Why are bathhouses allowed to operate?

You raise a good point, but you're overlooking the fact that closing bathhouses wouldn't make ANY dent in the spread of STDs.  That's a fact you can't deny.  The people who engage in anonymous unsafe sex in bathhouses do so in their own homes, other people's homes...hotel rooms, at sex parties, at drug fests, in bathrooms and in alleys and woods.  They just do.

SO, what you're proposing is that government should involve itself in shutting down a business in order to accomplish...what, exactly?  Again, it wouldn't dent STD transmission, so there's no benefit in terms of public policy.  Without that justification, your rationale for opposition is reduced to simply the fact that "these businesses are unsavory".  They are.  (And their owners are probably not paragons of virtue, either.  They're likely to be about as civic-minded as the billionaires who sell cigarettes.)

But are we always wise when we try to shutter businesses that are unsavory?  Prostitution and gambling are unsavory.  Coca leaf and poppy sap products are unsavory.  Alcoholism is unsavory and most of the public places one finds alcoholics are unsavory.  I'd argue tobacco is unsavory.  I'd even entertain the idea that adding cane, beet, and corn sugar to everything in order to sell more could be unsavory.  (For that matter, there would be those who'd argue gas stations are unsavory!)  We should consider the cost and success of the things we've tried in the past on ALL of these unsavory things, before we go chasing after bathhouses.

And let's not forget that, once we agree on how to act against unsavory businesses, that there will inevitably be those who insist that OTHER businesses are "unsavory" too, because they don't like the seller, the customers, or the product.  A restaurant that stays open late, or that sells pungent food, or that attracts immigrants, or youths, or people of a different faith than its neighbors...that sort of thing.  Instantly, there's a line-drawing problem, you see?

Bathhouses and drinking establishments catering to LGBT people are actually the least of our concerns, and I don't see any VALID rationale to chase after any such things.  There are broader concerns.

Why are Swinger clubs allowed to operate?

I have nothing against heterosexuality. But swinger clubs encourage sex with total strangers and group sex in DARK ROOMS that spread STDs and pregnancies.

They may provide free condoms. But anal and vaginal sex are not the only medium of transmission. HIV is not the only disease. One of my friends got a severe prostate infection after receiving oral sex in a swinger club last year. I am sure thousands of STD transmissions and pregnancies happening in sex clubs and other swinger clubs every day.

We can’t stop people from having sex in their own homes. But swinger clubs are businesses that profit from the spread of STDs and pregnancy. And in countries with free public healthcare, taxpayers have to foot the bill.

I am not against heterosexuality. But why are businesses allowed to profit from this public health crisis?

A lot of "straight" men use them. To get sex from other men on the side. The wife or gf is always the last to know. 

You are spreading lies!

What’s alternative? Cruising in parks and restrooms? Getting arrested in public for lewd activity? The baths provide condoms and usually call in persons for hiv testing a certain day of the week or month. The one thing baths could do better is to enforce condom use. But even despite that - the sex gets all contained in one place. People can be banned. And a lot of people want this service. Be careful what you asking for because baths form a necessary function and they actually help society. It wouldn’t be there if there was not a need.

You seem to know an awful lot about these bathhouses, you sure you haven't been to them?

We'll close the bathhouse and they will congregate elsewhere. That's akin to complaining about a political official lying. That's life, deal with it. Whining about it like a wounded dog only goes to show your prejudice.

We can't stop people from having sex in their own homes even though you would want to. Too phucking bad the world can't live by your rules. OMG! There's a gay person going into the front of that restaurant. Hurry up and tell them to go to the back you a$$h0|e.

Bath houses are not "profiting" from the spread of STDs.  They don't make any money off of someone's getting an STD. They make money off of other things. The STDs are a potential byproduct from which they do not actually profit.

Learn to write English properly.

Any place, including a brothel offering women to male clients, can be a hotbed of STD transmission.  In bathhouses, the patrons are adults, and they can decide whether to take the risk, as in many things in life. The state cannot police that when money is not changing hands in return for sex, when prostitution is not involved.

Adults get to make their own decisions about these things.  I'm sorry your friend ended up with a severe infection, but he had to know that he was engaging in risky behavior.  You can't run his life or anyone else's.  It's not your place or privilege.

Plenty of people have been injured engaging in, say, extreme sports or similar activities.  The companies that offer these experiences take safety precautions, but they also require customers to sign waivers releasing them from liability, because after all, the customers have made the decision to engage in these sports. They have to assume responsibility for the risks THEY have decided to take.

Do you think those companies should be shut down by the state?

You seem well-informed about what goes on in baths houses. People who post stuff claiming they have nothing against homosexuality invariably do. Time to get out of the closet.