My Free Cams + Transsexuals?

[Arnox]

I've not seen too many Transsexuals on the website, but I do know there are a few profiles. Anyone know the word of whether My Free Cams accepts transsexuals? I'm sure there'd be a legal argument there if they didn't, but is it easy for a transgender person to be a part of My Free Cams?

[2013]

ask nikki99

[Andreweb]

They accept only women and lesbian couples ! But anything is possible so ......

[adultmobile]

No, they're all in chaturbate and cam4 where allowed.

[DWB]

They do not allow transgendered models on MFC.

[Arnox]

I don't see how that can be legal. They're an American company, correct?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1449282.html

Seems to me that it'd be illegal for them to deny camgirls who were trans.

[Supz]

Originally Posted by Arnox

I don't see how that can be legal. They're an American company, correct?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1449282.html

Seems to me that it'd be illegal for them to deny camgirls who were trans.

youre comparing dicks and fingers.

[JesseQuinn]

I believe they have a (fairly low) age cut-off as well. Their wiki states that only 45 and under are allowed. Totally stupid, as there are tons of trans women and older women who bank.

dunno how they get away with either if they're US-based...maybe a matter of no one actually challenging it? I'm not all that familiar with US laws, it also could be that companies that hire independent contractors aren't held to the same standards that employment legislation dictates employers must follow?

[Arnox]

Originally Posted by JesseQuinn

it also could be that companies that hire independent contractors aren't held to the same standards that employment legislation dictates employers must follow?

Yeah, I'm unfamiliar with contract work legality. I do however know that they are protected in a number of states for employment.

I'm guessing no one's bothered to challenge it.

[SplatterMaster]

Originally Posted by Arnox

I don't see how that can be legal. They're an American company, correct?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1449282.html

Seems to me that it'd be illegal for them to deny camgirls who were trans.

GFY. I'm sure that's what MFC will tell you too. Camgirls aren't employees.

MFC is like the private topless joint down the road. They choose who contracts with them and who is allowed inside. Same with sites like MetArt, Playboy, etc.

[Arnox]

Originally Posted by SplatterMaster

GFY. I'm sure that's what MFC will tell you too. Camgirls aren't employees.

MFC is like the private topless joint down the road. They choose who contracts with them and who is allowed inside. Same with sites like MetArt, Playboy, etc.

It's legal to discriminate against employees such as that based on their looks. It's covered under bona fide occupational qualifications. However, I'm honestly unsure as to how the law would apply toward transsexuals wanting to stream.

Playboy can say "no, you're ugly"; they can't say "no, because you're male".

Camgirls are probably covered under a lot of laws, regardless of the lack of contract.

[spiederman]

Originally Posted by Arnox

I don't see how that can be legal. They're an American company, correct?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1449282.html

Seems to me that it'd be illegal for them to deny camgirls who were trans.

if MFC would decide tomorrow they wont hire blue eyed blondes anymore it is their choosing, its not like a company is a democracy or something.

Camgirls are not hired on a site, they are considered companies offered their services to a certain platorm, and companies are kinda genderless, so if MFC or any other platform doesnt want to work with company X anymore, company X can GFY

[lazycash]

Originally Posted by JesseQuinn

I believe they have a (fairly low) age cut-off as well. Their wiki states that only 45 and under are allowed. Totally stupid, as there are tons of trans women and older women who bank.

dunno how they get away with either if they're US-based...maybe a matter of no one actually challenging it? I'm not all that familiar with US laws, it also could be that companies that hire independent contractors aren't held to the same standards that employment legislation dictates employers must follow?

There are many women on mfc over 45.

[adultmobile]

Originally Posted by lazycash

There are many women on mfc over 45.

Yes but if you go in page 2 of chaturbate you see several over 60.

[DWB]

They are not employees of MFC.

[Supz]

This is like asking why model agencies dont take short fat girls.

[mikesinner]

I think it's a no penis allowed situation. I never see hetero couples on there. I have seen a few recorded shows with girl on guy sex but I think this was done without permission.

[adultmobile]

Originally Posted by Supz

This is like asking why model agencies dont take short fat girls.

We do model selection on our cam sites and some who get declined, say we are morons not respecting human rights.

