| Author |
Message |
    
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 9946
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 10, 2005 - 12:32 pm: |     |
The new proposed ordinance is smaller than the previous proposed one, but it still seems overreaching. For example, why is the TC proposing to charge a $500 fee? Inspections are one reason, but restaurants pay a lot less than that, and surely, a restaurant inspection is more extensive than an inspection of a massage business.
|
ajc
Citizen
Username: Ajc
Post Number: 4184
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Monday, October 10, 2005 - 1:42 pm: | |
I didn't see the first ordinance Tom, but I can't imagine how it could have been larger or more restrictive.
IMHO, the $500.00 fee is very excessive, and the ordinance is not only over restrictive, it's down right abusive and insulting to the entire profession! Lets just look at the inspection process. They’re absolutely out of their minds...
“FIFTEENTH: Inspection.
The Health Department, the Police Department and the Fire Department shall, from time to time, announced or unannounced, make an inspection of each massage business of the establishment or home-based type granted a permit under the provisions of this ordinance for the purpose of determining whether the provisions of this ordinance are complied with. Such inspections shall be made at reasonable times and in a reasonable manner. It shall be unlawful and grounds for a suspension of the licensee's permit for any permittee to fail to allow such inspection officer access to the premises or to hinder such officer in any manner."
First of all, having an officer coming unannounced is totally unacceptable. The practitioners all work by appointment, and the clients deserve and expect privacy, peace and quiet when coming for a massage. This ordinance reads like the inspectors will be performing a drug bust or a raid on a whorehouse for God sake.
Many practitioners work alone out of their homes, or a small office. When a client is getting a massage, it’s a time to be quiet, light candles, burn incense, but certainly not have someone banging on the door demanding entry under penalty of law. Excuse me sir, while I find out who is that unannounced officer knocking at my door...
Pleeeese, Kathy, Roger, and the rest of the township committee, calm down, relax, take a deep breath, get a massage, and give everyone in town a break!!
Listen, the massage business has probably been around longer than the other "Oldest Profession in the World". Whores are whores, and Massage practitioners are mostly gentle, caring, loving people, who by most standards will never get rich or famous from the needed services they provide us. They are not about bringing Happy Endings, but about bringing relaxation, happiness, and physical plus mental well being to those of us who need it.
IMHO, the township should enforce an ordinance that forbids prostitution and child abuse, and lay the hell off the Massage profession!
|
fredprofeta
Citizen
Username: Fredprofeta
Post Number: 98
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Monday, October 10, 2005 - 6:06 pm: | |
Tom and Art:
In my opinion, you are being premature. Don't assume that because an ordinance has been drafted it will be introduced in that form; or, if it is, that everyone on the TC will be for it. We are not monolithic.
As far as I am concerned, the goal here is to prevent prostitution. Anything superfluous to that purpose is not necessary. I'm sure this will be the subject of healthy debate on the TC. And there is more information to be gathered from the professionals. |
sbenois
Supporter
Username: Sbenois
Post Number: 13966
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Monday, October 10, 2005 - 6:15 pm: | |
Dearest Frederico,
Are you suggesting that Arturo and Tom are suffering from premature speculation related to a prostitution ordinance?
You might want to look into that one a little more. |
fredprofeta
Citizen
Username: Fredprofeta
Post Number: 100
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Monday, October 10, 2005 - 6:31 pm: | |
You look into it S. The thought of that makes me a little nauseous. |
sbenois
Supporter
Username: Sbenois
Post Number: 13967
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Monday, October 10, 2005 - 6:31 pm: | |
 |
greenetree
Supporter
Username: Greenetree
Post Number: 5519
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, October 10, 2005 - 6:37 pm: | |
Hey! I know! What if massages were restricted to, say, B&Bs? |
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 3711
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, October 10, 2005 - 6:56 pm: | |
This sounds like a good ordinance to have on the books -- the police are not going to bother with legitimate places, the ordinance is there for anything shady that opens up (remember the porn shop on Springfield?) and the neighbors start to get rightfully suspicous.
