A Christian-owned, women's-only nude spa in Seattle has been ordered by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to admit a mentally ill, predatory, biologically male pervert to use the spa. Judge Margaret McKewon, a Clinton appointee, writes that having a women's-only nude spa is… pic.twitter.com/N4eDrpR9Rx
— Charlie Kirk (@charliekirk11) May 30, 2025
Woke insanity
137,812 Views |
1813 Replies |
Last: 1 day ago by Harrison Bergeron
Another not popular far left judge... at some point Washingtonians will revoltLIB,MR BEARS said:A Christian-owned, women's-only nude spa in Seattle has been ordered by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to admit a mentally ill, predatory, biologically male pervert to use the spa. Judge Margaret McKewon, a Clinton appointee, writes that having a women's-only nude spa is… pic.twitter.com/N4eDrpR9Rx
— Charlie Kirk (@charliekirk11) May 30, 2025
Facebook Groups at; Memories of Dallas, Mem of Texas, Mem of Football in Texas, Mem Texas Music and Through a Texas Lens. Come visit! Over 100,000 members and 100,000 regular visitors
Assassin said:I mean, where does he keep his balls?nein51 said:
How does she know it's a man? Isn't she used to seeing 6'9" softball players lol
I honestly can't even imagine the amount of estrogen you have to possess to be a dude and willingly go play girls sports. The embarrassment would be unreal.
We had co ed soccer in HS and it was ridiculous how bad the best girls were. The worst guy on our team was MILES better than the best girl in our entire league. 2 of those girls played college soccer, one at UNC.
I just can't imagine how ashamed I would be to play sports with the girls as a man.
Probably in his boyfriends purse
This ruling, in an of itself, makes sense.
Essentially, a "females only" space is the same as "whites only" per the ruling.
Wish they were as pragmatic about a number of other issues like Harvard willfully discriminating against whites and Asians.
Essentially, a "females only" space is the same as "whites only" per the ruling.
Wish they were as pragmatic about a number of other issues like Harvard willfully discriminating against whites and Asians.
historian said:Assassin said:
I dont get it, Starbucks a few days ago, now Zaxby's?Zaxby’s employees are ON STRIKE..
— American AF 🇺🇸 (@iAnonPatriot) May 22, 2025
They’re DEMANDING for Zaxby’s to ‘end gun vioIence’ and pay ALL employees at least $25/hr
👀 pic.twitter.com/Z86hCdxp9W
They are begging to be replaced with kiosks and robots.
Just went to Torchy's and ordered from a Kiosk.
it's the "Redskins" to which people objected, White Skinhistorian said:
I did not see a thread about wokeness in general so decided to fill the gap. This is as good a way to start as any:— Declaration of Memes (@LibertyCappy) November 18, 2024
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/new-poll-finds-9-in-10-native-americans-arent-offended-by-redskins-name/2016/05/18/3ea11cfa-161a-11e6-924d-838753295f9a_story.htmlWaco1947 said:it's the "Redskins" to which people objected, White Skinhistorian said:
I did not see a thread about wokeness in general so decided to fill the gap. This is as good a way to start as any:— Declaration of Memes (@LibertyCappy) November 18, 2024
https://www.nagaeducation.org/misconception-redskins-is-racist
Facebook Groups at; Memories of Dallas, Mem of Texas, Mem of Football in Texas, Mem Texas Music and Through a Texas Lens. Come visit! Over 100,000 members and 100,000 regular visitors
nein51 said:
This ruling, in an of itself, makes sense.
Essentially, a "females only" space is the same as "whites only" per the ruling.
Wish they were as pragmatic about a number of other issues like Harvard willfully discriminating against whites and Asians.
It's only the same if one ignores the word "nude" and the fact that it's a spa, a place where people do not remain fully clothed while there. If someone takes off their clothes in a public restaurant they will probably be arrested. (In blue cities & states they might not arrest these offenders because they celebrate perversion).
historian said:nein51 said:
This ruling, in an of itself, makes sense.
Essentially, a "females only" space is the same as "whites only" per the ruling.
Wish they were as pragmatic about a number of other issues like Harvard willfully discriminating against whites and Asians.
It's only the same if one ignores the word "nude" and the fact that it's a spa, a place where people do not remain fully clothed while there. If someone takes off their clothes in a public restaurant they will probably be arrested. (In blue cities & states they might not arrest these offenders because they celebrate perversion).
I think the argument would be what happens in the space is irrelevant. Segregated spaces are not allowed. The test here is whether any space for any reason is allowed to be specifically exclusionary.
It probably calls in to play why we lump gender and race into the same legislation (I think it's because we considered both immutable characteristics at the time).
