[Spunky]

"Any business owner would have been able to deny service until just recently (the referendum, as you know, only passed last year)."

It appears to me the law about discrimination due to sexual orientation became effective in 1995. The gay marriage law became effective last year. So NO! they would not have been able to deny service without being taken to task. But now gay MARRIAGE brings a different problem. It is against her religious beliefs, just like it is against some religions beliefs to have to provide contraception.

RCW 49.60.010"RCW 49.60.010

[steve86]

You are correct concerning the inception of RCW 49.60.010 but does a transaction inside a private retail business fit the meaning of "in places of public resort, accommodation, or amusement". I don't know at this point and would have to research it further. I know that a sign inside another Richland business at this very moment states that this is NOT a public concourse (or words to that effect). Still don't understand why Mrs. Stutzman's religious objections didn't extend to premarital conduct. Mine do.

[steve86]

On reading the private complaint against Mrs. Stutzman, it appears that numerous RCW sections are referenced and the claim is made that her business is covered by RCW 49.60.010 and other state law such as the Washington Consumer Protection Act. We can only hope that the guarantee of freedom to exercise religion, present in both federal and state constitutions, trumps it all.