31
A Christian spa claimed it had the right to discriminate against trans women. The court disagreed.
(www.lgbtqnation.com)
this post was submitted on 15 Jun 2025
31 points (100.0% liked)
Legal News
511 readers
100 users here now
International and local legal news.
Basic rules
1. English only
Title and associated content has to be in English.
2. Sensitive topics need NSFW flag
Some cases involve sensitive topics. Use common sense and if you think that the content might trigger someone, post it under NSFW flag.
3. Instance rules apply
All lemmy.zip instance rules listed in the sidebar will be enforced.
Icon attribution | Banner attribution
If someone is interested in moderating this community, message @[email protected].
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I wonder what those avenues might be. This looks like a relatively extreme case, with a nude spa being required to allow a person with a penis into the women's area, but I still can't think of how that requirement might be unconstitutional.
Perhaps to make the division specifically on secondary sex characteristics? Like, a "with penis" and "without penis" side?
It says in the article they were fine with people who had had bottom surgery using the women's side. And I'm not sure if that would run afoul of any anti discrimination laws? Idk, it's a weird case.
How about a "can't differentiate between sex and nudity" side and a "just wanna get our sweat on" side?
To be fair, that would require 3 sides, as you need to split the "can't differentiate between sex and nudity" side by gender still.