Religious freedom must be maintained during protests

It’s another one of those pieces of legislation that sailed through one chamber in Olympia only to die without a vote in the other.

In this instance, the issue revolved around creating a new offense for interfering with a place of worship or disrupting religious services.

The bill went nowhere this year, but legislators ought to take it up again in 2026.

At first blush, Senate Bill 5436 would appear to pit one freedom against another — the ability to protest versus the ability to worship freely.

The First Amendment of the United States Constitution prohibits Congress from inhibiting the free exercise of religion. The Washington Constitution guarantees all individuals “absolute freedom of conscience in matters of religious sentiment, belief, and worship,” and provides that no person or their property may be disturbed on account of their religion.

At the same time, the U.S. Constitution guarantees freedom of speech and the right to peaceably assemble. The Washington Constitution enshrines that: “The right of petition and of the people peaceably to assemble for the common good shall never be abridged.”

Sponsored by Sen. Jesse Salomon, D-Shoreline, SB 5436 would have allowed a person to seek civil damages from someone who “willfully or recklessly” interfered with access to a place of worship.

Unlawful protest tactics would have included obstructing free passage, trespassing, repeatedly telephoning, or issuing threats.

Such protections are not new in Washington. They are currently employed at abortion clinics and health care facilities.

The FBI reports that 14.9% of hate crimes in Washington were motivated by religion in 2023.

Testifying in support, Salomon and representatives of the Faith Action Network, Anti-Defamation League Pacific Northwest, the Sikh community and Temple Beth Shalom in Spokane noted that there was a clear line between lawful expression and harassment.

The bill passed 49-0 in the Senate. It would have allowed for protest as long as religious freedom was guaranteed. That is a workable compromise.

At a hearing before the House Committee on Community Safety, several Christian churches and the state chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations opposed it for being too broad and insufficiently guaranteeing the right to protest at a religious institution. The bill was never put to a vote.

“It’s really disappointing,” said Salomon. “We reached out to all the stakeholders in this process and passed the bill unanimously out of the Senate. I’m interested in trying next year.”

It would be nice to think that such legislation won’t be needed in the future. But in the likelihood that it will, there exists a path forward that makes the community safer, more secure, and more able to enjoy its unalienable rights.

Next time, both chambers ought to at least take a vote and let the public know where lawmakers stand.