RE: Argonaut editorial

[Shawn Clabough <shawnc@outtrack.com>]

  Speaking of treating genders equally.  Would someone explain to me why 10+
firefighters out washing cars with no shirts on, just suspenders and
fireman's pants, is any less a sexually oriented business than the other
topless car washes we had earlier this summer?  This one even had themselves
on a major thoroughfare, not some off-street alley.  Is it that they're
firefighter's?
  I'm not against them trying to raise money, or even that they were
definitely using their muscles to attract business, but the double standard
does bother me.

Shawn

-----Original Message-----
From: Bob Hoffmann [mailto:escape@alt-escape.com] 
Sent: Saturday, September 14, 2002 6:19 PM
To: vision2020@moscow.com
Subject: Re: Argonaut editorial


At 08:25 PM 9/14/2002 -0400, WMSteed@aol.com wrote:
> > would you support an ordinance that required both
> > > males and females to keep their shirts on?
><<No>>
>Then your argument that this is an equal rights issue doesn't pass 
>muster
>if your only interest is in allowing women to go topless.

I would not support such an ordinance either.  But not on 14th 
amendment/equal rights grounds.  If I had to support either the current 
Moscow ordinance or a law requiring both males and females to have their 
tops covered, I would side with the law that treats both genders equally.