Skip to main content

Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf

Citation
Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf
Jurisdiction
Washington (state)
Source verification
official_capture_completeness_unverified

Related Parts of This Source

Full Text

1,721 chars
9
Jurists across the country have reached similar conclusions. See, e.g., Gay Rights
Coal. of Georgetown Univ. Law Ctr. v. Georgetown Univ., 536 A.2d 1, 32 (D.C. 1987)
(concluding that the eradication of sexual orientation discrimination is a compelling
governmental interest of the highest order that may override legitimate claims to free
exercise of religion); Hively v. Ivy Tech Cmty. Coll. of Ind., 853 F.3d 339, 355 (7th Cir.
2017) (Posner, J., concurring) (recognizing “[t]he compelling social interest” against
discrimination based on sexual orientation under Title VII “as a sensible deviation from
the literal or original meaning of the statutory language”).

-28-
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
Woods v. Seattle’s Union Gospel Mission, 96132-8
(Stephens, J., dissenting in part and concurring in part)

governmental interest—it safeguards the right of protected classes to obtain and hold

employment without discrimination. See RCW 49.60.030(1)(a).

Although “[t]he least-restrictive-means standard is exceptionally

demanding,” Hobby Lobby, 573 U.S. at 728, there is no less restrictive means

available here to satisfy the government’s compelling interest in eliminating and

preventing employment discrimination based on sexual orientation. Our recent

decision in Arlene’s Flowers reveals this truth. There, a flower shop owner

discriminated based on sexual orientation by refusing to provide custom floral

arrangements for a same-sex wedding. 193 Wn.2d at 483-84. We concluded “public

accommodations laws do not simply guarantee access to goods or services. Instead,

they serve a broader societal purpose: eradicating barriers to the equal treatment of