Editorial lacked understanding

The Feb. 19 Spokesman-Review editorial endorsing the ruling against the Richland florist who refused to provide flowers for a same-sex wedding provides a sobering lack of understanding of both the Constitution and religion.

The issue at stake here is simple, what is the reach of the state into our personal religious beliefs and practices? Of course, the court followed the law. The problem is the law. When the government decides to endorse specific sexual behaviors and punish those who don’t approve, all sorts of consequences follow. People feel that the government has invaded a legitimate personal belief. The result is Stutzman’s fighting of the ruling as a case of civil disobedience.

The Spokesman used the tired and irrelevant argument that religion has been previously used to justify abhorrent practices such as slavery. Does that mean it cannot be used to object to anything unless the government approves? But, of course, the very fact of government approving or disapproving of religious belief and practice is what the framers of the Constitution specifically tried to prevent.

Sexual behavior and belief have always been a basic part of all religion. How odd that progressive media voices don’t seem to understand that.

James Becker

Spokane