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

1,763 chars
3
The fundamental right to sexual orientation does not appear to stem from just the federal
constitution but from our state constitution as well. See WASH. CONST. art. I, §§ 3, 7, 12; see
also State v. Jackson, 150 Wn.2d 251, 259, 76 P.3d 217 (2003) (“It is now settled that article I,
section 7 is more protective than the Fourth Amendment.”); State v. Bartholomew, 101 Wn.2d
631, 639, 683 P.2d 1079 (1984) (“[W]e have repeatedly noted that the Supreme Court’s
interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment does not control our interpretation of the state
constitution’s due process clause.”).

11
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
No. 96132-8

See, e.g., Dep’t of Ecology v. Campbell & Gwinn, LLC, 146 Wn.2d 1, 11, 43 P.3d 4

(2002); Wash. Water Jet Workers Ass’n v. Yarbrough, 151 Wn.2d 470, 477, 90 P.3d 42

(2004) (citing Anderson v. Chapman, 86 Wn.2d 189, 191, 543 P.2d 229 (1975)).

Meaning is discerned from the language itself, the context and related provisions in

relation to the subject of the legislation, the nature of the act, the general object to be

accomplished, and the consequences that would result from construing a statute in a

particular way. Burns v. City of Seattle, 161 Wn.2d 129, 146, 164 P.3d 475 (2007). We

find no persuasive reason not to examine and rely on statutory language when engaging

in the context of article I, section 12’s reasonable grounds analysis.

RCW 49.60.040(11) was originally included in the 1949 enactment of WLAD.

Even when lawmakers rewrote the definition of “employer” in 1957, the statute

continued to exempt religious nonprofits. This exemption has remained, despite the

expansion of WLAD’s protections. See LAWS OF 1957, ch. 37, § 1 (adding prevention of