

You want to change my mind? LOL. I like to think I'm independent, and like anybody else, I have my reasons my independent stance.

We can all agree that in DE vs USA, prostitution is legal baby!! And the clubs are man's paradise.