@Nancylovesthecock
Yes it is. If the person providing the personal service has a reason for not wanting to. No person is obliged to touch another in ANY CAPACITY for ANY REASON.
By that logic a nightclub can be whites-only because the bouncers all refuse to touch black potential customers, and if they can't be searched they can't come in. I disagree completely.
I also have big reservation about religious exemptions. For one, if you have religious objections, then find a job compatible with your religion. For two, your religion doesn't trump mine, and my religion - gnotism - obliges me to spit in the face of anyone who claims that lesbians can have penises. And I don't believe that deluded fools should be subject to disgusting and illegal behaviour just because my religion - which is somewhat nasty in some respects, I don't agree with all of it - tells me I should do disgusting and illegal things to deluded misogynist homophobes.
In my view it is perfectly reasonable to have single sex spaces and services.
[Not relevant to the case in question] In my view if people have a religious objection to touching men, they should not be working in a job offering a touch based service to everyone. The right of someone not to be discriminated against when they respond to a company offering mixed services trumps the right of a worker to have a job that they can't do without discriminating.
To be clear - either company should offer services to all and employ the right people, or the company should offer sex-based services and then they are able to employ people who will only touch women. It seems this company did the latter.