New atheist report ranks Washington high in religious equality, Idaho low

News Story by Emma Maple | FāVS News

When a Spokane non-profit behavioral health clinic refused to provide a reasonable accommodation for one of their mental health therapists, who had requested it due to personal religious beliefs, the government stepped in to investigate.

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s investigation into the situation ended in 2024, and left Passages Family Support to pay $95,000 in monetary damages.

While this circumstance was a local dispute, it represents a dichotomy present at both the state and national level: the government’s role in both protecting freedom of religion while also maintaining its independence from religion.

American Atheists, a national organization that fights for both religious equality and the “total, absolute separation of government and religion” according to their website, tracks state law and policy that affects these issues. Its recent annual State of the Secular States report tracks provisions in four different categories: Constitutional and nondiscrimination protections; special privileges for religion; health care and wellness; and education and youth.

In analyzing a variety of legislative and judicial provisions around religion, the report ranks Washington as having strong protections overall for religious equality, while the neighboring state of Idaho is ranked as having religious exemptions that undermine equality.

For Constitutional and nondiscrimination protections, however, both states are mostly on par.

Almost every state constitution has its own provisions that echo the U.S. Constitution’s protections for religion embodied in the First amendment, according to the report. Not only do these protections apply to individuals who practice religion, but also those who are non-religious.

“These create the bedrock of religious freedom by ensuring everyone is entitled to their beliefs and that no one’s beliefs are favored by the government,” the report stated.

The report breaks this category down into five possible positive and negative provisions: nondiscrimination laws, a state establishment clause, a state free exercise clause, strong taxpayer standing and religious tests for office.

Nondiscrimination laws

Both Washington and Idaho have laws that protect individuals from discrimination on the basis of religion in employment, housing, public accommodation and education.

Accommodations in employment for religious beliefs are not absolute, Dallan Flake, a Gonzaga associate professor of law who teaches on employment discrimination, said.

“It’s kind of a balancing test,” he added.

However, state and federal protections are what allowed the mental health therapist at Passages Family Support to challenge the company’s refusal to provide her accommodations, and her eventual termination.

“That was a really big deal locally, in terms of seeing how the government is going against religious discrimination,” Flake said. “When they find it, they [the discriminators] have to pay.”

These laws protect individuals from discrimination whether they hold a religion or not. In the realm of employment law, Flake said the nondiscrimination laws only apply to companies with 15 or more workers.

“Small mom and pop places, they tend not to know much about religious discrimination laws,” Flake said. “But that is okay in the sense that those laws don’t apply to them.”

For larger employers, however, Flake said “ignorance is no excuse.”

The law in this area evolves quickly, Flake said, and some larger cities will also have additional laws surrounding religion and employment. Spokane, however, simply follows federal and state law.

There is also the possibility that states might exempt religious organizations from these laws, as allowed by certain U.S. Supreme Court precedent and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the report said.

These are called “ministerial exemptions” because they are often applied to clergy and faith leaders. While many states allow these religious exemptions, some go even further than federal precedent and offer more religious exemptions. Both Washington and Idaho do not.

Establishment and free exercise clauses

Both Washington and Idaho have their own provisions, embodied in the state constitutions, that afford protections analogous to the First Amendment’s establishment and free exercise clauses.

The Constitutional clauses state that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

While most states have these basic protections, the report stated that state courts may interpret federal or state laws to afford a greater level of protection than required under federal law.

According to the Napa Legal Institute, Washington’s constitution has been interpreted by the State Supreme Court to provide stronger protections than required. Idaho’s constitution, however, meets but does not exceed the current required minimum religious protections under the First Amendment.

Washington’s protection for religious freedom is encoded in Article I, Section 11 of the state Constitution while Idaho’s is laid out in Article I, Section 4 of its Constitution.

Strong taxpayer standing

The American Atheist report also examines whether states have strong taxpayer standing, which means that the court systems would allow taxpayers standing to bring a suit against unconstitutional expenditures of state funds — such as spending public money to endorse religion.

At the federal level, there has been a gradual erosion of taxpayer standing, the report stated. However, states are not bound by the federal court precedent and may take a different approach to this issue. Washington has court precedent that would allow for taxpayer standing, while Idaho does not, according to the report.

Religious tests for office

Although Washington and Idaho do not, some states have policies that require office holders to swear a religious oath or practice religion. While The Supreme Court prohibited these laws in 1961, often, they remain unused in state law or the state constitution.

Sometimes, the opposite can be true — institutions sometimes attempt to bar public office holders from practicing their faith even in their private life.

This issue came to the forefront of Spokane’s attention in the past few years, starting in 2023 when former Mayor Nadine Woodward appeared at what faith leaders considered a white or Christian nationalist event, according to FāVS News.

After that appearance, four members of the Spokane City Council voted to denounce Woodward for appearing on stage with evangelical preacher and self-identified Christian nationalist Sean Feucht and Matt Shea, who’s accused of domestic terrorism and religious extremism, reported FāVS News.

Now, Feucht is suing those Council members and Councilor Betsy Wilkerson, in part claiming that they violated his Constitutional right to religious expression through the denouncement. Woodward has also filed a claim against the city.

Due to the claims and lawsuits, the city of Spokane declined to comment on this topic.

Pete Serrano —director and general counsel with Silent Majority Foundation, Feucht’s legal representation and the Republican candidate running against Nick Brown for Washington Attorney General — said it’s interesting to see how lawmakers in Olympia develop state-wide policies on the separation of church and state.

In eastern Washington, Serrano said most people tend to be pretty religious and share similar values. However, from his perspective, people in Olympia don’t often share those same values.

“It’s tough to have folks that may not have that same compass or faith line governing us,” he said.