Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf

Citation: Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf
Jurisdiction: Washington (state)
Source verification: official_capture_completeness_unverified
Original Source: https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/961328.pdf ↗

Related Parts of This Source

Full Text

1,703 chars

orientation, he reached out to a friend and colleague at ODLS whom he had known

since they were undergraduates together. He asked her if she thought his sexual

orientation might pose a problem. At first, she did not think so, but she later found

a policy in SUGM’s employee handbook that gave her pause. The handbook stated,

“‘All staff members are required to sign the doctrinal standard of Seattle’s Union

Gospel Mission. All staff members are expected to live by a Biblical moral code

that excludes . . . homosexual behavior.’” CP at 4 (alteration in original) (quoting

SUGM’s Employee Code of Conduct). She suggested that Woods ask the ODLS

director, David Mace, for more information.

Woods e-mailed Mace and disclosed his bisexuality. He informed Mace that

he had a boyfriend and that he could see himself marrying a man someday. He asked

if that would impact his chances of employment. Mace told him that he could not

apply given SUGM’s code of conduct and confirmed the employee handbook

prohibited “homosexual behavior.” 2 Id. at 226. Woods applied anyway and, in his

2
SUGM’s chief program officer stated, “[T]he Mission’s sincerely held religious
belief is that the Bible calls Christians to abstain from any sexual activity outside of
heterosexual marriage, including abstaining from homosexual behavior. This belief is
based, in part, on passages such as Romans 1:26-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9, and Matthew 19:4.
The Mission further believes that a Mission employee who publicly rejects this teaching
undermines the Mission’s ability to carry out its religious purpose. For example, because
Mission employees model this surrender for our clients, we believe it is very difficult for