Have you ever stepped into a space that felt like a sanctuary, a place where you could let your guard down and just be? For many women, a women-only spa offers exactly that—a haven rooted in privacy, comfort, and cultural tradition. But what happens when that sanctuary is challenged by laws that seem to clash with its core values? This is the story of a Washington State spa, steeped in Korean heritage, now caught in a legal storm over its women-only policy and the inclusion of transgender-identifying individuals.
A Clash of Rights and Traditions
The heart of this issue lies in a delicate balance: the right to privacy versus the right to non-discrimination. A women-only spa in Washington, known for its traditional Korean services, is fighting to preserve its female-only environment. The spa’s owners argue that their policy is not just a business choice but a deeply rooted cultural and religious practice. Yet, state laws prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity have thrust the spa into a legal battle that’s sparking conversations far beyond its serene walls.
Privacy isn’t just a luxury—it’s a necessity for many women seeking safety and comfort in intimate settings.
– Women’s rights advocate
The spa’s services often involve nudity, and its all-female staff cater to clients who value this single-sex environment. For some, it’s about more than just relaxation—it’s about feeling secure in a space where cultural norms and personal beliefs align. But when a transgender-identifying individual sought access, the spa’s refusal led to a complaint with the state’s human rights commission, igniting a debate about where to draw the line between inclusion and privacy.
The Legal Battle Unfolds
In 2020, the spa found itself at odds with Washington’s anti-discrimination laws after denying service to a transgender woman. The state’s human rights commission argued that the spa’s policy violated laws protecting against discrimination based on gender identity. The spa, however, didn’t back down. Instead, its owners, staff, and even some patrons rallied together, filing a lawsuit claiming their First Amendment rights—freedom of speech, religion, and association—were being trampled.
The case climbed its way to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, where a panel of judges ruled against the spa in May 2025. The court held that the state’s anti-discrimination laws didn’t infringe on the spa’s constitutional protections. But the spa isn’t giving up. They’ve requested a re-hearing, focusing on what they call an expressive association claim, arguing that their women-only policy is a form of cultural expression tied to Korean traditions.
Our traditions aren’t just rules—they’re a way of honoring our heritage and our clients’ dignity.
The legal documents highlight how the spa’s mission is intertwined with creating a space where women can feel safe and respected. The owners argue that allowing individuals with male physical traits into this environment could disrupt the sense of security that defines their business. It’s a tricky situation—nobody wants to exclude anyone, but where do you draw the line when privacy and cultural values are at stake?
Why Privacy Matters in Women’s Spaces
Let’s get real for a moment. For many women, spaces like this spa aren’t just about pampering—they’re about safety. Whether it’s the vulnerability of being unclothed or the need for a break from the outside world, these environments offer a rare kind of comfort. I’ve always found that there’s something uniquely empowering about a space designed exclusively for women, where you don’t have to worry about judgment or unwanted attention.
But it’s not just about feelings. There’s a psychological and even biological basis for why single-sex spaces resonate with so many. Studies in psychology suggest that women often feel more at ease in environments where they can control their exposure and interactions. This is especially true in settings involving nudity or personal care, where trust and comfort are non-negotiable.
- Safety: Women-only spaces reduce the risk of discomfort or harassment.
- Cultural resonance: For some, these spaces honor long-standing traditions.
- Psychological ease: Single-sex environments can foster relaxation and trust.
The spa’s owners argue that their policy isn’t about prejudice but about preserving this unique environment. They’re not alone in this view—many clients echo the sentiment, emphasizing that the spa’s female-only policy is what makes it a sanctuary. Yet, the law sees it differently, prioritizing inclusion over these concerns. So, who’s right?
Balancing Inclusion and Tradition
The tension between inclusion and tradition is at the core of this case. On one hand, anti-discrimination laws aim to ensure everyone has equal access to public spaces. On the other, businesses like this spa argue that their specific cultural and religious values justify an exception. It’s a classic clash of rights, and it’s not easy to untangle.
