Court Opinion

ID: 9587132
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 23:18:18.049053+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:33:02.396480
License: Public Domain

Springer, J.,
dissenting:
I do not think that it is constitutionally permissible for a municipality to prohibit a male massagist from massaging a female client or to prohibit a female massagist from massaging a male client.
I can understand why the city wishes to prevent illicit sexual acts from being performed under the guise of “massage”; but this legitimate purpose does not justify a blanket prohibition of all inter-gender massage. Certainly male prostitution is not the concern here, and the apparent reason for the inclusion in the ordinance of a prohibition against males’ massaging females is to give the ordinance the appearance of gender equality by including the acts of both sexes. There is nothing that I can see that would support an ordinance which prohibits men from massaging women, and it does not seem reasonable to me that a man choosing to engage in this occupation should be restricted to massaging clients of his own sex.
It is quite obvious from this record that the real underlying purpose of the ordinance is to control female prostitution under the guise of “massage.” This is, of course, a legitimate legislative purpose. As stated, I object only to the means by which this ordinance attempts to carry out this purpose, by a total prohibition of inter-gender massage.
As in the case of the prohibition of men massaging women, I see no justification for a blanket prohibition that prevents a woman from giving a massage to a man. As commented in J.S.K.
*336Enterprises, Inc. v. City of Lacey, 492 P.2d 600 (Wash.App. 1971), “[m]assage is one of the oldest forms of therapy. When properly administered in an appropriate case, it can be one of the most useful forms of therapy. . . . Not only is this discrimination as to both sexes of massagists but it would deny people who need their services this opportunity to select the best qualified massagist available to them.” 492 P.2d at 607.
To deny all massagists the right to practice their profession upon both sexes because some individuals utilize a sauna massage parlor as a subterfuge to perform lewd acts for compensation would require stereotyping of the worst kind. It is saying, in effect, that because some women perform lewd acts in sauna parlors that all massagists can be judged to be lewd if given the opportunity and therefore they cannot massage members of the opposite sex.
Id. at 607.
It makes no sense to me to prohibit a person of one sex from giving a massage to a person of the opposite sex. The assumption that women who give massages are a danger to the public morals is, as stated in City of Lacey, “stereotyping of the worst kind” and could be taken as an insult by women who have chosen massage as their profession.
It seems to me that the City of North Las Vegas could achieve its desired purpose by enacting an ordinance that does not interfere with the livelihood of legitimate massagists. Without the blanket prohibition against inter-gender massage the public would still be protected by provisions in the present ordinance which require licensing and background checks of all massagists. Other kinds of permissible protections are afforded in this regulatory ordinance. Hours of operation and employee dress are regulated, and massage of sexual areas of the body is prohibited. Licenses can be revoked for violation of these provisions. Because total prohibition of inter-gender massage is unnecessary to the accomplishment of the purpose of the ordinance and because the ordinance places undue restrictions upon those who take up massage as their chosen means of livelihood, I would strike that portion of the ordinance which prohibits massage of one sex by the other.