Dems in Washington State pass a LAW ordering men can use women's locker rooms

Wokie Democrats have turned Washington state into a Dem-ruled shithole.

Most people intuitively dislike discriminatory rules.  So "non-discrimination" has become an unquestioned good thing, eh?  And Democrats have made that an art form:  In 2021 the Democrat shitheads who rule the legislature rammed through a law ordering all businesses and school locker rooms that had previously been for women to allow males claiming to be women to use those facilities, nude.

Within months a tranny--Haven Wilvitch--wailed to the wokies at the state's Human Rights Commission, demanding that the state order two spas--owned by Korean Christians, explicitly for women only--to admit him.  The state lackeys threatened to prosecute the owner for violating the Democrats' new anti-sex-discrimination law--newly expanded to include "sexual orientation."

Faced with the threat of endless fines and legal fees, the spa owners complied.

The spas soon began losing their female customers, who were understandably put off by men seeing them undressed--let alone the tranny also being nude.  So in 2022 the owners of the spas sued the state, claiming the law ORDERING them to allow nude men claiming to be women into their women-only spa was unconstitutional.

The owner claimed the settlement violated his first amendment rights to free speech and religion.  He claimed his spa had lost business after some patrons had seen "male genitals" and no longer felt safe.  He also said allowing trans-identifying men at his establishment violated his Christian beliefs.

The case finally got to court in 2023, where a Carter-appointed judge dismissed the case saying neither the state law nor the enforcement violated any of the owner's rights.

The owner of the spa appealed to the Ninth Circuit.  In a 2-1 ruling a panel rejected the appeal, RULING that Washington state's Democrat-rammed law ORDERING all businesses and schools to allow men to use all women's locker rooms and showers "does not impermissibly burden the owner's First Amendment rights to free speech, [freedom of religion] or free association.

The problem--as with SO MANY issues today--is that the Constitution is totally silent about this question.  Totally understandable: the brilliant men who wrote that magnificent document never imagined for a moment that 230 years later some woke virtue-signaling politicians would pass a LAW forcing women to allow men to watch them undress and shower.  

The Constitution's understandable silence on this is the key to the outrage, and you need to understand it.  If you're fine with this law, we need to talk--with your 14-year-old daughter present--nude.  I will also be nude.  We'll take a couple of hours to discuss the issue.  And since you must be fine with that law--since you support it--let me know and we'll meet to have a nice long discussion.

See, this is what your moronic, woke Dem pols ORDERED when they passed their LAW.  And if you're a Democrat parent you're totally fine with it, eh?

Dem voter: "NOOooo!  I din' vote fo' dat!"

Yeah, you did, cupcake.  You just didn't see the inevitable result of electing woke Dems to make laws.  Like so many other Democrats, you didn't think about it--not for a second.

If you don't see the connection between your vote and the inevitable consequences, imagine me sitting across from your daughter, both of us nude, and her being FORCED--by the LAW passed by the dipshits you elected--to be there, nude.

(To avoid the inevitable claim by Dems: I don't seriously expect any Democrat to take me up on this demonstration of Democrat hypocrisy.)

SO...to overcome the dismissal by the woke lower court judge, the Christian, Korean-owned women-only spas had to show the Democrat judges in either leftist Seattle or at the equally leftist Ninth that the insane law rammed through by the woke Democrat shitheads who control the state legislature--was unConstitutional.

Problem is, since the Constitution doesn't directly address this insanity, the best the attorneys for the spa owners could come up with was "This violates our rights under the First Amendment."

A Dem/leftist judge in the Washington state--Barbara Jacobs Rothstein, appointed by the moronic Jimmy Carter on nomination by two Dem senators from the shithole state--dismissed the case (ruled against the spas).

Normally that would have been the end of it.  But in this case the spa owners appealed to the Ninth Circuit (based in California) on the grounds that the law violated their rights of freedom of speech, freedom of religion and freedom of association.  

Most of the judges in the Ninth Circuit are ultra-left liberals, and by a 2-1 vote a majority-leftist 3-judge "panel" quickly affirmed the dismissal by the leftist lower-court judge in Washington state.  Case closed, and another win for leftists and trannies, eh?

Now read how the two leftists on the 3-judge panel rationalized their ruling:

We note that the Spa did not challenge [the law's definition of "sexual orientation"], nor the language of the statute.  They didn't argue that the law was vague or that the plaintiffs' conduct [refusing to allow nude men to use the womens' facility] was not within the statute’s definition of discrimination on the basis of gender expression or identity. Nor did they challenge the State's implementing regulations.
    Although the enforcement action is grounded in state law, the Spa sued on First Amendment grounds.  Because the enforcement action did not violate the Spa’s First Amendment rights, we affirm the district court’s dismissal.

Notice the italicized phrase above: the wokie leftists on the Ninth use "grounded in state law" as if it settles the matter, when the entire case was challenging the constitutionality of that law.

For those of you who don't track legal opinions: the courts have RULED that burning the American flag is "freedom of speech."  Lap dances are protected as freedom of speech.  Same for wearing a T-shirt bearing obscenities.

