this post was submitted on 15 Jun 2025
31 points (100.0% liked)

Legal News

499 readers
36 users here now

International and local legal news.


Basic rules

1. English onlyTitle and associated content has to be in English.
2. Sensitive topics need NSFW flagSome 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 applyAll lemmy.zip instance rules listed in the sidebar will be enforced.


Icon attribution | Banner attribution


If someone is interested in moderating this community, message @brikox@lemmy.zip.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 4 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

“We are not unmindful of the concerns and beliefs raised by the Spa,” wrote Judge M. Margaret McKeown for the 2–1 majority. “Indeed, the Spa may have other avenues to challenge the enforcement action. But whatever recourse it may have, that relief cannot come from the First Amendment.”

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.

[–] testfactor@lemmy.world 5 points 2 days ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Zorque@lemmy.world 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

How about a "can't differentiate between sex and nudity" side and a "just wanna get our sweat on" side?

[–] testfactor@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago

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.