US women's-only spa barred from excluding transwomen with penises
The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled Thursday, in a 2–1 vote, that Olympus Spa must change its admissions policy to comply with the anti-discrimination law. The court found that the spa's owners were not being deprived of their First Amendment rights, such as the right to free exercise of religion, freedom of speech and right of association, by the State of Washington's requirement.
Olympus Spa, which operates two locations in the state, is a traditional Korean bathhouse offering massages, body scrubs, and hot tubs that require full nudity. In 2020, the Washington State Human Rights Commission filed a complaint after a transgender woman—who had not undergone genital surgery—was denied entry.
The Commission argued that the spa's ladies-only policy violated the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD), which prohibits discrimination in public accommodations based on gender identity and gender expression.
In response, Olympus Spa filed a lawsuit claiming the state was violating the owners' constitutional rights to freedom of religion, speech, and association. The spa, run by a Christian Korean-American family, cited religious and cultural beliefs in opposing the inclusion of individuals with male genitalia in female-only spaces where nudity is required.
'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 complaint stated.
However, the Ninth Circuit ruled that enforcement of the state law does not violate the First Amendment. Writing for the majority, Judge Margaret McKeown said that providing a Korean body scrub or massage does not constitute protected expressive conduct. She added that accepting the spa's argument would essentially make every gym or massage parlor exempt from nondiscrimination laws.
The ruling comes amid broader national debates on transgender rights. Earlier this year, President Donald Trump reversed several protections for trans individuals, ending federal support for child sexual mutilation procedures for minors and issuing executive orders banning transwomen from women's sports and removing 'radical gender ideology' from the military.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Russia Today
3 hours ago
- Russia Today
Fyodor Lukyanov: Western Europe is at Trump's mercy
From a theatrical point of view, Monday's Washington summit between US President Donald Trump and Western Europe's leaders was a vivid spectacle. Each official played their role, some with greater skill than others. But behind the carefully staged performance, the real story emerged: the region's inability to act as a political entity in its own right. Contrary to media spin, the meeting was not about Ukraine. Attempts to resolve the crisis continue, but its outcome will ultimately be decided not in Brussels or Berlin, but by non-European powers. The real lesson from Washington lay in the display of Western Europe's dependence. Every move by these Western European leaders was aimed at one goal: not angering the American president. In the words of NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, Trump has become 'Daddy' – a figure to be placated with smiles, tributes, and flattery. Leaders compared notes on how best to manage his moods, even down to reportedly advising Ukraine's Vladimir Zelensky on what to wear, what to say, and how to thank him. This might sound absurd. But that is the political reality of the transatlantic relationship. The EU no longer acts with autonomy. Its politics revolve around managing the temper of a man in Washington. Of course, Trump's personality is unique, but it would be a mistake to reduce the issue to character. The essence is deeper: Western Europe has suddenly realized the scale of its strategic, political and economic dependence on the United States. Put bluntly, the half-continent can do very little without America – even in matters that directly touch its own interests. This dependency did not appear overnight. Ironically, it deepened under Joe Biden. With his rhetoric of 'unprecedented transatlantic solidarity,' the former president made Western Europe carry much of the political and economic burden of the conflict with Russia. The United States reaped the economic benefits, while the costs were shifted to the Old World. Trump has simply made this arrangement overt. He openly treats the Europeans not as partners, but as tools. In his eyes, the EU exists to finance American priorities and later to handle the technical details of a post-settlement Ukraine. Western Europe's 'position' counts for little if it differs from Washington's. The recent trade talks proved the point: negotiations went America's way, and his guests accepted it. Faced with this reality, Western Europe has chosen a strategy of unrestrained flattery. Leaders believe that by praising Trump, they can slip their own disagreements into the conversation. But the approach is self-defeating. Trump regards praise not as persuasion but as recognition of self-evident truth: if you admire me, I must be right. Join me, and keep applauding. Brussels reassures itself that this humiliation is temporary, the product of one unusual leader. When Trump leaves, normality will return. But the illusion will not last. For over two decades – since the presidency of George W. Bush – Washington has been steadily shifting its strategic focus away from Europe. This course has been consistent across parties and presidents. It will not change after Trump. And given the current willingness of EU leaders to grovel, future US presidents will expect no less. Some argue that Western Europe's position is no different from that of nation states dealing with America. That is misleading. Canada, for example, has taken a firm stance under its new prime minister, and Trump has eased his attacks. Outside the Atlantic bloc, the contrast is sharper still. China, India, Brazil and South Africa have all resisted US pressure. They may compromise, but they refuse to submit. None wants a direct confrontation with America, but none accepts blackmail. Only the EU consistently folds. It has become the undisputed champion of compliance, treating subservience as prudence. History shows Western Europe has not always been so timid. In the early 1980s, when Soviet-American dialogue collapsed, its leaders persuaded Ronald Reagan not to interfere with their energy projects with the USSR. Why? Because it suited the EU's own interests. That clarity of purpose is absent today. The problem is not that Brussels simply follows America, but that Western Europe no longer knows what its own interests are. Having lost the ability – or perhaps the courage – to define them, it automatically falls in line with Washington. For the United States, this is convenient. The EU is treated as a competitor in some spheres and a resource in others, but never as a genuine partner. What does this mean for Russia? For now, little. The relationship is at a low ebb, and rebuilding it is a question for the distant future. Still, the lesson of history is clear: the most productive periods in Russian-EU relations came when Western Europe acted in its own interests, not as America's appendage. Today, that capacity has vanished. Instead, the bloc risks descending into what can only be described as a collective political neurosis. Leaders reassure themselves with illusions, while the gap between Western Europe's ambitions and its actual autonomy grows wider. The consequences could be dangerous – for the EU itself, for its neighbors, and for the stability of the wider international article was first published by the magazine Profile and was translated and edited by the RT team.