If a "house of ill repute" were to open in your neighborhood under the guise of a massage parlor, you'd be happy to know that there was a way for the township to quickly address the problem. |
ajc
Citizen
Username: Ajc
Post Number: 4190
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Monday, October 10, 2005 - 7:32 pm: | |
"If a "house of ill repute" were to open in your neighborhood under the guise of a massage parlor, you'd be happy to know that there was a way for the township to quickly address the problem."
Come on Tom! Pleeeease!! We don't need an ordinance to call the police and report the presence of a whorehouse in town. It wouldn't matter if it were a massage parlor, a bed and breakfast, or just someone’s private home. And, BTW, we certainly didn't need an ordinance to check out the problem on the Avenue at the Tanning Salon.
Listen, whores are like rats, they can show up anywhere at anytime. They sure don't need a Massage business in an office or private home. It never matters what type of business they operate from, and FWIW, the overwhelming majority of all prostitution takes place in someone’s car on a dark street in Anytown, Anyplace, USA.
BTW "S", if you're really interested, I'll give you something to look into if you want to talk about premature speculation!  |
ajc
Citizen
Username: Ajc
Post Number: 4191
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Monday, October 10, 2005 - 8:04 pm: | |
"As far as I am concerned, the goal here is to prevent prostitution."
...thanks Fred, and I’m sure most of us will agree, but prostitution is not going away just because the town decides to regulate one type of business in town. I’m really still incomplete in my feelings about this, so please indulge me a little while longer.
I’m sure as you say, there will be a fair amount of discussion on the matter, however, like good prosecutors, the committee needs to protect the innocent and punish the criminals.
Our good business people in our community should never be treated like criminals, and this ordinance, as well intended as it may be, implies that the Massage profession is more susceptible to prostitution then say a bed and breakfast, a nail or beauty salon, or the back room of any other legitimate business in our entire town.
This ordinance is inappropriate, unnecessary, and degrading to our business community at large. I don’t mean to offend anyone, but sometimes we’ll find the road to hell is paved with good intentions. IMHO, this ordinance creates a hell for all good people concerned. That’s it for me, for now... |
yabbadabbadoo
Citizen
Username: Yabbadabbadoo
Post Number: 258
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 10, 2005 - 8:29 pm: | |
Art, A simple question with no hidden meanings, implications or otherwise....
Does Libby's salon offer massages and would it be subject to the proposed ordinance?
FF |
ajc
Citizen
Username: Ajc
Post Number: 4194
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Monday, October 10, 2005 - 9:54 pm: | |
...yes it does, and given my rant about it, it's a legitimate question Yabbadoo.
In all fairness to Nate, who is their Massage therapist, I should add that 99% of his practice is performed outside of the salon. To the best of my knowledge, Nate may still come to the salon on rare occasions to give chair massages, which as you know are not a part of this pending ordinance.
As long as you’re asking, I should also add that Libby became friends with Nate and his wife, and when she moved to her present location, offered to give him space to use rent-free. Being able to advertise his services, and on occasions do a message, including her own once or twice a week, is not only helpful to Nate but can be accommodating to the clients.
This ordinance would make it impossible for their business relationship to continue, as the annual salon fee alone would be prohibitive. That being said, I have no personal interest in Libby’s businesses, and she has none with mine.
For the record, my issue with this ordinance is as I stated. I feel it is inappropriate, unnecessary, and an insult to our business community at large. Like the parking issue on Elmwood Avenue, that I’m sure you remember well, there are more than sufficient ordinances on the books to handle any public nuisance issues should they arise.
Knowing who you are, I hope that answers your questions? If not please feel free to continue the dialog.
Now, turn-around should be fair play. Are you a player, or not? I didn’t suggest your inquiry was, as you say, with any hidden meanings, implications, or otherwise. I'm sure that may not be so with everyone who knows Libby is my wife. Nonetheless, I'm sure you recognized the cute little whorehouse comments about a bed and breakfast in connection to my comments about this ordinance.