And women can be topless is public in except in Illinois and Tennessee.
Waco1947 said:it's the "Redskins" to which people objected, White Skinhistorian said:
I did not see a thread about wokeness in general so decided to fill the gap. This is as good a way to start as any:— Declaration of Memes (@LibertyCappy) November 18, 2024
The people objecting were almost always ulta liberal & leftist white people….and not American Indians themselves
Important point remember
The Washington Redskins name was so offensive that they were the favorite team of a lot of Native American tribe leaders. pic.twitter.com/wa44QtSHdp
— Brigitte Gabriel (@ACTBrigitte) July 13, 2020
New poll finds 9 in 10 Native Americans aren’t offended by Redskins name https://t.co/v57cZmyu9W pic.twitter.com/G6Mn8r3PuQ
— The Washington Post (@washingtonpost) May 19, 2016
nein51 said:historian said:nein51 said:
This ruling, in an of itself, makes sense.
Essentially, a "females only" space is the same as "whites only" per the ruling.
Wish they were as pragmatic about a number of other issues like Harvard willfully discriminating against whites and Asians.
It's only the same if one ignores the word "nude" and the fact that it's a spa, a place where people do not remain fully clothed while there. If someone takes off their clothes in a public restaurant they will probably be arrested. (In blue cities & states they might not arrest these offenders because they celebrate perversion).
I think the argument would be what happens in the space is irrelevant. Segregated spaces are not allowed. The test here is whether any space for any reason is allowed to be specifically exclusionary.
It probably calls in to play why we lump gender and race into the same legislation (I think it's because we considered both immutable characteristics at the time).
And women can be topless is public in except in Illinois and Tennessee.
Separate but equal was found NOT to be equal in Brown v BOE and so now we apply the same logic to businesses that involve nudity? Absurd!
What about hiring practices? How many men have been unjustly discriminated against as topless pole dancers?
Where is the common sense?
LIB,MR BEARS said:nein51 said:historian said:nein51 said:
This ruling, in an of itself, makes sense.
Essentially, a "females only" space is the same as "whites only" per the ruling.
Wish they were as pragmatic about a number of other issues like Harvard willfully discriminating against whites and Asians.
It's only the same if one ignores the word "nude" and the fact that it's a spa, a place where people do not remain fully clothed while there. If someone takes off their clothes in a public restaurant they will probably be arrested. (In blue cities & states they might not arrest these offenders because they celebrate perversion).
I think the argument would be what happens in the space is irrelevant. Segregated spaces are not allowed. The test here is whether any space for any reason is allowed to be specifically exclusionary.
It probably calls in to play why we lump gender and race into the same legislation (I think it's because we considered both immutable characteristics at the time).
And women can be topless is public in except in Illinois and Tennessee.
Separate but equal was found NOT to be equal in Brown v BOE and so now we apply the same logic to businesses that involve nudity? Absurd!
What about hiring practices? How many men have been unjustly discriminated against as topless pole dancers?
Where is the common sense?
Don't look to the law for common sense. You won't find much there.
You're arguing what should be (and we almost certainly agree). I'm just telling you what the court ruled. Their ruling is consistent…though we agree it lacks common sense.
nein51 said:historian said:nein51 said:
This ruling, in an of itself, makes sense.
Essentially, a "females only" space is the same as "whites only" per the ruling.
Wish they were as pragmatic about a number of other issues like Harvard willfully discriminating against whites and Asians.
It's only the same if one ignores the word "nude" and the fact that it's a spa, a place where people do not remain fully clothed while there. If someone takes off their clothes in a public restaurant they will probably be arrested. (In blue cities & states they might not arrest these offenders because they celebrate perversion).
I think the argument would be what happens in the space is irrelevant. Segregated spaces are not allowed. The test here is whether any space for any reason is allowed to be specifically exclusionary.
It probably calls in to play why we lump gender and race into the same legislation (I think it's because we considered both immutable characteristics at the time).
And women can be topless is public in except in Illinois and Tennessee.
It's a bogus argument. What happens in the space is very relevant. If the people do not remain clothed crimes can take place if they are not segregated.
The whole point of this nonsense is that Leftists want to pretend there is no difference between men and women. Cultural Marxists lie about and distort everything. This is one of the more grotesque varieties.
historian said:nein51 said:historian said:nein51 said:
This ruling, in an of itself, makes sense.
Essentially, a "females only" space is the same as "whites only" per the ruling.
Wish they were as pragmatic about a number of other issues like Harvard willfully discriminating against whites and Asians.