[helterskelter808]

I'm surprised so many people here are so quick to assume this categorically doesn't contravene any laws or regulations. For example:

[/i]"Title VII permits you to discriminate on the basis of "religion, sex, or national origin in those instances where religion, sex, or national origin is a bona fide occupational qualification reasonably necessary to the normal operation of the particular business or enterprise." This narrow exception has also been extended to discrimination based on age through the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA)."[/i]

http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/bona_...ification_bfoq

Having trannies or people over 45 clearly doesn't interfere with the normal operation of a cam site, and I'm not sure 'because we want to' constitutes a particularly 'bona fide' reason to refuse someone based on their age or gender.

[mikesinner]

Originally Posted by helterskelter808

I'm surprised so many people here are so quick to assume this categorically doesn't contravene any laws or regulations. For example:

[/i]"Title VII permits you to discriminate on the basis of "religion, sex, or national origin in those instances where religion, sex, or national origin is a bona fide occupational qualification reasonably necessary to the normal operation of the particular business or enterprise." This narrow exception has also been extended to discrimination based on age through the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA)."[/i]

http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/bona_...ification_bfoq

Having trannies or people over 45 clearly doesn't interfere with the normal operation of a cam site, and I'm not sure 'because we want to' constitutes a particularly 'bona fide' reason to refuse someone based on their age or gender.

It's their business and even if they were forced to except models in other categories they could set up their site so it looks like they aren't there and cut off a lot of their potential viewers. Like it or not it is easy for them to get away with discrimination and no law can stop them. In the non internet world it is a different story.

[Arnox]

Originally Posted by mikesinner

It's their business

It's the government's business when employees are discriminated against based on core concepts of the law (freedom of religion, sexuality, etc.). The government isn't free to force employment for trivial choices (for instance, not employing non-smokers is entirely legal, because smoking isn't covered as a protected quality by the government) but can and should stop companies from employing based on gender and age.

Originally Posted by mikesinner

and even if they were forced to except models in other categories they could set up their site so it looks like they aren't there and cut off a lot of their potential viewers.

If they want to engage in these tactics, that is something for the court to consider. However, MFC might have a legal requirement not to discriminate against Transgender individuals. I haven't spent enough time looking over the history of other cases, but I do know that both age and gender are heavily contested employment qualities that can land you in a lot of trouble for noncompliance.

My Free Cams is free to say "you can't work on this site because you're ugly", but legally, I don't think it's sound for them to say "you can't work on this site because you're transgender".

I guess during the week I'll head on up to my Uni's law library and clug out some thick dusty books. Personally, I just find the concept interesting, that's all.

[helterskelter808]

Originally Posted by mikesinner

It's their business and even if they were forced to except models in other categories they could set up their site so it looks like they aren't there and cut off a lot of their potential viewers. Like it or not it is easy for them to get away with discrimination and no law can stop them. In the non internet world it is a different story.

It's not simply 'their business' at all, you pothead, there are laws governing what businesses are and are not allowed to do. And perhaps you can explain why you imagine businesses that run websites are immune from complying with the law.

[nikki99]

they discriminate people

[adultmobile]

I see there was some featured in Playboy too:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caroline_Cossey
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amanda_Lepore



There a private company decides a niche and style, and puts there who fits it, for simply fit the niche. I still think there should be freedom for a cam company to have a site with girls only, and so to declare in advance "girls only accepted", without risk of being bring to human rights court by any transexuals. Or, you would bring to court gay sites for not allowing girls there, or mature/granny sites for not accepting teenager models, or a BBW site for not allowing thin girls, or a redheads site for not accepting brunette, and so on. You can question certain companies miss completely a certain niche, but at same time other companies exist who have that missing niche as the only niche, so there's space for everyone. Of course I can tell this to the models we decline and they still will call us morons doing crime against humanity

On a side note it happened so often I go to filipina cam sites I click a few girls I seem to like most and it ends up they're ladyboy really, so it may not be an issue of looks, it is just if you say to your users you provide girls only, that would be false advertising, should label them as ts in first place.

[lezinterracial]

MFC should be allowed to have what content they want. Just like if you start a site with just tranny cams, You should be allowed to do that.

[Wizzo]

They aren't employees but independent contractors and able to discriminate based on the needs they need filled by said contractors.

[nikki99]

because they discriminate people

[helterskelter808]

Originally Posted by adultmobile

I see there was some featured in Playboy too:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caroline_Cossey
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amanda_Lepore

Never mind Playboy, Caroline Cossey was a 'Bond girl'.