Listen friend, and regardless of some of your past note writing antics, I still would like to speak well of you and your past accomplishments within our community. Therefore, I feel I also deserve an equal response to my questions of you. Trust me, I also have no hidden meaning, implications, or anything otherwise in mind....
So, what’s your personal interest in this ordinance? Is it with my strong opposition to it, or is it with the ordinance itself. Lastly, if you were a voting member of the township committee, would you support this ordinance, and if so why? |
yabbadabbadoo
Citizen
Username: Yabbadabbadoo
Post Number: 259
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 10, 2005 - 10:25 pm: | |
I haven't read the proposed ordinance, Art, and have no opinion one way or the other. I was just curious. Given your obvious opposition, I just wondered if you might have a vested interest (like the Elmwood Ave parking issue). Nothing personal. A player? I live here, does that count?
FF |
ajc
Citizen
Username: Ajc
Post Number: 4196
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Monday, October 10, 2005 - 10:59 pm: | |
You know what they say about curiosity, Yabadoo.
Given you live here, your obvious curiosity, and the fact you know how much I love to play, I just wonder if you still have a vested interest in our community, (like the Elmwood Ave parking issue) such that you would be willing to read the proposed ordinance so you can form an opinion one way or the other?
As a fellow player, and given that neither of us has anything personal at stake, can the many massage therapist who may be following this thread “count” on your educated response at some future date? I’m sure you know where to find a copy of the ordinance, and if not I’ll be happy to get you one.
TTT
|
yabbadabbadoo
Citizen
Username: Yabbadabbadoo
Post Number: 260
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 10, 2005 - 11:05 pm: | |
Post it please. I'll read it and get back to you.
FF |
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 3712
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, October 10, 2005 - 11:18 pm: | |
Quote:We don't need an ordinance to call the police and report the presence of a whorehouse in town.
Of course we don't. But we do need an ordinance in order for the police to actually do something about it. Just like annoying false car alarms and barking dogs, you are more than welcome to call the police, who will politely tell you there's nothing they can do about it. |
ajc
Citizen
Username: Ajc
Post Number: 4198
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Monday, October 10, 2005 - 11:19 pm: | |
It's to long (9 pages) for me to type, so if it's not in the towns web site, I'm sure you can pick a copy up at Town Hall...
Take your time Yabadoo. Fred said he's sure this will be the subject of healthy debate on the TC. And there is more information to be gathered from the professionals. |
ajc
Citizen
Username: Ajc
Post Number: 4199
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Monday, October 10, 2005 - 11:33 pm: | |
Tom,
False car alarms and barking dogs are one thing, a whorehouse in our town is not the same… The police responded on the Avenue, they’d do the same should anyone report a similar situation anywhere else.
BTW, even the barking dog owners wind up in court.
|
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 9962
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 10, 2005 - 11:46 pm: | |
I started this thread because Art mentioned the matter on another thread. I wanted interested people to find this one, because they wouldn't, buried in the other one.
tom, prostitution is already against the law. The police don't need a township ordinance to go after prostitution, does it?
|
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 9963
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 10, 2005 - 11:56 pm: | |
Now my wife has corrected me. Massage is more susceptible to prostitution than other businesses. And the police's hands are tied unless there is some ordinance. That's why it took a long time to get the Sunflower Spa shut down.
It's just a matter of getting ithe ordinance right. And Kathy and the bodyworkers here in town will get it right.
And for full disclosure, my wife is a body worker, too. She has the NY state license in massage therapy and is also a registered polarity practitioner.
The ordinance will cover all massages, including chair massage. It will cover clothed or unclothed, as well as somatic work.
|
ajc
Citizen
Username: Ajc
Post Number: 4200
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 11, 2005 - 1:23 am: | |
I see your wife has corrected you, now who's going to correct her? I guess I'll give it a go Tom...
Based on your unsubstantiated post I’ll respond in kind. Massage therapists are not any more susceptible to prostitution than employees at a hotel, motel, or bed and breakfast are. IMHO, to suggest otherwise is degrading and humiliating to all practitioners and their families.
