In a landmark decision that pits gender identity rights against religious freedom, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that Olympus Spa, a female-only Korean spa in Washington state, must allow individuals who identify as female to use its facilities, regardless of their biological sex. The ruling, which affirmed a lower court's decision, has intensified the ongoing national conversation about the balance between non-discrimination laws and First Amendment protections.
Olympus Spa, a Christian-owned business with locations in Lynwood and Tacoma, has traditionally operated as a sanctuary for biological women, in line with cultural practices and faith-based beliefs. Its services involve communal nudity and intimate treatments, which the spa argues necessitate a female-only environment. The controversy began when a pre-operative trans-identifying man was denied entry, leading the Washington Human Rights Commission (WHRC) to challenge the spa's policy as discriminatory.
The spa's legal team argued that the enforcement of the state's anti-discrimination laws infringed upon their clients' rights to religious freedom and association. They warned that compliance would alienate patrons and employees, potentially pushing the family-owned business to the edge of financial ruin. The lawsuit highlighted customer concerns about privacy and comfort in the spa's intimate setting.
However, the district court dismissed the spa's First Amendment claims in 2023, and the appellate court later upheld this decision. Two judges, appointed by President Bill Clinton, agreed with the state's stance, while Judge Kenneth Lee, appointed by President Donald Trump, delivered a forceful dissent. Lee accused Washington of misusing anti-discrimination statutes and argued that the law does not explicitly protect trans-identifying individuals.
Lee's dissent focused on the anatomical basis of the spa's entry policy, not sexual orientation, emphasizing the implications for women and girls who frequent the spa. He expressed concern for their exposure to male genitalia in a setting designed for nudity, and the discomfort that could arise from such interactions.
The case has attracted significant attention, with Women’s Declaration International USA submitting an amicus brief in support of Olympus Spa. Their president, Kara Dansky, criticized the district court's use of language and asserted that admitting biological males to female-only spaces infringes upon constitutional rights.
Olympus Spa's attorney, Kevin Snider, is determined to take the case further, potentially to the Supreme Court, as it represents a critical intersection of state non-discrimination laws and constitutional protections. The upcoming legal developments are being closely watched, as they could set a precedent for similar cases nationwide.
As legal experts anticipate an appeal to the Supreme Court, the case emerges as a potential landmark battle over the scope of religious freedom and gender identity rights in the United States.
