Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: one_less who wrote (77590)	10/16/2003 2:51:52 PM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

"He has implemented a more extreme standard of ethics for his service delivery system" His ethic is an abnormal one and one that is not shared by any other therapist so far as I am aware. "He is responsible for managing his service so that inappropriate sexualization does not occur." So are other massage therapists. And they do so unless they fail in character or in training. The singularity of Moho is that he considers sexual arousal (where he is in any way in the picture) to harm him. You (on his behalf) have stated this many times, and I have easy access to those direct quotes in the last couple of weeks. Before we can even consider Moho's request to be exempt from discrimination laws due to a conscientious belief, we need to assess several matters. We need to hear from Moho as to the nature of the harm he suffers when someone becomes aroused while being massaged by him. This harm must be capable of objectification. We also need to know the nature and extent of the harm to the client should Moho be granted an exemption to the normal rules of discrimination. We need to know whether the overall interests of society are protected in the event of a special exemption for Moho's scruples. Most importantly, we need to avoid frivolous exemptions based on individual peculiarities. Moho is the only person who has ever come up with this rather puzzling idea (especially puzzling from a trained professional) of his being harmed by the sexual arousal of his client. One could understand it if Moho had caused it by incompetence AND if arousal was something harmful writ large. But as society has never considered arousal to be harmful per se, it begs the question of how Moho has been harmed. Certainly he has not wronged the sensibilities of society nor of the client. So, I Moho, request this Court to allow me to discriminate against homosexuals and women as to my services as a trained massage therapist. I ask this on the basis of a conscience belief--that these groups are more likely (in my Moho opinion) to become aroused in my presence than other groups, and such arousal harms me (Jewels, my lawyer, will tell you how it harms me). Others may inadvertently become aroused, as well...but these do not harm me for reasons which my lawyer will explain to you. I do not therefore ask to be exempted to discriminate against these others (people with sensual sensitivities to arousal, those with fetishes which cause arousal, over-sexed individuals of all descriptions who are easily aroused by touch and stroking, etc.). My request is only for exemption to discriminate against homosexuals and women. My lawyer, Jewels, well explain why this is critical to my beliefs of conscience.