Results 71 to 72 of 72
-
12-13-2013, 11:14 AM #71
Who raised some of you? Alex, you are fighting a losing cause on this board. This is a classic case of the right wing extremists shooting off their mouths and the sensible ones on the right remaining silent because they like the show.
-
-
12-13-2013, 10:26 PM #72
It really wasn't an argument. I didn't really know so that's why I asked. Did some digging and found this:
http://www.seattlepi.com/lifestyle/a...ts-1133532.php
Some men have complained that female-only workout facilities violate laws prohibiting gender discrimination.
A few have even sued, though most have been turned away by the courts. One Wisconsin man's lawsuit against Curves prompted the state to pass a law exempting single-sex fitness centers from the state's discrimination laws.
Representatives of Ladies Workout Express and Contours Express say they or one of their franchisees has been sued at least twice, but they've never lost a court case. They say they politely turn away men who express interest in joining and that most men don't mind that women have a workout place just for them.
Only a handful of men have been peeved enough to complain or pursue legal action, but if the shoe were on the other foot and thousands of male-only gyms were proliferating, would women scream bloody murder?
It's hard to tell, but in the meantime, Curves pointedly defends the women-only model.
"I would turn it around and say the fitness industry for years was run by men, for men," said Mike Raymond, marketing director for the huge chain. "Their needs have been taken care of for years. The equipment and the facilities were designed for them."
Others in the fitness industry acknowledge that there's probably a double standard at work.
"Is it unfair? Yeah, it's unfair," says Glenn Swain, founder of Rain, a new gym on the edge of Belltown. "Now that I think about it, if I had a male-only area, the females would string up a noose for me."
So it looks like aren't allowed but they exist because nobody cares about this being an "injustice" enough to do something about it other than change the law to exempt them.
Looks like this isn't true either.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...7884UV20110909
In the San Francisco Bay area where tolerance is king, it is a rare politician willing to clamp down on citizens who let it all hang out.
But San Francisco Supervisor Scott Wiener stepped into that position earlier this week when he introduced an ordinance that would require nudists to cover their seats in public places and wear clothes in restaurants.
Public nudity, he explains, is legal in San Francisco and in recent years a group known informally as Naked Guys have shown unbridled enthusiasm for appearing in the nude.
"I see it pretty regularly, and unfortunately there are nudists who are not doing what they should," Wiener told Reuters.
The nudists, who expose themselves most often in the city's famous gay neighborhood, the Castro District, have got Wiener and others worrying about public health.
"I'm not a health expert, but I believe sitting nude in a public place is not sanitary," he said. "Would you want to sit on a seat where someone had been sitting naked? I think most people would say, 'No.'"
Wiener, who represents the Castro neighborhood, said he hears from merchants who fear the public displays may drive away customers, hurting the business' bottom lines.
That's particularly true in restaurants. He acknowledged that he has not seen any research establishing a health risk. "But when you have your orifices exposed in an eating establishment, a lot of people don't like it," he said.
Looks like before this you could be nude inside of San Francisco restaurants.....*New* Selling All My Cards Here------>Hidden Content
Baseball Autograph and Game Used Only Trade Page: pwaldo.webs.com/
//s123.photobucket.com/albums/o299/pwaldo/
-