It's only the same if one ignores the word "nude" and the fact that it's a spa, a place where people do not remain fully clothed while there. If someone takes off their clothes in a public restaurant they will probably be arrested. (In blue cities & states they might not arrest these offenders because they celebrate perversion).
I think the argument would be what happens in the space is irrelevant. Segregated spaces are not allowed. The test here is whether any space for any reason is allowed to be specifically exclusionary.
It probably calls in to play why we lump gender and race into the same legislation (I think it's because we considered both immutable characteristics at the time).
And women can be topless is public in except in Illinois and Tennessee.
It's a bogus argument. What happens in the space is very relevant. If the people do not remain clothed crimes can take place if they are not segregated.
The whole point of this nonsense is that Leftists want to pretend there is no difference between men and women. Cultural Marxists lie about and distort everything. This is one of the more grotesque varieties.
The court, apparently, disagrees.
For the record I also think it's ridiculous but I do think the law was applied correctly.
It may be time to work on changing the law.
This week has been a dream for the women-hating Democrats.
— Riley Gaines (@Riley_Gaines_) June 1, 2025
Boys stole girls’ state titles, podium spots, or qualifying spots in California, Maine, Washington, Oregon, and Minnesota.
They swear this isn't actually happening. pic.twitter.com/0hU0EVlu4H
nein51 said:historian said:nein51 said:historian said:nein51 said:
This ruling, in an of itself, makes sense.
Essentially, a "females only" space is the same as "whites only" per the ruling.
Wish they were as pragmatic about a number of other issues like Harvard willfully discriminating against whites and Asians.
It's only the same if one ignores the word "nude" and the fact that it's a spa, a place where people do not remain fully clothed while there. If someone takes off their clothes in a public restaurant they will probably be arrested. (In blue cities & states they might not arrest these offenders because they celebrate perversion).
I think the argument would be what happens in the space is irrelevant. Segregated spaces are not allowed. The test here is whether any space for any reason is allowed to be specifically exclusionary.
It probably calls in to play why we lump gender and race into the same legislation (I think it's because we considered both immutable characteristics at the time).
And women can be topless is public in except in Illinois and Tennessee.
It's a bogus argument. What happens in the space is very relevant. If the people do not remain clothed crimes can take place if they are not segregated.
The whole point of this nonsense is that Leftists want to pretend there is no difference between men and women. Cultural Marxists lie about and distort everything. This is one of the more grotesque varieties.
The court, apparently, disagrees.
For the record I also think it's ridiculous but I do think the law was applied correctly.
It may be time to work on changing the law.
Courts can lie too. Some of the greatest injustices in US history resulted from SCOTUS decisions based upon lies: Dred Scott v Sanford, Plessy v Ferguson, & Roe v Wade are the most prominent examples.
Then there are the times when they have reversed bad laws such as Brown v Board of Education.
In New Jersey, this squatter thinks she can camp out forever, even with a judge's eviction order!
— Catarina Senora Gatita (@WyattCatarina) June 1, 2025
DeSantis put an end to that in Fl. We do not encourage parasites to ruin ppl's homes and lives anymore. One of the best things he ever signed was the ban on squatting. Does ur… pic.twitter.com/wsJN720D7X
Facebook Groups at; Memories of Dallas, Mem of Texas, Mem of Football in Texas, Mem Texas Music and Through a Texas Lens. Come visit! Over 100,000 members and 100,000 regular visitors
except that it's not, we have always had gender separate spacesnein51 said:
This ruling, in an of itself, makes sense.
Essentially, a "females only" space is the same as "whites only" per the ruling.
Wish they were as pragmatic about a number of other issues like Harvard willfully discriminating against whites and Asians.
I bet that court house the rulijg was made in has gender separate bathrooms
“The Internet is just a world passing around notes in a classroom.”
Jon Stewart
Jon Stewart
Good. Let the LWNJ deal with the consequences of their elections.LIB,MR BEARS said:This week has been a dream for the women-hating Democrats.
— Riley Gaines (@Riley_Gaines_) June 1, 2025
Boys stole girls’ state titles, podium spots, or qualifying spots in California, Maine, Washington, Oregon, and Minnesota.
They swear this isn't actually happening. pic.twitter.com/0hU0EVlu4H
To all the people that insisted Imane Khelif was a woman because his passport said so,
— Riley Gaines (@Riley_Gaines_) June 1, 2025
You were wrong. We were right.
