Is it just another clash of rights, or has the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals gone too far likening a Christian spa’s gender policy to racial discrimination?
At a Glance
- Ninth Circuit Court judge likens Olympus Spa’s gender policy to a “whites-only” policy.
- Olympus Spa insists its female-only policy is protected by religious liberties.
- Dispute arises from denying service to a transgender woman without surgery.
- Debate continues over balancing anti-discrimination with constitutional rights.
Gender Policy Under Attack
The legal dispute revolves around Olympus Spa, a Korean-run Christian business in the state of Washington with locations in Tacoma and Lynnwood, which enforces a “biological females” only policy. This stance sparked controversy when the Washington State Human Rights Commission received a complaint about the spa barring a transgender woman, prompting ongoing litigation. The spa argues such a rule is necessary to maintain a safe, culturally appropriate space and aligns with their religious values.
Judge M. Margaret McKeown sharply criticized this policy, comparing it to racial discrimination.
“If you have a law that says ‘White applicants only,’ this is ‘biological women entrance only.’ It seems to me they’re quite parallel there,” she said.
McKeown’s comments have fanned the flames, casting doubts on the legality of the spa’s policy and portraying it as discriminatory.
Rights or Safety?
Olympus Spa maintains their policy serves the safety and well-being of their clientele, who partake in traditional Korean body scrubs that require nudity. Despite allowing transgender women post-surgery, the notion of barring pre-surgical transgender women is seen by critics as exclusionary. The spa says this policy is backed by their constitutional rights to religious practice and association, a point their legal team emphasizes.
“It is the spa’s position that the women sharing in this cultural and spiritual experience have associational and free exercise rights,” said attorney Kevin Snider, who is representing the spa in the case.
Opponents, however, question how these practices stand up when tested against anti-discrimination principles. The state’s intervention asking the spa to admit men identifying as women has previously met resistance. The trial’s outcome will significantly influence how similar cases are judged going forward.
Divided Opinions
The Ninth Circuit judges appear divided on how this matter should be resolved. While some see this policy as akin to racial discrimination, others argue that clients have a right to choose intimate surroundings. As judges parse through these nuances, the outcome promises to be a landmark decision, potentially redefining how religious freedoms and anti-discrimination statutes coexist in America.
This case sharpens the spotlight on a broader cultural war that continues to challenge widespread sensibilities and raises critical questions on a national level about how America upholds its core freedoms.