Court Rules Spa Can't Ban Trans Women on Basis of Religion

A women-only spa in Washington state tried to ban transgender women from entering on the basis of religion. A federal appeals court just shot that down that effort. 

The case could have wide-ranging consequences for trans rights and religious freedom, experts say. 

No Spa For You

The story began back in 2020, when a trans woman named Haven Wilvich tried to book an appointment at Olympus Spa in Lynnwood, Washington, a suburb of Seattle. But Wilvich’s request was abruptly denied, with spa staff allegedly telling her “transgender women without surgery are not welcome because it could make other customers and staff uncomfortable.”

After being turned away, she got in touch with the Washington State Human Rights Commission (WSHRC), who contacted the spa and told them their anti-trans policies ran afoul of the state’s anti-discrimination laws, which includes prohibiting discrimination on the basis of gender identity. The WSHRC’s response was clear: Trans women must be allowed in the spa.

In response, the spa filed a lawsuit alleging that serving trans women was a violation of their First Amendment rights, and in conflict with their sincere Christian faith.

Naked Discrimination?

The religious issue at hand, at least according to the spa, is nakedly obvious. They mean that literally.

Throughout its 20 years of operation, the women-only Olympus Spa has engaged in traditional Korean spa practices, including mandatory full nudity for patrons when receiving massages and full-body scrubs. Patrons are occasionally in groups, with individuals as young as 13 allowed in the spa.

The prior policy for trans women was that they are only allowed if they’ve fully completed bottom surgery.

“The tradition has existed for about 500 years from Korean ancestry,” explained Olympus Spa Owner Sun Lee. “Where women, particularly women, go through a traditional, ceremonial, act of cleansing and the person has to be naked.”

Religious Heritage at Stake?

According to Olympus Spa, this isn’t just a policy in place for the comfort of staff and other patrons; It’s part of their religious heritage. 

“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,” reads the spa’s lawsuit against the WSHRC. 

“Safeguarding the dignity of unclothed women in their intimate spaces implicates the right to association and the free exercise of religion,” stated the spa’s lawyer, Kevin Snider.

Court Rules Against Spa

In a 2-1 vote, judges on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the spa’s suit didn’t rise to the level of religious discrimination, and found that its right to religious expression was only “incidentally burdened” by Washington’s anti-discrimination laws.

“Eliminating discrimination on the basis of sex and transgender status is a legitimate government purpose,” reads the court opinion, penned by Judge M. Margaret McKeown. The anti-discrimination laws didn’t burden the spa’s religious expression because the laws were “neutral and generally applicable,” she wrote.

The court seemingly found the spa’s allegations – that unmarried people with opposite genitals being nude in the same room together was a violation of their faith – a fairly weak religious freedom argument. And whatever minor burdens to their religious beliefs they experienced were overruled by the right of transgender women to not be discriminated against when simply trying to get a massage.

Safety Issue?

However, Judge Kenneth Lee issued a strong dissent, alleging that the state violated the religious rights of the spa owners –  “traditional theologically conservative Korean Christians” – who “consider modesty between males and females as a central tenet.”

Judge Lee also suggested allowing trans women in the spa could be a safety issue. 

“Korean spas are not like spas at the Four Seasons or Ritz Carlton,” he wrote. “Under edict from the state, women – and even girls as young as 13 years old – must be nude alongside patrons with exposed male genitalia.”

The spa’s lawyers say they’re not giving up, and upon appeal seem poised to bounce back to the "safety" argument, stating their goal is now to “[safeguard] the dignity of unclothed women in their intimate spaces.”

What do you make of the case? Should trans women be allowed in women's only spa settings?