Given similar circumstances, we could also say that pharmacists are more susceptible to being drug attics, and as such should be drug tested "unannounced" at their business or home. I’m sure we all can give other examples of how ridiculous this ordinance is.
FWIW, this ordinance will not protect residents from prostitution anymore than the speed limit signs on the Parkway will stop speeders from breaking the law. Furthermore, anyone in our community interested in engaging in any form of prostitution is not going to give a damn about a stupid little town ordinance.
As for the police, their hands are not tied without a massage ordinance anymore than they would without any other ordinance already on the books. From what I remember, I don't believe it took a long time to get the Sunflower Spa shut down. And, after reading this ordinance, I didn’t see anything that would have reduced the time either.
There’s no way anyone can get this ordinance right. Lets begin with you as a member of the committee of bodyworkers. You told your husband:
"The ordinance will cover all massages, including chair massage."
Wrong! Carol, on page one (1) under, Massage Ordinance, it clearly states, "and shall not include massage of the scalp, hands or feet by a hair or nail salon, or chair massage of arms, neck and shoulders in an open room where other business is conducted."
Listen, I don’t have any personal interest in this ordinance, and either does my wife. That being said, if this is all Kathy and the so-called bodyworkers here in town care about their image and profession, that they need an ordinance to regulate them from their own from engaging in prostitution, than go for it.
|
greenetree
Supporter
Username: Greenetree
Post Number: 5520
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 11, 2005 - 6:33 am: | |
Art - you never fail to amaze me. Where do you get off (.... never mind....) telling Carol what she knows about her profession?
Has it ever occurred to you that if you admitted that there actually other people in this world who know more than you about something or - gulp - actually might be right, that you'd get more support on some of your crusades?
It's never that people have different opinions or more knowledge; it's that they are always wrong. |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 9966
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 11, 2005 - 6:47 am: | |
It's OK, greenetree. We will eventually converge.
Art, do you know the Sunflower Spa storyline?
Anyway, Carol was at the TC meeting a few months ago and was one of the vocal people against the then-current wording. She couldn't make it this last time. She and many other bodyworkers are working towards a reasonable ordinance. I don't know any of them who are against an ordinance.
It sounds odd to hear that you have no interest in your wife's business. Even if your finances are separate, if she becomes richer or poorer, it will affect you somehow or another.
|
ajc
Citizen
Username: Ajc
Post Number: 4203
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 11, 2005 - 11:59 am: | |
Greene - Where do I get off? I'll tell you plain and simple...
I post for my own entertainment and pleasure, and I love mixing it up with "anyone" willing to engage me. This morning it looks like it’s you and Tom!
So, tell me what gives YOU the right to tell me off? Have I ever criticized you? I don’t always agree with your comments. I’ve been reading about your rants, your ups and downs, about all your opinions for years, and it suddenly occurs to me that you (5520 posts) and Tom (9966 posts) are among the few in the world who have more to say about everything than me. BTW, most people I know don’t measure their support for me by what I have to say on-line, but more by who I am and what I do off-line…
For the record, I’m not telling Carol, or for that matter any of the bodyworkers what to do. If they want to support more regulation for themselves, that’s their choice. As for me, I oppose this ordinance for the reasons I stated. What’s the matter with me expressing my opinion about “something”, while you jump in the middle of it and start criticizing ME personally? Do you get the difference? You didn’t speak in favor of the ordinance, all you did was attack me and defend Tom and Carol.
As for Tom and Carol, I consider them friends, but I still stand by what I said. Carol told Tom the ordinance included “Chair Massages”, and what Carol said was WRONG! The ordinance excludes Chair Massages. That’s no big deal. I’ve never had a problem apologizing when I make a mistake, and believe it or not, it occurs to me all the time that other people in this world know more than me.
Tom, I only know what I remember about the Sunflower Spa storyline… It happened, it was discovered, and it was resolved without an ordinance.
