Does Objectification Equal Sexism?

An interesting business was recently under discussion on Atheist Nexus and by our good friend The Nerd.  That business is a small coffee shop, the Java Divas.  Seriously, check out their site.  Attractive women selling coffee in skimpy, suggestive costumes.  The coffee even comes in large/medium/small cups identified by bra sizes.  Another interesting tidbit - the owner and operator/fellow scantily-clad server is also a woman.

So . . . thoughts?  Much conversation at the above-mentioned internet places has already revolved around the idea of objectification not being morally/socially good or bad in and of itself.  Clearly, I sometimes objectify Ziztur, and she sometimes objectifies me.  This clearly has no inherent sexism, for a large number of reasons.

The principle difference, pointed out several times already, is that the suggestively-clad women at Java Divas have nothing more than a financial relationship with the customers (presumably, at least in the vast majority of cases).  There is at least a possible element of the women in question being resigned, by their financial situation, to working that job under these conditions.

My question, not to sugar-coat it too much, but:  So the hell what?

I'm reminded of this incident (among others in other firefighting departments around the world) in which a woman or women came short of physical fitness requirements for the job the were doing or applying for.  This particular case dealt with a distance run, and I've seen other cases dealing primarily with the immense upper-body strength required to be a firefighter.  Basically, in a nutshell, by any reasonable standard, you have to be an utter hardass to be a firefighter.

Now, I'm certainly not going to say that gender bias and discrimination have never been a factor in firefighting; that would just be spectacularly ignorant.  However, it's obvious to most people that these physical fitness standards are for the safety of the firefighters themselves and the safety of the public that they serve, and are not inherently gender-biased.

My question is this:  How are the women at Java Divas, or any similar establishment, being objectified for their physical appearance any more than firefighters are being objectified for their physical strength?  For that matter, why does the criteria have to be physical?  If someone happens to have knowledge and/or experience of, for example, the insurance business, or of Occupational Therapy, and are hired for a job on that criteria, how is their employment not "objectifying" them on the basis of that knowledge?

So, what does it say about someone's attitude towards women, their attitude towards sex, or their attitude towards what they think is women's attitude towards sex (try saying that ten times fast . . .) when they basically claim that women aren't capable of choosing for themselves what to do with their potential physical attractiveness?  Do these folks really worry about whether, to use just one example, firefighters (who after all are in much more physical danger on the job than baristas) are being exploited for their body strength, or are they basically, in effect, thinking, "Ah, well, they're men; of course they can make a mature decision about their own employment."?

Need I even mention that whatever "objectification" of the Java Divas employees that's occurring pales in comparison to a stripper, porn star, or prostitute?  I think it's obvious that an almost puritan or religious restriction on what women can and can't do with their bodies is the more sexist attitude, not only because of it's anti-sex overtones, but also because of it's strong implication that those mentally weak wimminfolk just don't have the emotional maturity to deal with people looking at their bodies.

What do you guys think?