Regarding Spokesman-Review columnist Sue Lani Madsen’s Feb. 18 article on State of Washington v. Arlene’s Flowers and Barronelle Stutzman: Madsen asks, “Does being legal make it right?” As though the court was “legal” in ruling against Stutzman and her sincerely held religious convictions that marriage is between a man and a woman.
The First Amendment to the Constitution states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Pray tell, where does it say that this declaration is “null and void” when a Christian freely exercises his or her religion in their own business? If the Constitution means anything, how is it “legal” to rule against Stutzman’s religion?
Ken Campbell
Deer Park
Our editors found this article on this site using Google and regenerated it for our readers.