There a private company decides a niche and style, and puts there who fits it, for simply fit the niche. I still think there should be freedom for a cam company to have a site with girls only, and so to declare in advance "girls only accepted", without risk of being bring to human rights court by any transexuals. Or, you would bring to court gay sites for not allowing girls there, or mature/granny sites for not accepting teenager models, or a BBW site for not allowing thin girls, or a redheads site for not accepting brunette, and so on. You can question certain companies miss completely a certain niche, but at same time other companies exist who have that missing niche as the only niche, so there's space for everyone. Of course I can tell this to the models we decline and they still will call us morons doing crime against humanity

Sure, we also should allow bus companies to refuse certain people, based on race, gender or age. After all there's nothing to stop other bus companies allowing them to board, so what's the problem?

It's fine if you and other people here believe that companies should be allowed to discriminate on the grounds of race, gender or age, but the law does not agree with you.

[nikki99]

I am being dicrminitaed for being transsexual , latina, nigga, tatooes, curly hair equals nigga, all the time

[adultmobile]

Originally Posted by helterskelter808

It's fine if you and other people here believe that companies should be allowed to discriminate on the grounds of race, gender or age, but the law does not agree with you.

In general the law of most countries does not allow cam sites at all, anyway.

[Arnox]

Originally Posted by adultmobile

In general the law of most countries does not allow cam sites at all, anyway.

?

Examples of laws and acts that specifically prohibit cam sites/camgirls from streaming?

[helterskelter808]

Originally Posted by adultmobile

In general the law of most countries does not allow cam sites at all, anyway.

Business operating laws that may or may not exist in various corners of mumbo-jumbo land are of no consequence to American-based companies. But if you're a business based in the US, good luck trying to discriminate against people based on their age, gender or race.

[adultmobile]

Originally Posted by helterskelter808

Business operating laws that may or may not exist in various corners of mumbo-jumbo land are of no consequence to American-based companies. But if you're a business based in the US, good luck trying to discriminate against people based on their age, gender or race.

If the issue is hiring US girls, what if a site discriminate US girls and "hire" only east european ones?

[CourtneyR]

We have plenty of TS girls on cams.

[helterskelter808]

If the issue is hiring US girls, what if a site discriminate US girls and "hire" only east european ones?

AFAIK nationality also falls under anti-discrimination laws (likewise religion). If an American company discriminated against Americans because of their nationality then I imagine that would be a lawsuit waiting to happen. I'd be surprised if the EU, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc don't have similar laws or regulations.

The real issue is whether cam performers really are 'independent contractors' as people here have said. Of course cam sites, like many businesses, claim they are, to avoid having to comply with a myriad of employment and tax law, but what they claim and what is the reality are not necessarily the same thing.

Here's what the IRS says about whether someone is an employee or merely an 'independent contractor':

"The key consideration is whether the business has retained the right to control the details of a worker's performance or instead has given up that right."

"Facts that show the parties' type of relationship include:

The extent to which services performed by the worker are a key aspect of the regular business of the company. If a worker provides services that are a key aspect of your regular business activity, it is more likely that you will have the right to direct and control his or her activities. For example, if a law firm hires an attorney, it is likely that it will present the attorney's work as its own and would have the right to control or direct that work. This would indicate an employer-employee relationship."

You tell me whether you believe the services cam models provide are a key aspect of webcam sites and/or whether cam sites like to control how cam models perform those services.

[adultmobile]

I agree hiring an US/CA stripper in US/CA strip club and firing due to age it is fatal, I can use google to find the cases.
It should be a model to sue anyway... unlikely the government will order all the cam sites to hire transexuals and 80 year olds. Government more likely hopes adult businesses in general hire no one and close... government discriminates adult businesses, giving less rights than mainstream ones. So let's US, Canada cam girls want to sue.. why? Those I know do not declare their cam income to IRS, so they would be expected to declare income from cams at some point if they sue someone. But let it be an US transexual (or even man) who really do not really wants to work in myfreecams (US company) but just sees the opportunity to sue a big company for profit and fame, he/she's declined because sex, can record all the communication (perhaps add witness and phone calls and do a drama to them to have more evidence recorded), and ask million dollar in damage to mfc?
Disclaimer: this is a question, not an investment advice.

[helterskelter808]

I'm not going to single out any specific company, partly because I don't know where they're based, but if a US company (webcam or otherwise) is misclassifying its workers as 'independent contractors' they have a lot more to worry about than a potential discrimination suit.

[xNetworx]

They make their own rules. Deal with it.

[helterskelter808]