Federal Judge Blasts Court for Forcing Christian Women’s Spa to Admit Men

A federal appeals court decision involving a Washington state women-only spa has ignited controversy after one judge issued a sharply worded dissent accusing the court of abandoning reality and basic protections for women.

The case centers on a Christian-owned spa that was fined after refusing to allow a biological male who identifies as transgender to access female-only facilities. The spa’s owners argued that their business was designed specifically as a private space for women—many of whom come seeking healing, privacy, and relief from trauma.

But the court ruled against the spa, determining that the state’s anti-discrimination laws required the business to admit the individual.

One judge on the panel, however, strongly disagreed with that conclusion. In a fiery dissent, the Trump-appointed jurist argued that the ruling forces women to surrender their privacy in intimate spaces and compels a Christian business to violate its beliefs.

The judge criticized the majority for embracing gender ideology while ignoring biological reality and the rights of women who expect female-only spaces to remain just that—female-only.

He argued that the law was never meant to erase the difference between men and women, especially in sensitive environments like locker rooms, spas, and other places where privacy is paramount.

According to the dissent, forcing businesses to allow biological males into women’s facilities undermines the very purpose of spaces created specifically for women’s safety and comfort.

The judge also raised concerns about religious liberty, noting that the spa’s owners operate their business according to Christian principles and sincerely held beliefs about biological sex.

Critics of the ruling say it represents a growing trend in which courts and regulators prioritize gender identity over the rights of women and religious Americans.

Supporters of the spa argue that the case highlights a broader cultural and legal conflict unfolding across the country: whether longstanding protections for women’s spaces and religious freedom will be upheld or redefined by evolving gender policies.

For many Americans watching the case, the question is straightforward—should women’s private spaces remain reserved for biological women, or should the law compel businesses to treat gender identity as the determining factor?

The court’s decision suggests the legal battle over that question is far from settled.