Washington’s anti-discrimination law, known as the Washington Law Against Discrimination, is clear: businesses can’t deny service based on gender identity or sexual orientation. But the spa’s legal team contends that enforcing this law in their case infringes on their right to expressive association—the freedom to create a space that reflects their values and traditions. They argue that their Korean heritage, which emphasizes gender-specific spaces, is a form of cultural expression protected by the First Amendment.
| Perspective | Core Argument | Legal Basis |
| Spa Owners | Preserving women-only space protects privacy and cultural traditions | First Amendment (speech, religion, association) |
| State Commission | Denying service violates anti-discrimination laws | Washington Law Against Discrimination |
| Clients | Single-sex spaces ensure comfort and safety | N/A (supporting spa’s stance) |
The spa’s owners aren’t just fighting for their business—they’re fighting for a principle. They believe that forcing them to admit transgender-identifying individuals undermines the very essence of what makes their spa unique. But the state argues that inclusion is non-negotiable, even if it means reshaping long-standing practices.
The Cultural Connection
One aspect of this case that’s often overlooked is the role of cultural heritage. The spa’s services, like traditional Korean scrubbing, are deeply tied to practices that have been passed down for generations. In many cultures, single-sex spaces are a norm, not an exception. For the spa’s owners, maintaining a women-only environment isn’t just about privacy—it’s about honoring their roots.
Perhaps the most interesting aspect is how culture shapes our understanding of privacy. In some societies, gender-specific spaces are seen as a way to respect and protect individuals, not exclude them. The spa’s legal team argues that the Ninth Circuit failed to fully consider this cultural dimension, which they believe is protected under the right to expressive association. It’s a compelling point—can a business be forced to abandon its cultural identity in the name of inclusion?
Culture isn’t just tradition—it’s a living, breathing part of who we are.
– Cultural studies expert
This cultural argument adds another layer to the debate. It’s not just about legal rights or personal comfort—it’s about whether a business can preserve its identity in the face of evolving social norms. The spa’s owners are betting that the courts will see their side, but the road ahead is anything but certain.
The Human Cost of the Conflict
Beyond the legal jargon and courtroom battles, there’s a human element to this story. The spa’s co-owner has spoken openly about the toll this fight has taken. For years, they’ve dealt with stress, fielding daily calls and emails about the controversy. Their business, once a place of peace, has become a lightning rod for debate. Sales have dipped—not drastically, but enough to notice—especially for their signature Korean services.
It’s hard not to feel for the owners and their clients. Imagine pouring your heart into creating a space where people can escape their worries, only to find that space under siege. The co-owner put it best: their goal is to let women relax without judgment. But now, that mission feels under threat, and the emotional weight is palpable.
At the same time, the transgender community’s perspective can’t be ignored. Inclusion matters, and being denied access to a public space can feel like a personal rejection. The challenge is finding a way to honor everyone’s needs without erasing what makes spaces like this spa special. It’s a tough needle to thread, and nobody seems to have a perfect answer.
What’s Next for the Spa?
As the spa awaits a decision on its re-hearing request, the stakes couldn’t be higher. If the Ninth Circuit declines to revisit the case, the owners plan to take their fight to the Supreme Court. They believe their case is about more than just one spa—it’s about the broader question of how to balance competing rights in a diverse society.
The outcome could set a precedent for other businesses, especially those rooted in cultural or religious traditions. Will the courts prioritize anti-discrimination laws, or will they carve out exceptions for spaces like this spa? Only time will tell, but the implications are massive.
This isn’t just about a spa—it’s about the future of privacy and cultural expression.
For now, the spa continues to operate under its women-only policy, but the pressure is on. The owners are holding firm, driven by a belief that their fight is about more than just their business—it’s about preserving a space where women can feel safe, respected, and celebrated.
Why This Matters to You
Maybe you’re reading this and thinking, “This doesn’t affect me.” But it does. Whether you’re a woman seeking a safe space, a business owner navigating legal challenges, or someone grappling with questions of identity and inclusion, this case touches on issues that shape our society. It’s about how we define privacy, how we honor tradition, and how we make room for everyone’s rights.
In my experience, these kinds of debates often feel abstract until they hit close to home. Maybe you’ve visited a spa like this one, or maybe you’ve felt the need for a space where you can just be yourself. Whatever your perspective, this case is a reminder that the lines between personal comfort, cultural heritage, and legal obligations are blurrier than we’d like to admit.
- Reflect on your values: What matters most to you in spaces like this?
- Consider the broader impact: How do these laws affect businesses you love?
- Stay informed: Legal battles like this shape the future of public spaces.
As this case heads toward a potential Supreme Court showdown, it’s worth asking: Where do we draw the line between inclusion and privacy? There’s no easy answer, but one thing’s for sure—this spa’s fight is far from over, and its outcome could change how we think about these spaces for years to come.
