You distinguish the two how? Other than you are just pro-anything gay
Like you somehow got the misimpression that I'm not pro-woman?
I'm not pro-anything-gay. I'm not even pro-gay. I'm just not anti-gay. I'm indifferent about gay. What I'm anti is anything anti-gay, particularly sanctimoniously anti-gay. Actually, I'm pretty much anti-sanctimony of all sorts.
Now that we've cleared that up.
You distinguish the two how?
I believe I'm on record about this already. I have distinguished them from the get-go. My comments have virtually all been about gays.
There is a precedent for male and female salons, spas, gyms, etc. They were all that way until the fairly recent movement to unisex. But not all business went unisex and there was no requirement that they do so, so I think your masseur would be on firm ground there. This has nothing to do with his conscience or his principles. This is simply that it is not uncommon to have separate facilities of this ilk for men and women and I don't see an issue with that.
I am also on record about the problems with screening out homosexuals, per se. I believe I offered that one might have each client sign an affidavit, but that's really onerous and rude and not particularly good for business, I wouldn't think. And it would also leave evidence that anyone who wanted to sue could use. I don't see any way of screening gays effectively and neatly without digging a hole he could fall into. Trying to screen out gays would simply look bigoted, invite a suit, and provide evidence against him.
Ah...I mean oooh...or uh, I mean hmmmm....oh never mind.
LOL. The pun was unintentional. |
