Reply #3: They don't seem terribly certain of their police power in this case.

[imdjh]

I'm inclined to think that they don't have any, because this is a private club. The actionable act of the swim club was that they revoked/broke their contract with the daycamp. They would reasonably owe for any inconvenience, replacement, or additional cost that the camp incurred, but their reason for doing it is beyond the authority of the state of Pennsylvania, because it's freedom of association. Someone might argue that the swim club is functioning as a public accommodation because they accepted outside business, but this is a very well established area of law because country clubs accept limited outside business without forfeiting their right to freedom of association.

Jesus, we just had the case in New Jersey not too long ago, establishing that the BSA, despite behaving and advertising itself as open to the public, despite using government facilities and special treatments, and despite the broad public perception that it was indeed open to the public, is a private religious organization protected in its freedom of association. I simply don't see how the PA human rights commission isn't beyond its authority here.