Christian Spa Owners Vow to Fight Back After Federal Court Forces Them to Admit Biological Male Into Women-Only Nude Facility
A federal appeals court has ruled that Olympus Spa, a traditional Korean, women-only nude spa owned by Christian believers in Washington state, must comply with anti-discrimination laws and admit biologically male clients who identify as women—despite deeply held religious convictions and longstanding privacy policies.
Read More
In a 2-1 decision issued last Thursday, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the dismissal of a lawsuit brought by the spa against Washington State’s Human Rights Commission. The spa had argued that being forced to admit transgender women with male genitalia violated their First Amendment rights to free exercise of religion, free speech, and freedom of association.
Writing for the majority, U.S. Circuit Judge Margaret McKeown, a Clinton appointee, stated that the spa’s religious expression was only “incidentally burdened” by the state’s anti-discrimination law. “Whatever recourse [the spa] may have,” McKeown wrote, “that relief cannot come from the First Amendment.”
Olympus Spa, which requires patrons to be fully nude in shared spaces, had operated under the same women-only policy for over two decades without complaint—until a 2020 incident in which a biologically male client identifying as a transgender woman was denied entry. Following a complaint, the Washington Human Rights Commission ordered the spa to change its policy.
In a powerful dissent, Circuit Judge Kenneth Lee, a Trump appointee and Korean-American, defended the spa’s cultural and religious integrity. “Korean spas require their patrons to be fully naked, as they sit in communal saunas and undergo deep-tissue scrubbing of their entire bodies,” he wrote. “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.”
Lee also accused the state of using its authority to advance a political agenda and noted that the spa’s policy does not discriminate based on sexual orientation but simply restricts access based on genitalia for privacy and religious reasons.
The majority opinion, joined by another Clinton appointee, Judge Ronald Gould, dismissed these concerns, arguing that public businesses cannot restrict service based on gender identity under state law. McKeown wrote that while the spa’s desire for privacy is understandable, it does not transform a public business into a constitutionally protected “intimate association.”
The court did leave the door open for other legal avenues the spa might explore but firmly closed the First Amendment route. The decision has alarmed religious freedom advocates, cultural conservatives, and women’s rights defenders alike.
Kevin Snider of the Pacific Justice Institute, representing the spa, said the decision could have dangerous implications. “Women should not be forced into intimate settings with biological males against their will,” he said. “This ruling undermines both religious liberty and common-sense privacy protections.”
