And freedom of association.

In 2020, Olympus Spa, a Korean spa, refused to allow a transgender woman, Haven Wilvich, who had not undergone gender reassignment surgery, to be naked around naked women. The Washington State Human Rights Commission (WSHRC) then served the spa with a Notice of Complaint of Discrimination in March 2021. The owner and president of the spa objected but lost.

In “Washington Korean spa orders to drop ‘biological women only’ policy after trans complaint,” Yahoo?life, June 9, 2023, Carl Samson writes:

The spa, which features the experience of Korea’s traditional, sex-segregated bath houses called “jjimjilbang,” responded by maintaining its women-only policy. In a statement, owner Myoon Woon Lee and President Sun Lee said they are “unwilling to remake the ‘jjimjilbang’ we have worked so hard over many years to build and preserve, simply for the sake of promoting gender neutrality.” They also cited their Christian faith in their decision to keep the policy.

Samson continues:

WSHRC ultimately ruled that Olympus had discriminated against Wilvich. In a pre-findings settlement agreement to avoid prosecution, the commission ordered the spa to remove the term “biological women” from its website. The business was also forced to make staff members attend an inclusivity training. However, in March 2022, the spa sued Andreta Armstrong, the commission’s executive director, alleging violations against their First Amendment rights to free exercise of religion, freedom of speech and freedom of association.

What brought this up again in the news earlier this month is a judge’s finding. Seattle District Barbara Jacobs Rothstein rejected First Amendment suit by Olympus Spa et al. against Andreta Armstrong.

Two weeks ago the show “Gutfeld” on Fox News Channel had an interesting discussion of the case. Usually Kat Timpf, the resident libertarian, nails the principle. But unless I heard wrong, even she failed to make the case from the correct principle. One of the guests, a woman named Brooke Goldstein, argued that letting a person with a penis in with naked women violated those women’s rights to privacy.

But that’s not the key. They had no right to be naked without a person with a penis present. If the spa had wanted to allow a person with a penis to be present, the women who frequented the place would have had no basis for objecting on grounds of rights. (Unless, of course, the spa had contractually obligated itself to these women beforehand.)  The entity whose rights are being violated is Olympus Spa and the right that the WSHRC is violating is Olympus Spa’s right to property. Olympus Spa is being told how it may use its property. The WSHRC is also violating Olympus Spa’s freedom of association, the spa’s freedom to associate with those it chooses to associate with.

But property rights and freedom of association are taking a back seat to the WSHRC’s phony right of someone who wants to go where she is not wanted