A Christian-owned spa in Washington State can’t discriminate against transgender women, a federal appeals court has ruled.
Olympus Spa, which has locations in Lynnwood and Tacoma, has historically had a policy of admitting “biological women” only, “excluding, in addition to men, preoperative transgender women who have not yet received gender confirmation surgery affecting their genitalia,” notes the ruling from a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
After Olympus turned away a trans woman fitting this description in 2020, the woman filed a complaint with the state’s Human Rights Commission, which enforces the Washington Law Against Discrimination. The law does not explicitly ban discrimination based on gender identity, but the state says the ban on sexual orientation discrimination includes gender identity.
The commission told Olympus Spa’s owners they had to change their policy to a more inclusive one. They did so, and they reached a settlement with the woman in 2021. Under the settlement, however, reserved the business’s right to file a constitutional challenge, which it did in 2023, represented by the Pacific Justice Institute, a right-wing legal group. The lawsuit argued that being forced to admit trans women who hadn’t had genital surgery violated the owners’ First Amendment rights to free speech, free association, and free exercise of religion.
“The family run business is owned by Korean Christians who hold sincere faith-based convictions against allowing persons whose genitals are external (males) to be present with persons whose genitals are internal (females) while in a state of partial or full undress if such persons are not married to one another,” the lawsuit said, according to the Seattle Times.
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington dismissed the suit, finding that complying with the state antidiscrimination law didn’t interfere with the owners’ First Amendment rights. For instance, changing the language in its admissions policy was incidental to the business’s operations, and the state law is neutral with regard to religion, the court found. The owners then appealed to the Ninth Circuit.
A three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit upheld the district court’s decision in a 2-1 ruling issued May 29. Because the Human Rights Commission’s enforcement of the state law “does not impermissibly burden the Spa’s First Amendment rights to free speech, free exercise, or free association, we affirm the district court’s dismissal of the Spa’s complaint,” Judge M. Margaret McKeown wrote for the majority. She was appointed by President Bill Clinton, as was Judge Ronald M. Gould, who joined her in the opinion.
Judge Kenneth Lee, appointed by Donald Trump during his first term, dissented. He said the state targeted “members of a racial minority group who want to share their cultural heritage and provide a safe space for women and girls.”
“Ultimately, this case is not just about the fate of a family-owned business. It is about power — which groups have it and which do not,” added Lee, is Korean-born. “And Asian Americans in Washington have historically lacked political clout.”
Attorney Kevin Snider of the Pacific Justice Institute told the Times he will ask for the full Ninth Circuit to hear the case. “Safeguarding the dignity of unclothed women in their intimate spaces implicates the right to association and the free exercise of religion,” he said in a statement. “We are committed to pressing forward to vindicate those rights.”
The Southern Poverty Law Center has designated the Pacific Justice Institute an anti-LGBTQ+ hate group. The Sacramento-based group’s actions include filing a friend-of-the-court brief with the U.S. Supreme Court supporting California’s anti-marriage equality Proposition 8, opposing a California law protecting trans students in public schools, and suing California over its ban on conversion therapy.