Ninth circuit judge says restricting female spa to "biological

We support our Publishers and Content Creators. You can view this story on their website by CLICKING HERE.

While Trump ran on a platform of protecting women from creepy men in wigs invading their most personal spaces, it’s looking to be an uphill battle when you’ve got geniuses like Mary Margaret McKeown (a Clinton appointee) in the second highest ranks of the judicial branch.

Just listen to her reasoning here:

NMcKeown said. ‘And you can’t have “white people only” come into my restaurant, and then you say, “Well, no, we have a religious, spiritual nature to our restaurant, and when you get there, we serve you special food.” This seems quite different.’

Olympus Spa was there appealing this decision from a lower court.

The right response to McKeown’s inquiry is that it is correct to say that race and sex are inherent, immutable traits, which the law says cannot be discriminated against. That is the very definition of what makes them protected categories.

If we agree that sex is an inherent, protected trait, then a traditional reading of all sexual protection laws suggest an appropriate separation of the two biological sexes in public and private venues, especially involving nudity.

Instead of something logical like that with the thousands of case laws readily available, the lawyer goes down some weird trail about “being welcome” that the judge immediately shuts down as being the nonsense it is.

Some reactions:

Will this case make it to the Supreme Court?