Spa FORCED to Admit Biological Men — UNREAL

Person in suit with gavel and scales of justice

Federal courts have now forced Washington women to endure male genitalia in their nude spa spaces, ruling that transgender rights trump religious freedom, privacy concerns, and First Amendment protections.

Key Takeaways

  • A federal appeals court ruled that a Korean female nude spa cannot refuse service to transgender women with male genitalia, despite religious objections.
  • The spa’s First Amendment claims regarding free speech, religious freedom, and freedom of association were all rejected by the 9th Circuit Court.
  • The complainant, Haven Wilvich, a “nonbinary trans woman” with male genitalia, was supported by Washington State’s anti-discrimination laws.
  • Judge Kenneth K. Lee dissented, questioning whether state law actually mandates biological males be allowed in female-only nude spaces.
  • The ruling prioritizes transgender rights over women’s privacy concerns in sex-segregated spaces, limiting business owners’ ability to set their own policies.

Court Forces Female Spa to Allow Male Genitalia

In a disturbing blow to women’s rights and religious liberty, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit has ruled that Olympus Spa, a Korean female-only nude establishment in Washington state, must admit biological males who identify as transgender women. The ruling stems from a complaint filed by Haven Wilvich, a self-described “nonbinary trans woman” with male genitalia, who was denied entry to the women-only facility. The Washington State Human Rights Commission (WSHRC) determined that the spa’s policy violated the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD), which prohibits discrimination based on gender identity.

The court’s decision effectively forces female patrons to share intimate nude spaces with individuals possessing male anatomy, raising serious concerns about privacy, safety, and religious accommodation. Olympus Spa had sued the state, arguing that forcing them to admit biological males violated their constitutional rights to free speech, religious freedom, and freedom of association. However, the 9th Circuit panel rejected all these claims, stating that the First Amendment does not provide relief in this case and that compelling changes in conduct that incidentally affect speech are not content-based restrictions.

Religious Freedom Claims Rejected

In its ruling, the court summarily dismissed the spa’s religious freedom concerns, claiming that Washington’s anti-discrimination law does not prohibit the expression of religious beliefs but merely regulates conduct. This distinction between belief and practice effectively eviscerates meaningful religious liberty protections, as it forces business owners to violate their deeply held religious convictions in their daily operations. The spa’s argument that being forced to admit biological males into female-only nude spaces violated their religious principles was deemed insufficient to override the state’s interest in preventing discrimination.

The court further rejected the spa’s freedom of association claim, determining that the business does not qualify as an “intimate association” or “expressive association” deserving of constitutional protection. This ruling severely limits the ability of private businesses to establish policies aligned with their values and the preferences of their core clientele. The decision represents a troubling trend where progressive ideology is being imposed on private enterprises through judicial fiat, regardless of religious objections, privacy concerns, or the preferences of the women who patronize these establishments.

Dissenting Opinion and Future Implications

Not all judges agreed with the majority ruling. Judge Kenneth K. Lee issued a dissenting opinion, questioning whether the text of Washington’s anti-discrimination law actually prohibits discrimination against transgender individuals in the manner being enforced. Judge Lee highlighted that these complex social and cultural issues should be determined by lawmakers, not courts – a critical distinction that respects the democratic process rather than imposing judicial preferences. His dissent signals potential grounds for further appeal, possibly to the Supreme Court.

The ruling creates a dangerous precedent that puts ideology above common sense and women’s privacy. Legal experts note that the spa may still have avenues for appeal, including privacy-based claims or advocating for legislative changes that would explicitly allow gender-segregated facilities based on anatomical differences. The case exemplifies the ongoing tension between transgender rights advocacy and traditional protections for sex-segregated spaces, with women’s rights increasingly sacrificed on the altar of progressive gender ideology. As this legal battle continues, women across Washington state are left wondering if their right to privacy in vulnerable, nude settings now comes second to accommodating biological males who identify as women.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR