Imagine running a family business rooted in centuries-old tradition, only to have the government demand you toss your beliefs out the window.
That's the harsh reality facing Olympus Spa, a Christian-owned, women-only Korean spa in Washington state, after a federal court ruling that’s raising eyebrows and tempers alike.
Breitbart reported that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has decided that Olympus Spa must open its doors to transgender-identifying males, siding with the Washington State Human Rights Commission over the spa’s claims of religious freedom.
This saga kicked off back in 2020 when Olympus Spa, with locations in Lynnwood and Tacoma, turned away a transgender-identifying man, citing their strict women-only policy.
The spa, deeply tied to traditional Korean practices, limits access to biological women, excluding men and preoperative transgender individuals.
The spa owners weren’t about to roll over without a fight. In 2023, they sued the state, arguing that being forced to admit transgender-identifying males trampled on their First Amendment rights to freedom of religion, speech, and association.
The Washington State Human Rights Commission countered with a firm stance, claiming the spa’s exclusionary policy violated the state’s Law Against Discrimination, which protects gender expression and identity. Cultural heritage and personal convictions take a backseat to progressive mandates in this legal showdown.
The Ninth Circuit, in a ruling identified as Olympus Spa v. Andrea Armstrong, No. 23-4031, agreed with the commission. Judge M. Margaret McKeown wrote in the majority opinion, “The spa’s religious expression was only incidentally burdened.” Well, tell that to the spa owners who feel their core beliefs are being steamrolled.
Judge McKeown doubled down, stating, “We are not unmindful of the concerns and beliefs raised by the Spa.” She added that while other avenues for challenge might exist, relief won’t come from the First Amendment. Sounds like a polite way of saying, “Nice try, but no dice.”
On the other side of the bench, Judge Kenneth K. Lee offered a scathing dissent, painting a vivid picture of the spa’s environment. He noted, “Korean spas are not like spas at the Four Seasons or Ritz Carlton with their soothing ambient music.”
Judge Lee continued, describing the intimate, fully nude setting of traditional Korean spas where patrons and employees are separated by sex.
He argued, “Now, under edict from the state, women—and even girls as young as 13 years old—must be nude alongside patrons with exposed male genitalia.” If that doesn’t highlight the clash between policy and privacy, what does?
Judge Lee didn’t stop there, pointing out the impact on female employees forced to provide full-body massages under these new rules. He called out the state for distorting a law meant to protect women’s rights into one that strips away their protections. Talk about a bitter irony.
He also challenged the legal interpretation, stating, “This is not what Washington state law requires.” According to Lee, the text of the antidiscrimination law doesn’t even cover transgender status as claimed. So, why the overreach?
Lee’s dissent grew even sharper as he defended the spa owners, an immigrant-founded Korean family business trying to preserve a safe space for women and girls.
He lamented, “Washington has perversely distorted a law that was enacted to safeguard women’s rights.” That’s a zinger that hits right at the heart of this controversy.
The dissenting judge highlighted how the spa owners pleaded with the commission, citing past complaints from women uncomfortable with male genitalia in their space. Lee noted, “Those pleas fell on deaf ears.” Turns out, empathy isn’t on the state’s agenda.
Lee also questioned the commission’s lack of sympathy for a racial minority group sharing their cultural heritage. He wrote, “Instead, it threatened prosecution for defying the state’s contorted reading of its antidiscrimination law.” If that’s not a textbook case of bureaucratic bullying, what is?