"Anyhow, that is MY principled belief.
I agree with your principled belief and have from the start, which is why I objected so strenuously to the soap box rhetoric and refusal to consider reason.
"However sincere Mojo's beliefs, and I have always assumed that he is completely sincere, ...
Of course, he is totally fictitious. I don't know a mojo that I modeled him after. To call him names and accuse him of thoughts, attitudes, or behaviors that are not part of the hypo and that don't have a direct association with his stated attitudes is simply pointless if we are trying to determine the merits of the actual scenario. It is ... solonism.
The problem is not with your principled belief it is with the broad sweeping assumptions that you have made to apply the principle. There is actually a huge gap between the comparisons you make with racism and bigotted treatment of jews vs the mojo scenario. Refusing to consider reasoning is typical of people who hold blindly to doctrine inspite of practical circumstances. You have put blinders on up to this point and refused to think about the basis for what would qualify as discrimination in this case and what would not.
The issue of one's sexuality is one of the most protected issues of privacy that most people recognize. It would not surprise most people if women were excluded from a public bath house where men are bathing and the servants (towel people or whatever are men). You might demand additional facilities for women but would not likely insist that men serve women in the bath house or that women are included in the men's bathing facility.
Bathing is not considered a sexually arousing activity although we can imagine the situation differently where men and women are forced into the situation together.
Bathing is not massage. However, sensible people everywhere can imagine it becoming actively sexual. So much so that an entire erotic industry has arisen emulating the setting. There are some gray lines between the two.
Any choice is discriminatory. The mojo scenario is one in which the choice is clearly with regard to good and healthy delivery of services to all, not to deny anything except the opertunity to be sexually aroused in the process. It is not a choice to not serve women because they are women, it is a choice not to put women or men into a situation known for evoking erotic responses. Women are certainly regarded, and highly regarded in the scenario and no attempt is made to keep them from benefitting fully from the services as they are intended to be delivered.
The lose use of the term bigot that you have been associating with the mojo scenario, is simply a misapplication of a very powerful and alarming term.
"And on and on. Every case will have to be examined to see whether this or is not a "Mojo exception" to societal rules.
Actually this is very important and I encourage you to reconsider. Our culture is changing very fast. We are browning and blending in creed, religion, and gender involvement. Conduct in the circumstances of this century means something entirely different than it did 300 years ago and even 50 years ago. Fear of being accused of discrimination can lead to the very unfair treatment that the anti-discrimination movement fought to eliminate. And so, the mojo scenario was created to provoke people into thinking about how better to define what is and is not discriminatory and harmful to our culture. Some people chose not to engage in thought. Some people just loaded up ole' nelly and let both barrels fly without giving much thought to any of it. Many a senseless feud has been levied with the same by-golly attitudes. |
