I just can't decide who I should support in this case.

[Mixxy]

MESSAGE FROM MNHQ - WE HAVE BEEN ASKED WARN YOU THAT THIS LINK CONTAINS GRAPHIC SEXUAL REFERENCES.

Does she have a point?

www.ravenews.ca/en/read/2013/march/28/

There are no words...

god knows what you were looking for to find that... eughhhh....

Haha! A friend emailed it to be as we have an ongoing ethics debate. He wins. I'm stumped on this one.

nasty, vile, beyond any thing I this a totally disgusting practice, thought I was pretty open minded...

Thought I was clicking on the Nigella thread and for some confused time wondered if their relationship difficulties were connected to this story.

I think the toilet is right. Acts should always be consensual. Everyone has the right to say 'no'.

But he is employed as a human toilet, and paid by the bar/club. Is it discrimination based on religious beliefs?

What the fuck did I just read?

The last time someone shared a link to Rave News it involved toilety stuff, as well. I think that entire website is a great big Poo Troll TBH.

The toilet has the right to say no. It's an interesting debate, similar to one that is recurrent in the more vanilla sex industry, when women working as prostitutes say they won't see men of particular skin colours/ethnicities. Yes, this is discriminatory, but any other option sees her being raped.

Shopkeepers can refuse to sell you their goods, publicans can refuse service too, and neither have to give a reason. Why not sex workers?

Because he did give a reason. He's a Kosher Toilet. I think, that the club owner should fire him.

That's not the case being heard, but that was my response.

As a toilet, he consented to receiving piss and shit. He did not consent to receiving blood. I'd like to see the contract of employment, as the employer seems supportive of the toilet.

I say this as an atheist who generally does not support "I have religious beliefs so I should be able to wear jewellery" bollox, or religious favouritism at all.

But for this toilet, menstrual blood is abhorrent. I may think that him thinking this is equally abhorrent, but let's face it, plenty of men are not keen on giving oral sex when a woman is bleeding and have no religious reasons for it.

All sexual acts should be consensual. If this toilet does not want to accept the urine of menstruating women (for whatever reason), he should not have to.

I agree all acts should be consentual, but we'd really need to see the employment contract, because a non-human toilet does recieve menstrual blood.

I find the interview with the complainant hilarious.

But my friend sure stumped me with this ethical mess!

I wonder if they're having this same debate over on Netmums...

Awww. Poor hun not being able to go pee-pee when she needed to, but as I always say 'happy toilet equals happy punter'.

🎉🎈🎊🎈🎉 mummy to a little 👼 and a cheeky 🙉 🎉🎈🎊🎈🎉

WOW. JUST WOW. I came on MN because I can't sleep tonight. This hasn't helped. I even just had to wake up DH to send him the link.

If I was judge Judy I'd find in favour of the toilet.
(I think.)

I just hope they don't make a movie out of this particular lawsuit. Erin Brokovich it ain't.

I agree with old lady, the human toilet's rights are more important in this instance. However it has left me wondering how kosher shit is. Wouldn't milk and meat get all mixed up in the stomach?

That's it. It's all over.

I really have seen everything now.

That's not the limit of Kosher laws. My husband was raised Jewish, though we are both non-believers. He said it refers to 'niddah' which are very strick rules regarding sexual contact between a menstruating woman and her husband and also to do with her filth after her period and pregnancy.

It is not important in Reform Juadism (think Sienfeld) or
OrOrthodox Juadism, but it is in Ultra Orthodox. Now what an Ultra Orthodox Jew is doing working as a human toilet, I don't know. The woman didn't want to menstruate on him, she just wanted to take a piss while
having her period.

OK I'm back. Pathetically, I can't stop thinking about this one.

Isn't it actually this woman that is being discriminatory? "I want to piss on anyone, regardless of their religious beliefs." She's the one discriminating against him. She has no religious belief which says that she must wee on another human being while she is menstruating. There were also plenty of other "toilets" she could have used, she didn't have to cross her legs, or pee in the gutter.

People are fucking crazy.

That is all.

But is that the point? This Jewish man is employed of his own free will as a human toilet. He refused service based on his religious beliefs. Is that fair?

My mother and I have been cracking up about this all day.

The ethics game my friend and I play is based on me beating him at an ethics debate years ago in Uni. We email ethical cases to each other and debate them. I just can't decide this one-which means he wins. Rats.

Doctors here can refuse to prescribe certain drugs (pill, morning after) because of their religious beliefs, however they are required to refer to a doctor that will. I guess this is sort of the same thing - there were others available, so he had every right to refuse.

This case is in Canada, so there might not be the same rights applying.

I just can't wrap my head around an active Kosher human toilet who would be repulsed by trace amounts of human menstrual blood. Unless there was a possibility of HIV infection, but I can't remeber if menstrual blood can transfer that.

Removing the argument of kosher food laws which would deal with the forbidden mixing of dairy and meat products in fecal matter and presumably any by-products which may be passed in urine I would answer thusly;

If he is a 'ladies only' toilet, he is allowed to discriminate against women as it is kosher law not to engage in sexual activity during menstruation. The woman would simply have to wait her turn to use another, as she would in any other toilet facility if no toilets were available.

However if the toilet set up is unisex, he would also have to refuse any male. While homosexuality is not forbidden, engaging in homosexual relations is and the definition of a urophile is someone who gets sexual gratification from being urinated on.

It's some kind of joke surely. Don't believe it.

But he didn't refuse her based on her religious beliefs. Possibly discrimination based on sexual grounds as only a woman can menstruate?