I also know that ordinances written world wide to stop prostitution have never worked, and never will. And lastly, I know that this ordinance is overkill, unnecessary, and IMHO, insulting to "ANY" businesses in our community that has to be singled out as one that should be looked upon as suspect... (excuse me folks, I'm in a whores business.) Hey, I always thought the biggest whores in the world were lawyers, car salesman, and the repo man!!!
And, FWIW, I’m not buying into any story that this ordinance will make the practitioners feel more professional, or make the public more safe by going to a town licensed Massage Business. The individual practitioners, through accredited schools, and personal achievement set their standards of professionalism.
Also, if and when the state finally decides to license their profession, not unlike other professionals dealing with the public, they will then also have that license to hang on their wall as well. One more thing, the number one problem with ALL our ordinances in town is enforcement! Pleeeese, lets just add another thing to the hundreds of unenforced regulations we're dealing with.
BTW Tom, my wife and I didn’t marry for richer or poor; we married for love. She has her business interests, and I have mine. Trust me when I tell you, it’s wise not to mix business with pleasure...
TTT
|
fredprofeta
Citizen
Username: Fredprofeta
Post Number: 101
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 11, 2005 - 3:33 pm: | |
IMHO, an ordinance of some sort is needed. In the massage business, it does not take much of an "adjustment" for legitimate therapy to become prostitution if the body worker and the recipient are willing. Massage therapists tell me they are upset by the amount of prostitution masquerading as legitimate treatment. And they are offended by the insinuation from some that their profession is "tainted" because of this factual correlation.
Without a specific ordinance, it is difficult to shut down an establisment where prositution is being practiced. The Sunflower Spa provides a good example. The authorities had good reason to suspect, for a long period of time, that prostitution was happening there. And then the police did obtain a guilty plea by one woman employee. But under the law, that one case was insufficient to close the Spa as a brothel, because the argument could always be made that the woman in question had made a private deal with her client.
The Spa closed because I was able to get together with the cooperative landlord and a lease violation was found that had nothing to do with prostitution. The tenant was evicted on the basis of that violation alone. Many more convictions of individuals would have been necessary to legally infer that the place was operating as a brothel.
The ordinance under review would solve that problem. At its core, the ordinance requires all massage workers and massage businesses to have permits. Defined acts of bodily contact are specifically prohibited. If any of these prohibitions are violated, the permit of the individual involved AND the business which employed him/her can be revoked. Thus, in an appropriate case, the business can be effectively shut down based on the detection of one illegal act.
There is more to the ordinance which relates to hygiene and inspections, and this is the part which will be the subject of the most vigorous debate on the TC. But as to the core purpose of the ordinance, I am for it until someone convinces me otherwise. |
Bob K
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 9496
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 11, 2005 - 3:42 pm: | |
Assuming that as a community we don't feel that the Sun Flower Spa was an isolated incident, the ordinance makes sense. However, I think the $500 fee is probably excessive, especially for people such as Tom's wife and Libby's friend who basically run one person, totally on the up and up, businesses. |
fredprofeta
Citizen
Username: Fredprofeta
Post Number: 102
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 11, 2005 - 3:45 pm: | |
I think you're right Bob K. |
ajc
Citizen
Username: Ajc
Post Number: 4211
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 11, 2005 - 4:36 pm: | |
“Thus, in an appropriate case, the business can be effectively shut down based on the detection of “one” illegal act.”
Now that was easy Fred… thanks for staying with this. Given your thoughtful and clear explanation of the facts, I can better understand the value in having this ordinance in place. However, it’s still unfortunate the committee has to go this route, are we sure there’s no better way?
Given that prostitution is clearly an illegal act, capable of raising it’s ugly head anywhere, anytime; isn’t there any sort of umbrella ordinance that would cover this specific issue of prostitution for all homes and businesses in town? To quote you in an earlier post, you said: “As far as I am concerned, the goal here is to prevent prostitution. Anything superfluous to that purpose is not necessary.” Say Amen, Amen!
