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: Lane3 who wrote (74625)	9/12/2003 7:34:47 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) of 82486

But I think he would win if he were sued by a woman. I think he should lose if sued by a gay Why a different result or different desired result for the two categories? Well, there's the rub. What would the exemption look like? We hereby exempt all personal service providers whose service involves touching and who can show a strong and firmly held conviction that touching, when that touch could theoretically result in the arousal of the client, is morally repugnant. How's that? Crafted nice and tight and on point. More generally you could make an exception for personal service providers who's service requires touching but who are not considered medical personnel. Of course we get into trouble, as I have pointed out repeatedly, with the specific criteria by which he would screen clients. Yes, you can't always tell from casual interaction if someone you are dealing with is gay. Or straight for that matter. Recently someone I met thought I was gay. I suppose if he was the masseur he wouldn't take my business. Tim

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next