"Not unless the damage is arguably unjust."
The damage of the "idea" has been labeled as insideously harmful in a practically undetermined or at least indirect way.
So, I created a parallel Hypothetical, 'James's Bath House'.
James owns a free-lance bath house with separate facilities for women and men. James has a basket of condoments for soaping, scrubbing, and toweling the men on request. He provides these services directly for the men who request it.
James's daughter, Jenny, is saving for college and works on the women's side of the facility providing the same services.
This is normally considered a non-sexual activity. However, when a woman demands that James provide the soaping, scrubbing, and towelling services to her, he refused as a matter of conscience. Chris labeled this an act of insidious bigotry that should result in James being force to either perform services to women or lose his business.
I asked if this applied to Jenny as well. If a man demands that Jenny provide him soaping, scrubbing, and toweling services and she refuses, would chris label her an incidious bigot who should be driven from employment at the bath house. His response was 'yes,' for exactly the same reasons.
So, is the allegation of insidious bigoted discrimination a valid factor that stands alone in consideration of this scenario or not. I fail to see a significant difference in the James scenario and the mojo scenario. |