By stark contrast, the Ninth has ruled that schools can prohibit students from wearing T-shirts bearing the American flag--cuz dat could offend illegal alien invaders, and Lord knows we can't go doing that, eh? 

So as you all surely realize by now, freedom of speech is whatever a leftist judge on any given day DECREES it is--an infinitely elastic concept that judges can apply any way they wish.  

And the wokie judges ruled "freedom of speech" or religion or association does NOT bar woke Dem pols from passing LAWS ordering that men can use womens' locker rooms and showers.  See, duh Constitution doesn't explicitly prohibit such laws, eh citizen?  So because the Founders never imagined this needed to be addressed, wokie judges agree that pols can pass laws demanding it.  See? 

Wait, neither flag burning nor lap dances are explicitly allowed by that same document, yet woke judges RULED they're protected as freedom of speech.  Starting to get it yet?

Now, a longstanding legal principle is that laws are unconstitutional if they're "vague."  So the two woke leftists on the Ninth Circuit rationalized their upholding the dismissal by noting that the law passed by the Democrat rulers of Washington state was NOT vague.  So dat fine.  Then they noted the plaintiffs didn't claim the law didn't apply to them, so dat fine too.  Finally they noted that plaintiffs didn't challenge the "implementing regulations."  So again, fine.

So because those legal details were observed, everyt'ing beez fine, deplorables!

The two wokie judges of the Ninth never bothered to consider the fact that the Washington state law ORDERING that women-only locker rooms and Christian-owned spas MUST allow men unduly burdens women.  "Cuz duh Constitution duzn't explicitly bar such laws!"

Because the brilliant men who wrote that magnificent document never imagined for a moment that 230 years later some woke virtue-signaling dipshits would pass a LAW forcing women to allow men to watch them undress and shower.  

I'd ask if you're starting to understand what your moronic, woke Dem lawmakers have done yet, but if you're a Democrat, you'll deny that you understand the connection.  Cuz you're cool with your daughter being forced to be nude around nude men, eh?

At least you *claim* you're cool with it.  So again, let me repeat my offer that will let you know if you're kidding yourself.  Let's meet, with your daughter, nude.  Any takers?  Nah, didn't think so--and of course that's totally logical and reasonable.

And it gets worse:  After the two woke shitheads at the Ninth upheld the lower-court dismissal of the spa owners' lawsuit, the owners immediately petitioned for an "en banc hearing"--meaning they wanted the entire court to rule on the matter.  But of course most leftist judges don't want to go on the record pushing this woke bullshit.  So to keep their leftist friends from having to go on the record, the same judge who wrote the 2-1 opinion rejecting the appeal *also* denied the en banc rehearing.

The wokies here were Ninth judges Margaret McKeown--age 74--and Ron Gould, both appointed by Bill "cigar" Clinton, while the lower-court wokie was Carter-appointed Barbara Rothstein. 

(Seven years ago Margaret McKeown and Ron Gould ruled that a male prisoner who wanted to be a female had the absolute right to get sex-change hormones and surgery at taxpayer expense.  "Cuz dat whut duh Founders wuda wanted, citizen!  Dis po' prisoner iz entitled to sex-change, but don' gots duh cash t'pay fo' it, so yew gots t'pay fo' it--cuz duh Founders wanted dat!"
   Starting to see a pattern yet?  Sure: either the Founders DID envision this, or they didn't.  But you don't get to vote, citizen.
   And in February of last year Gould voted to overturn two proof-of-citizenship laws in Arizona.)

Now here's the ultimate test to prove that the three woke judges are corrupt (in the legal sense):  Ask 'em "Do you claim your ORDER is what the Founders intended?"

Obviously only two answers are possible:  Either the Founders intended this result, or they didn't. 

Clearly--at least to rational Americans--the Founders never imagined anyone  would demand that women be forced to undress in front of men.  So we're left with having to guess what the Founders would have said had they been asked this question back in 1789.

Democrat judges and voters:  "Easy!  Duh Founders wuz, like, *totally cool with dere wimmin bein' nude around men dey din' know!  My friend had a brother who once had a letter from Tom Jefferson to John Adams sayin' how he couldn't wait for the next sex party!  Unfortunately he lost the letter in a move, but yew kin believe him cuz he beez a judge!"

Of course that's a joke: There's no evidence at ALL that the Founders would have wanted this.  So we're left with having to guess.

Of course yew don' get to vote--cuz three leftist judges have decided that question FOR you.  Cuz dat how a cool socialist society works, right?  Dems rule, conservatives shut the fuck up and obey, eh?

Finally, to all you Democrats who claim to support this RULING: don't forget my earlier offer:  If you really support this insane RULING, bring your daughter to a meeting with me, all of us nude, eh?  But of course you don't support this at all--you just bleat that you do, cuz it's cool virtue-signaling.  And of course that's how Dems prove they're part of the team.

Source.

https://reason.com/volokh/2026/03/12/judge-vandyke-this-is-a-case-about-swinging-dicks/