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
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf
Full Text
1,727 charsecclesiastical employment. “This does not mean that religious institutions enjoy a general immunity from secular laws, but it does protect their autonomy with respect to internal management decisions that are essential to the institution’s central mission. And a component of this autonomy is the selection of the individuals who play certain key roles.” Our Lady of Guadalupe, 140 S. Ct. at 2060. Application of WLAD to SUGM’s discriminatory employment practices does not violate SUGM’s free exercise rights under the First Amendment with reference to nonministerial positions. But that holding does not preclude SUGM or any religious employer from arguing a constitutional affirmative defense under the First Amendment’s religion clauses based on the ministerial exception. See generally id.; -25- 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) Hosanna-Tabor, 565 U.S. 171. Whether SUGM’s lawyers are ministers is not before us on review and remains to be addressed on remand. I next turn to SUGM’s state constitutional claim that article I, section 11 shields SUGM from liability under the statute—it does not. C. WLAD Does Not Violate SUGM’s Right to “Absolute Freedom of Conscience in All Matters of Religious Sentiment, Belief and Worship” under Article I, Section 11 except in the Narrow Context of Ministerial Employment Besides asserting its First Amendment rights, SUGM argues holding it liable under WLAD would violate article I, section 11 of the Washington State Constitution. Article I, section 11 provides, in part, “Absolute freedom of conscience in all