CT lawyer: Good for you, bu this is an indoor pool used year round. Most people don’t even want their own pool for safety reasons.
ZD: perhaps, but until and IF that happens, don’t you think CONTINUING to accommodate women is a lot simpler and cheaper. Why should we be scared off by a few nay-sayers, which most likely will always find something to gripe about? Why shouldn’t we benefit a little from our tax dollars? For the most part we don’t use public schools or the cultural and recreational programs funded by the city, what’s the harm in having our voices heard for a change? Especially since this assertion that it violates the separation of church and state is hog-wash since it can benefit all – both religious and secular women. Sometimes men may be inconvenienced, sometimes children, sometimes adults etc. (they also have kid specific and adult specific hours) but why is the solution to therefore exclude religious women AT ALL TIMES? I know they are not barred by the city, but because of their beliefs practically speaking they will be excluded if their hours are cancelled.