Federal judges ruled that a Korean women’s spa must allow biological males identifying as women to use their female nude facilities, trampling the religious and constitutional rights of the establishment and its female clientele.
Key Takeaways
- A federal appeals court ruled that Olympus Spa in Washington state cannot bar transgender women with male genitalia from its nude female facilities.
- The spa’s claims that this enforcement violates their First Amendment rights to religious freedom and free association were rejected by the court.
- The complaint was filed by Haven Wilvich, a “nonbinary trans woman,” after being denied service due to having male genitalia.
- Washington’s anti-discrimination law explicitly protects gender identity, which the court prioritized over the privacy concerns of biological women.
- Judge Kenneth K. Lee dissented from the majority opinion, questioning whether the law’s text actually prohibits this type of discrimination.
Court Forces Women’s Spa to Accept Biological Males
In a ruling that prioritizes transgender ideology over women’s safety and privacy, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit has mandated that a Korean women’s spa in Washington state must serve transgender women with male genitalia. The case centers around Olympus Spa, which caters specifically to women in a nude setting and refused service to Haven Wilvich, who identifies as a “nonbinary trans woman” but has male anatomy. This decision effectively forces biological women to share intimate nude spaces with biological males, regardless of the religious beliefs of the spa owners or the comfort level of their female clientele.
Olympus Spa v. Armstrong: Ninth Circuit Ruling and a Path to Protect Washingtonians
In the recent case of Olympus Spa v. Armstrong, decided on May 29, 2025, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit addressed a significant clash between anti-discrimination laws… pic.twitter.com/a5JLXntEtR
— TravisManer (@maner_travis) May 30, 2025
Constitutional Rights Dismissed
After being turned away from the spa, Wilvich filed a complaint with the Washington State Human Rights Commission (WSHRC), which determined that the spa’s policy violated the Washington State Law Against Discrimination (WLAD). This law prohibits discrimination based on numerous factors, including gender expression or identity. Olympus Spa then sued, arguing that forcing them to admit biological males into female nude spaces violated their First Amendment rights to free speech, religious freedom, and freedom of association. The 9th Circuit dismissed all of these constitutional claims, effectively ruling that anti-discrimination laws trump religious liberty and free association rights.
Privacy Concerns Ignored
The court’s decision completely disregards the legitimate privacy concerns of the women who patronize Olympus Spa specifically because it offers a female-only environment. Many women choose female-only facilities to avoid exposing themselves to biological males, whether for religious, cultural, or personal safety reasons. This ruling sets a dangerous precedent that effectively eliminates safe, sex-segregated spaces for women by forcing them to accept biological males in vulnerable settings. The spa’s owners, who operate their business according to their religious beliefs, now face the impossible choice of violating their faith or closing their business.
Dissenting Opinion Highlights Legislative Overreach
Judge Kenneth K. Lee dissented from the majority opinion, questioning whether WLAD’s text actually prohibits discrimination against transgender individuals in this context. His dissent highlights the problematic nature of courts and unelected bureaucrats making sweeping social policy decisions rather than elected legislators. While the majority claimed the decision aligns with current law, the ruling effectively rewrites public accommodation laws to prioritize transgender ideology over women’s rights, religious liberty, and privacy. The spa may still pursue other legal avenues, including privacy claims or advocating for legislative changes that would allow gender-segregated facilities based on anatomical sex.
Broader Implications for Women’s Spaces
This ruling has far-reaching consequences beyond just one spa in Washington state. It represents yet another instance where the rights of biological women are sacrificed on the altar of progressive gender ideology. Women’s sports, prisons, shelters, and now private nude spas are all being forced to accommodate biological males who identify as women, regardless of the safety, privacy, or religious concerns involved. The court’s dismissal of the spa’s constitutional claims suggests that businesses with religious objections to certain practices have little recourse when faced with expansive anti-discrimination laws that conflict with their deeply held beliefs.
