Controversy Surrounds Washington Spa’s Gender Policy and Religious Rights Clash

Figures and transgender symbol on a blue background.

A Washington judge’s comparison of a female-only spa policy to racial segregation ignites a fierce debate over religious freedom and anti-discrimination laws.

At a Glance

Olympus Spa, a Christian Korean establishment, faces legal challenges over its female-only policy
The spa’s policy denies entry to transgender women who haven’t undergone sex-reassignment surgery
A Ninth Circuit Court judge likened the spa’s policy to racial discrimination
Olympus Spa argues its policy is protected by constitutional rights and ensures customer safety
The case highlights tensions between religious freedom and anti-discrimination protections

Legal Battle Unfolds Over Spa’s Female-Only Policy

Olympus Spa, a Christian Korean-run business in Washington state, is embroiled in a legal dispute over its female-only admission policy. The spa, which has locations in Tacoma and Lynnwood, limits patrons to “biological females” and claims this practice is protected by constitutional rights. The policy has come under scrutiny after the spa denied services to a transgender woman who had not undergone sex-reassignment surgery, leading to accusations of discrimination.

When people demand “trans rights,” they mean the “right” (among other things) of a male to enter female-only spaces naked.

This is no exaggeration. This supposed “right” is under review at the Ninth Circuit. https://t.co/WsUG1NIGhh

— Jason Bedrick 🇺🇸🎗️🇮🇱 (@JasonBedrick) November 19, 2024

Judge’s Controversial Comparison Sparks Debate

The case has reached the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, where Judge M. Margaret McKeown made a controversial comparison that has intensified the debate. Judge McKeown criticized the spa’s policy, likening it to racial discrimination.

“If you have a law that says ‘White applicants only,’ this is ‘biological women entrance only.’ It seems to me they’re quite parallel there. And you can’t have ‘White people only’ come into my restaurant, and then you say, ‘Well, no, we have a religious, spiritual nature to our restaurant, and when you get there, we serve you special food.’ This seems quite different.” Judge M. Margaret McKeown stated.

This comparison has sparked intense discussion about the nature of discrimination and the limits of religious freedom in public accommodations.

The Spa’s Defense: Religious Freedom and Customer Safety

Olympus Spa argues that its policy is essential for customer safety, legal protection, and well-being. The establishment offers a Korean body scrub service requiring nudity and maintains religious beliefs about gender separation. Kevin Snider, legal counsel for the spa, asserts that their policy aligns with state laws and protects associational and free exercise rights.

The spa does allow transgender women who have undergone post-operative sex confirmation surgery, highlighting the nuanced nature of their policy.

Legal Complexities and Divided Opinions

The case involves complex legal questions about how to reconcile established anti-discrimination protections with religious freedom and safety considerations. Ninth Circuit judges appear divided on the issue, with some sympathizing with the spa’s position while others view it as discriminatory.

One judge, drawing from personal experience of attending a similar spa in Korea, suggested that customers might have the right to choose whom they are naked in front of. This perspective adds another layer to the already complex debate.

Broader Implications for Religious Freedom and Anti-Discrimination Laws

This case has broader implications for how religious freedom intersects with anti-discrimination laws. It raises questions about the extent to which businesses can maintain policies based on biological sex in the face of evolving gender identity recognition. The outcome of this case could set a precedent for how similar conflicts are resolved in the future.

As the legal battle continues, it remains to be seen how the court will balance the religious and safety concerns of the spa with the rights of transgender individuals. The decision will likely have far-reaching consequences for businesses, religious institutions, and LGBTQ+ rights advocates across the country.