A: Hey buddy! What's up?
B: Just chilling, what's new with you?

A: So, did you hear about the weird legal thing in Japan?
B: Uh, nope. Spill the beans!

A: Well, it turns out the Supreme Court didn't want to help an adult entertainment business that got hit hard during the pandemic. They said it's not against the Constitution to leave them hanging!

B: What? That's crazy! But why would they do that?

A: Because apparently, these businesses can have a negative impact on minors if they don't follow certain rules. And since they didn't get any public funds, it doesn't violate the Constitution.

B: Wait, but someone disagreed with that decision, right?

A: Yep! One of the judges wrote a dissenting opinion, saying this could reinforce the idea that people in the sex industry are inferior and create stereotypes.

B: The business owner was disappointed but found some comfort in the dissenting opinion. They said it wasn't fair and had a big impact on their industry. Poor guys...
----------------

Japan's Supreme Court has upheld lower court rulings that found it is not unconstitutional to deny state subsidies for enterprises impacted by the pandemic to adult entertainment businesses.



The court's First Petty Bench on Monday rejected an outcall escort service operator's appeal for compensation and payment of the subsidies.



The operator argued that its exclusion amounts to occupational discrimination and violates the Constitution's guarantee of equality under the law.



That claim had previously been rejected by a district and a high court.



In upholding the lower courts' decision, the top court said non-store-based adult entertainment businesses are positioned as having the potential to impede the healthy development of minors if various regulations are not put in place.



The court ruled that denying public funds to such businesses is not unconstitutional.



One of the five justices behind Monday's ruling, the presiding justice, Miyagawa Mitsuko, gave a dissenting opinion.



She said the exclusion could give the impression that operators and workers of sex-related industries are socially inferior, and is a stereotype that could take root among the public.



The operator stated: "I don't believe this ruling truly upholds human rights. Considering the impact on the industry, it's the worst possible outcome. On the other hand, I found some solace in the fact that there was a justice who wrote a dissenting opinion, arguing that it violates the Constitution."