Russia Today
3 hours ago
- Russia Today
Gabbard contradicts key Russiagate claim
Russia did not favor Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton ahead of the 2016 US presidential election and the administration of then-President Barack Obama was well aware of that, Director of National Intelligence (DNI) Tulsi Gabbard has said. Since mid-July, Gabbard has released multiple documents which allegedly expose a coordinated effort by senior Obama-era officials to falsely accuse Trump of colluding with Russia and delegitimize his first election win. During an appearance on the Hannity program on Fox News on Tuesday, Gabbard insisted that 'the intelligence community assessed in the months leading up to that 2016 election that, yes, Russia was trying to interfere in our election by sowing discord and chaos, but stating over and over again that Russia did not appear to have any preference for one candidate over the other.' At the time, Moscow viewed both Trump and Clinton 'as equally bad for Russia's interest,' she said. 'The big shift – that happened around what is now commonly known as 'Russiagate' – was after the election,' Gabbard claimed. In early December 2016, Obama called a meeting of his national security council leadership, telling then-DNI James Clapper and then-CIA Director John Brennan to come up with a new 'politicized and weaponized fake intelligence' assessment, claiming that 'Russia, [President Vladimir] Putin did try to interfere in the election because he wanted Trump to win,' she alleged. Russiagate was the 'real crime' by Obama officials against the American people because it undermined their votes, Gabbard stressed. Earlier on Tuesday, Gabbard announced that her office had stripped security clearances from 37 current and former US intelligence officials, including Clapper, for allegedly politicizing and manipulating intelligence. Trump said earlier that all those behind the Russiagate hoax should pay a 'big price' for what he labeled a deliberate attempt to sabotage his presidency. Moscow has consistently denied any interference in the 2016 election, with Russian officials calling the US accusations a product of partisan infighting. The Russiagate scandal severely strained US-Russia relations, resulting in sanctions, asset seizures, and a breakdown in diplomatic engagement.
Russia Today
4 hours ago
- Russia Today
Trump envoy tells Alaska summit critics to shut up
The Alaska summit between US President Donald Trump and his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin was a historic step toward ending the Ukraine conflict, Trump's special envoy Keith Kellogg has said, telling critics to just 'shut up.' The two presidents met in Anchorage last week and expressed hope that progress had been made toward a peace deal. 'We're living in a really historic time,' Kellogg told Fox Business on Wednesday, adding: 'To the critics, I'd probably like to just say, oh, shut up and go sit in the corner.' He stressed that Trump had done more to address the conflict than his predecessor Joe Biden, who 'never even talked to Putin.' Unlike the previous administration, which outright rejected dialogue with Moscow and vowed to support Ukraine militarily 'as long as it takes,' Trump is banking on his direct negotiating style and is pushing for a diplomatic solution, according to Kellogg. Russian officials, including Putin, have repeatedly welcomed the US president's 'sincere' desire to achieve peace. Trump met Putin on Friday in their first face-to-face encounter since 2019. Both described the talks as constructive and warm. During a meeting with Ukraine's Vladimir Zelensky, several European leaders, and the heads of NATO and the European Commission this week, the US president declared Kiev's membership in NATO to be out of the question, and insisted on a direct Putin-Zelensky meeting. Trump later briefed Putin on the discissions. According to Russian presidential aide Yury Ushakov, the call lasted 40 minutes, with both sides expressing readiness to continue discussions. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov announced on Wednesday that Moscow is ready to raise the level of its delegation for peace negotiations with Ukraine – an idea he said had been floated by Putin after the call with Trump. Putin has not ruled out a meeting with Zelensky in principle, but said it should be preceded by serious progress in talks on the conflict. Moscow has also voiced concern about Zelensky's authority to sign any binding documents, given that his presidential term expired last year.
