The CA9 denies rehearing en banc a panel opinion upholding Washington’s anti discrimination law against a woman-only spa service over free speech/exercise claims. A whopping 28 judge statement respecting denial goes head on against Judge VanDyke’s choice dissent (to say the least).
Who controls this in five years?
Judge McKeown, joined by 27 Judges: Rebuked Judge VanDyke’s dissent for using "vulgar barroom talk." She wrote that using phrases like "swinging dicks" makes the court sound like "juveniles" and demeans the dignity of the judicial system.
Judge McKeown, joined by 6 Judges: Defended the decision not to rehear the case. She argued that standard exemptions for "private clubs" in civil rights laws don't prove the state is being unfair to religion.
Judge Owens, joined by Forrest: Issued a one-sentence response to the controversy, simply stating: "Regarding the dissenting opinion of Judge VanDyke: We are better than this."
Judge VanDyke, dissenting : Used blunt, graphic language to argue that "woke regulators" are forcing a "visual assault" on nude women and girls. He claimed the law is unconstitutional because it exempts secular private clubs but punishes religious businesses.
Judge Tung, dissenting, joined by Nelson, Bumatay, VanDyke: Argued that the law fails the neutrality test. He claimed that because Washington allows some secular groups to exclude people, it cannot legally deny that same right to a religious spa.
Judge Collins, dissenting: Argued the spa isn't discriminating against "identity" at all. Since they admit trans women who have had surgery, he believes the policy is strictly about genitalia and privacy, which he says shouldn't trigger a discrimination claim.
Who controls this in five years?
Judge McKeown, joined by 27 Judges: Rebuked Judge VanDyke’s dissent for using "vulgar barroom talk." She wrote that using phrases like "swinging dicks" makes the court sound like "juveniles" and demeans the dignity of the judicial system.
Judge McKeown, joined by 6 Judges: Defended the decision not to rehear the case. She argued that standard exemptions for "private clubs" in civil rights laws don't prove the state is being unfair to religion.
Judge Owens, joined by Forrest: Issued a one-sentence response to the controversy, simply stating: "Regarding the dissenting opinion of Judge VanDyke: We are better than this."
Judge VanDyke, dissenting : Used blunt, graphic language to argue that "woke regulators" are forcing a "visual assault" on nude women and girls. He claimed the law is unconstitutional because it exempts secular private clubs but punishes religious businesses.
Judge Tung, dissenting, joined by Nelson, Bumatay, VanDyke: Argued that the law fails the neutrality test. He claimed that because Washington allows some secular groups to exclude people, it cannot legally deny that same right to a religious spa.
Judge Collins, dissenting: Argued the spa isn't discriminating against "identity" at all. Since they admit trans women who have had surgery, he believes the policy is strictly about genitalia and privacy, which he says shouldn't trigger a discrimination claim.
The CA9 denies rehearing en banc a panel opinion upholding Washington’s anti discrimination law against a woman-only spa service over free speech/exercise claims. A whopping 28 judge statement respecting denial goes head on against Judge VanDyke’s choice dissent (to say the least).
Who controls this in five years?
Judge McKeown, joined by 27 Judges: Rebuked Judge VanDyke’s dissent for using "vulgar barroom talk." She wrote that using phrases like "swinging dicks" makes the court sound like "juveniles" and demeans the dignity of the judicial system.
Judge McKeown, joined by 6 Judges: Defended the decision not to rehear the case. She argued that standard exemptions for "private clubs" in civil rights laws don't prove the state is being unfair to religion.
Judge Owens, joined by Forrest: Issued a one-sentence response to the controversy, simply stating: "Regarding the dissenting opinion of Judge VanDyke: We are better than this."
Judge VanDyke, dissenting : Used blunt, graphic language to argue that "woke regulators" are forcing a "visual assault" on nude women and girls. He claimed the law is unconstitutional because it exempts secular private clubs but punishes religious businesses.
Judge Tung, dissenting, joined by Nelson, Bumatay, VanDyke: Argued that the law fails the neutrality test. He claimed that because Washington allows some secular groups to exclude people, it cannot legally deny that same right to a religious spa.
Judge Collins, dissenting: Argued the spa isn't discriminating against "identity" at all. Since they admit trans women who have had surgery, he believes the policy is strictly about genitalia and privacy, which he says shouldn't trigger a discrimination claim.
