Letter: Arlene’s Flowers ruling doesn’t follow intent of law

The state Supreme Court ruling against the Richland florist, Barronelle Stutzman of Arlene’s Flowers, may follow the letter of the law, but it is clearly not according to the intent of the law as stated by the primary sponsor.

In 2012 we were at the Senate hearing on Senate bill 6239 before it became law. The committee debated an amendment to extend the protection the law gives churches and clergy to other businesses.

Ed Murray, then a state senator and a primary sponsor, said the amendment was unnecessary. He reasoned there are plenty of businesses that would like to provide the service, and all a business that didn’t want to accommodate the service needed to do, is refer the customer to another similar business.

The amendment therefore never became part of the bill.

This story was originally published February 26, 2017 at 4:22 AM with the headline "Letter: Arlene’s Flowers ruling doesn’t follow intent of law."