I’m willing to agree there is a need, but, IMHO, I don’t see a need to rush. I feel more time may be helpful to find another way to attack prostitution everywhere in our town, not just in the Massage Business. If everyone is sure there is none, than I see where you have no other choice but to move forward. You can bet I’ll be thinking about this…
As to Bobk’s last comment, I would have to agree the fees are steep, and in some cases would be probable cause for some practitioners to take their practice out of town. This would not be good for residents and/or for peripheral services of other businesses, like the hair and nail businesses that offer practitioners a place to provide their services. Of course like all other things, I understand well the cost to do business.
|
Joan
Supporter
Username: Joancrystal
Post Number: 6470
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 11, 2005 - 4:38 pm: | |
Fred:
Have ordinances such as the one currently under consideration for massage businesses been enacted in other towns and if so do you know whether actions to close a massage business based solely on the violation of said ordinance stood up to court challenge? |
ajc
Citizen
Username: Ajc
Post Number: 4212
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 11, 2005 - 4:47 pm: | |
Joan, it's about time you put in your two cents. I was beginning to think this whole damn thread was empty and meaningless...
BTW, good question.
TTT |
fredprofeta
Citizen
Username: Fredprofeta
Post Number: 103
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 11, 2005 - 5:12 pm: | |
Art and Joan:
The key here is the license or permit. When the activity in question can be licensed (i.e., it cannot be conducted in the absence of a license), then the town is able to revoke the license (and end the business) where one of the conditions of its grant is violated. I have not done legal research on the full scope of activities that can be licensed, but I am confident that anything related to health and treatment falls within that category.
So, Joan, to answer your specific question, I do not know of specific cases in other towns, but I see no reason why one violation of a license condition is not sufficient to allow its revocation. However, West Orange has a similar ordinance, and we should check on their experience in order to inform our debate.
And Art, the need to have an activity that can be licensed explains why we can never prevent all prostitution in the town. Prostitution can easily occur without any masquerading as legitimate activity, and here there would be no permits to revoke. But requiring permits for massage therapy does serve the additional beneficial purpose of getting bad actors out of a legitimate and important activity, thus protecting the good reputation of Maplewood's massage therapists. |
Joan
Supporter
Username: Joancrystal
Post Number: 6473
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 11, 2005 - 5:17 pm: | |
Fred:
Thanks for the quick and informative response. It will be interesting to see what experience West Orange has had with their ordinance, which I assume is similar to the one being proposed for Maplewood. |
Pizzaz
Supporter
Username: Pizzaz
Post Number: 2596
Registered: 11-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 11, 2005 - 5:23 pm: | |
Off topic but very important.
Fred:
What is your opinion on shared services between SO/MA. Some in the SO community think we should step beyond and merge the two municipalities. As I understand, the area of consideration at this point is limited to Health and Recreation. I find this to be inadequate.
Any thoughts or is this a political football?
Thanks and Good Luck!
|
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 9995
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 11, 2005 - 5:36 pm: | |
Pizzaz, that sounds like a topic for another thread.
|
Pizzaz
Supporter
Username: Pizzaz
Post Number: 2597
Registered: 11-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 11, 2005 - 5:38 pm: | |
I know, but it isn't that often I see Fred post. |
fredprofeta
Citizen
Username: Fredprofeta
Post Number: 104
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 11, 2005 - 5:45 pm: | |
Pizzaz:
I'd be happy to provide you with some thoughts on the topic of shared services between M and SO. But if I posted them here we would be into major "thread drift." Care to start another thread? |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 10002
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 11, 2005 - 5:58 pm: | |
Please discuss merging services in this thread. I wouldn't want it to live in the South Orange or Maplewood section, so I put it in the Politics section.
|
Just The Aunt
Supporter
Username: Auntof13
Post Number: 2675
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 12, 2005 - 8:16 pm: | |
Do you need to be licensed to run a massage business? If you need a license to cut hair, I'm guessing you need one to give a massage. If someone has a massage license, why would they risk it by doing something illegal?
|
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page