Sharks in the Septic Tank Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Neocon who wrote (74564)	9/12/2003 3:34:02 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) of 82486

In any event, I am not sure that the factual question is relevant, since we were talking about the liberty of the masseur to restrict his clientele....... You didn't answer my question. Yes, the overall discussion is about the liberty of the masseur. But you and I have no disagreements about that and the matter has been fully covered, at least it seems so to me. The aspect of this that provoked my continued engagement is not the guy's liberty but the underlying premise that it's reasonable to be so concerned about provoking a sexual response. That is beyond my grasp. And since the masseur's reluctance to massage and resultant discrimination is based on that premise, it is, indeed, relevant. Without that premise there would be no issue about massaging any man, at least. I have not expressed any issue with him excluding women given that it's already common to have separate salons for men and women. My issue is with him screening out gays. It would be unnecessary, but for the premise, plus I don't see any practical and polite way to do it. So the premise is salient.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next