Letter: Review of Arlene’s Flowers case amounted to advocacy

Columbia Basin College Professor David Arnold’s review of the Arlene’s Flowers case (TCH, Nov. 15) makes one wonder why he didn’t point out his opinion at the start of the public controversy, instead of waiting a couple of years as it got closer to the Washington Supreme Court review of the case.

Maybe it’s not facts but advocacy. It’s interesting to note that as the decision gets nearer, two half-page advocacy articles have appeared on consecutive Sundays in the newspaper and the professor is a colleague of the plaintiffs. It is offensive to have a condescending professor claim advocacy is fact.

Fact No. 1: You have confused fact with an advocacy opinion.

Fact No. 2: You only discuss facts that support your opinion?

Fact No. 3: You’re not the Supreme Court, which, by the way, often delivers these kind of decisions 5-4, not 9-0, but they look at all the facts. See Kim Davis case.

This story was originally published December 6, 2015 at 5:42 PM with the headline "Letter: Review of Arlene’s Flowers case amounted to advocacy."