Sincerely,
People with functioning eyes and a shred of honesty pic.twitter.com/lcCbfR0nVF
Facebook Groups at; Memories of Dallas, Mem of Texas, Mem of Football in Texas, Mem Texas Music and Through a Texas Lens. Come visit! Over 100,000 members and 100,000 regular visitors
An assertion wo factsRedbrickbear said:Waco1947 said:it's the "Redskins" to which people objected, White Skinhistorian said:
I did not see a thread about wokeness in general so decided to fill the gap. This is as good a way to start as any:— Declaration of Memes (@LibertyCappy) November 18, 2024
The people objecting were almost always ulta liberal & leftist white people….and not American Indians themselves
Important point rememberThe Washington Redskins name was so offensive that they were the favorite team of a lot of Native American tribe leaders. pic.twitter.com/wa44QtSHdp
— Brigitte Gabriel (@ACTBrigitte) July 13, 2020New poll finds 9 in 10 Native Americans aren’t offended by Redskins name https://t.co/v57cZmyu9W pic.twitter.com/G6Mn8r3PuQ
— The Washington Post (@washingtonpost) May 19, 2016
Not either or
It's about the contrast: what is more important? Celebrating heroes who made huge sacrifices for this country or entitled perverts with delusions & other mental illnesses. It speaks volumes about the decline of our culture and who loves America and who hates this country.
historian said:
It's about the contrast: what is more important? Celebrating heroes who made huge sacrifices for this country or entitled perverts with delusions & other mental illnesses. It speaks volumes about the decline of our culture and who loves America and who hates this country.
I'll bet you a $3 bill you can't guess which side 47 is on.
Waco1947 said:An assertion wo factsRedbrickbear said:Waco1947 said:it's the "Redskins" to which people objected, White Skinhistorian said:
I did not see a thread about wokeness in general so decided to fill the gap. This is as good a way to start as any:— Declaration of Memes (@LibertyCappy) November 18, 2024
The people objecting were almost always ulta liberal & leftist white people….and not American Indians themselves
Important point rememberThe Washington Redskins name was so offensive that they were the favorite team of a lot of Native American tribe leaders. pic.twitter.com/wa44QtSHdp
— Brigitte Gabriel (@ACTBrigitte) July 13, 2020New poll finds 9 in 10 Native Americans aren’t offended by Redskins name https://t.co/v57cZmyu9W pic.twitter.com/G6Mn8r3PuQ
— The Washington Post (@washingtonpost) May 19, 2016
A Washington Post poll is not facts?
[Nine in 10 Native Americans say they are not offended by the Washington Redskins name, according to a new Washington Post poll that shows how few ordinary Indians have been persuaded by a national movement to change the football team's moniker.
The survey... across every state and the District reveals that the minds of Native Americans have remained unchanged since a 2004 poll by the Annenberg Public Policy Center found the same result. Responses to The Post's questions about the issue were broadly consistent regardless of age, income, education, political party or proximity to reservations.
Among the Native Americans reached over a five-month period ending in April, more than 7 in 10 said they did not feel the word "Redskin" was disrespectful to Indians. An even higher number 8 in 10 said they would not be offended if a non-native called them that name.]
Sounds like its you who have no facts to back up your belief...
That poll doesnt fit 47s core beliefs. So it's not factual.Redbrickbear said:Waco1947 said:An assertion wo factsRedbrickbear said:Waco1947 said:it's the "Redskins" to which people objected, White Skinhistorian said:
I did not see a thread about wokeness in general so decided to fill the gap. This is as good a way to start as any:— Declaration of Memes (@LibertyCappy) November 18, 2024
The people objecting were almost always ulta liberal & leftist white people….and not American Indians themselves
Important point rememberThe Washington Redskins name was so offensive that they were the favorite team of a lot of Native American tribe leaders. pic.twitter.com/wa44QtSHdp
— Brigitte Gabriel (@ACTBrigitte) July 13, 2020New poll finds 9 in 10 Native Americans aren’t offended by Redskins name https://t.co/v57cZmyu9W pic.twitter.com/G6Mn8r3PuQ
— The Washington Post (@washingtonpost) May 19, 2016
A Washington Post poll is not facts?
[Nine in 10 Native Americans say they are not offended by the Washington Redskins name, according to a new Washington Post poll that shows how few ordinary Indians have been persuaded by a national movement to change the football team's moniker.
The survey... across every state and the District reveals that the minds of Native Americans have remained unchanged since a 2004 poll by the Annenberg Public Policy Center found the same result. Responses to The Post's questions about the issue were broadly consistent regardless of age, income, education, political party or proximity to reservations.
Among the Native Americans reached over a five-month period ending in April, more than 7 in 10 said they did not feel the word "Redskin" was disrespectful to Indians. An even higher number 8 in 10 said they would not be offended if a non-native called them that name.]
Sounds like its you who have no facts to back up your belief...
