body { -ms-overflow-style: scrollbar; overflow-y: scroll; overscroll-behavior-y: none; } .errorContainer { background-color: #FFF; color: #0F1419; max-width: 600px; margin: 0 auto; padding: 10%; font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; } .errorButton { margin: 3em 0; } .errorButton a { background: #1DA1F2; border-radius: 2.5em; color: white; padding: 1em 2em; text-decoration: none; } .errorButton a:hover, .errorButton a:focus { background: rgb(26, 145, 218); } .errorFooter { color: #657786; font-size: 80%; line-height: 1.5; padding: 1em 0; } .errorFooter a, .errorFooter a:visited { color: #657786; text-decoration: none; padding-right: 1em; } .errorFooter a:hover, .errorFooter a:active { text-decoration: underline; } #placeholder, #react-root { display: none !important; } body { background-color: #FFF !important; }

JavaScript is not available.

We’ve detected that JavaScript is disabled in this browser. Please enable JavaScript or switch to a supported browser to continue using twitter.com. You can see a list of supported browsers in our Help Center.

Terms of Service Privacy Policy Cookie Policy Imprint Ads info © 2023 Twitter, Inc.

Conversation

Sex workers regularly get excluded from the banking system, but I didn't know

was doing it too. I know they're probably just afraid of negative publicity, but so were all the past stores that refused to serve the minority unpopular at the time. twitter.com/TattooedVali/s

This Tweet is unavailable.

4

2

25

@catoyescaesarno

Replying to

and

If a person or company doesn't want be associated with something they consider negative, this is more often than not a positive for us as a society, as they, as one of society's players, are putting integrity above just making money.

1

@GarrettPetersen

Replying to

@catoyescaesarno

and

Assuming, of course, that their values are correct. All I see here is the modern equivalent of a business from the 1940s refusing to serve black people. Maybe they saw it as integrity at the time.

1

1

@catoyescaesarno

Replying to

@GarrettPetersen

and

Not serving Black people because they´re black is horrendous, a great sin in my book. Supporting the state forcing someone to sell to a people of a certain color, with the threat of jail behind that force, is even more horrendous, and an even greater sin.

1

Replying to

@catoyescaesarno

@GarrettPetersen

and

I don't think ASOS should be forced sell to sex workers. I am fine, however, with socially shaming them and encouraging boycott until they do.

10:56 PM · Nov 6, 2019

@catoyescaesarno

Replying to

@GarrettPetersen

and

Yes, I respect that, that´s what freedom is all about....private advocacy in the market of ideas.