It depends. The general rule of thumb when dealing with private club discrimination vis-a-vis protected classes in such statutes is that the listed discrimination practices are frowned upon by the state. Thus, the general practice of states is that such clubs can look for little if not any help from the state if that is their intention. For example, many states grant privileges to private clubs, such as corporate charters, liquor licences, tax exempt status, and permits for various things, etc, provided they do not engage in discriminatory practices. If a club avails themselves of such things and then discriminates against the protected classes, then it can be held liable under laws drafted to address violations of such terms.

And in the broader scope from the above, self-described private clubs cannot have it both ways in how they behave. If they are going to be private, then they must remain just that. If private clubs open themselves to the public such as renting their facilities to others for meetings, tournaments, weddings, etc, then are generally deemed to have opened themselves to being subject to commonly drafted anti-discrimination laws, and especially so concerning any dealings it may have with those they have chosen to deal with.

In the present case, the club solicited and took money from another outside group to admit the children at issue. Allegedly it returned the money and expelled them due to the racial makeup of those children. That kind of conduct, if true, is generally going to put a club in violation of commonly drafted state anti-discrimination laws, even the most tolerant ones of private clubs engaging in discrimination, on the grounds of being a 'private club.'

FYI, the agency and the law they enforce in this case is found here:

PA Human Relations Commission Home Page

__________________