He/him/his is a strange fellow
Facebook Groups at; Memories of Dallas, Mem of Texas, Mem of Football in Texas, Mem Texas Music and Through a Texas Lens. Come visit! Over 100,000 members and 100,000 regular visitors
Jack Bauer said:Assassin said:This nonbinary lesbian just FLED the US for New Zealand because she doesn’t feel safe being in the US pic.twitter.com/i6Tqqi4EvO
— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) May 29, 2025
The irony of white liberals leaving the "racist" US for more predominantly white countries is lost on them.
There is also irony in her declaring she is nonbinary but lesbian…. You cannot be the latter without being binary.
nein51 said:
How does she know it's a man? Isn't she used to seeing 6'9" softball players lol
I honestly can't even imagine the amount of estrogen you have to possess to be a dude and willingly go play girls sports. The embarrassment would be unreal.
We had co ed soccer in HS and it was ridiculous how bad the best girls were. The worst guy on our team was MILES better than the best girl in our entire league. 2 of those girls played college soccer, one at UNC.
I just can't imagine how ashamed I would be to play sports with the girls as a man.
How embarrassed would a man have to be to call themself a woman, compete in the high jump and come in 5th?????
nein51 said:
This ruling, in an of itself, makes sense.
Essentially, a "females only" space is the same as "whites only" per the ruling.
Wish they were as pragmatic about a number of other issues like Harvard willfully discriminating against whites and Asians.
No the ruling makes no sense.
You and the ruling are saying that there should be no restrooms for the two sexes.
While we are at it let's say that segregation based on past child molestation is also against the no segregation thing and let child sex offenders work at schools because we shouldn't segregate.
Oh and all those murderers???? We can't segregate them away from society either. Let's let them all out.
nein51 said:historian said:nein51 said:
This ruling, in an of itself, makes sense.
Essentially, a "females only" space is the same as "whites only" per the ruling.
Wish they were as pragmatic about a number of other issues like Harvard willfully discriminating against whites and Asians.
It's only the same if one ignores the word "nude" and the fact that it's a spa, a place where people do not remain fully clothed while there. If someone takes off their clothes in a public restaurant they will probably be arrested. (In blue cities & states they might not arrest these offenders because they celebrate perversion).
I think the argument would be what happens in the space is irrelevant. Segregated spaces are not allowed. The test here is whether any space for any reason is allowed to be specifically exclusionary.
It probably calls in to play why we lump gender and race into the same legislation (I think it's because we considered both immutable characteristics at the time).
And women can be topless is public in except in Illinois and Tennessee.
No again wrong. If we use your line of thinking all private clubs/organizations are not allowed to exist because they segregate.
All those businesses that don't allow minors????? Illegal because that is segregation.
cowboycwr said:nein51 said:historian said:nein51 said:
This ruling, in an of itself, makes sense.
Essentially, a "females only" space is the same as "whites only" per the ruling.
Wish they were as pragmatic about a number of other issues like Harvard willfully discriminating against whites and Asians.
It's only the same if one ignores the word "nude" and the fact that it's a spa, a place where people do not remain fully clothed while there. If someone takes off their clothes in a public restaurant they will probably be arrested. (In blue cities & states they might not arrest these offenders because they celebrate perversion).
I think the argument would be what happens in the space is irrelevant. Segregated spaces are not allowed. The test here is whether any space for any reason is allowed to be specifically exclusionary.
It probably calls in to play why we lump gender and race into the same legislation (I think it's because we considered both immutable characteristics at the time).
And women can be topless is public in except in Illinois and Tennessee.
No again wrong. If we use your line of thinking all private clubs/organizations are not allowed to exist because they segregate.
All those businesses that don't allow minors????? Illegal because that is segregation.
I suppose we will see when this ends up in judicial review.
I'm not saying it's my stance. I'm saying it's what that court ruled.
FTR if you had a private club based on being white only I'm fairly confident that would also be against the law.
Discrimination on age is legal for programs and activities that receive no federal funds. Age discrimination act of 1975.
LIB,MR BEARS said:historian said:
It's about the contrast: what is more important? Celebrating heroes who made huge sacrifices for this country or entitled perverts with delusions & other mental illnesses. It speaks volumes about the decline of our culture and who loves America and who hates this country.
I'll bet you a $3 bill you can't guess which side 47 is on.
This is wrong is the wrong question. The question is can we tolerate calling our Native American heroes "Redskins."historian said:
It's about the contrast: what is more important? Celebrating heroes who made huge sacrifices for this country or entitled perverts with delusions & other mental illnesses. It speaks volumes about the decline of our culture and who loves America and who hates this country.
What say you White Skin."