This column reflects the opinion of the writer. Learn about the differences between a news story and an opinion column.
Ruled against discrimination
“How is it ‘legal’ to rule against Stutzman’s religion?” Ken Campbell of Deer Park asks in his Feb. 28 letter to the editor.
That’s easily answered by reading the court’s opinion, freely available online. The single paragraph conclusion on page 58 should be sufficient. In part, it says “… the WLAD does not violate her right to religious free exercise under either the First Amendment or Article I, Section 11 because it is a neutral, generally applicable law that serves our state government’s compelling interest in eradicating discrimination in public accommodations.”
The court did not rule against Stutzman’s religion. It ruled against discrimination incorrectly claimed as a free expression of her religion. Free exercise of religion, in any civilized society, must not include trampling on the rights of others.
Marc Mims
Spokane Valley