No, based on the WLAD, which appears to pierce the corporate liability protections. She’ll be bankrupted. The Sodomites are winning.
Washington State ConstitutionNow, what does the underlined mean?
ARTICLE I, SECTION 11 RELIGIOUS FREEDOM.
Absolute freedom of conscience in all matters of religious sentiment, belief and worship, shall be guaranteed to every individual, and no one shall be molested or disturbed in person or property on account of religion; but the liberty of conscience hereby secured shall not be so construed as to excuse acts of licentiousness or justify practices inconsistent with the peace and safety of the state. No public money or property shall be appropriated for or applied to any religious worship, exercise or instruction, or the support of any religious establishment: PROVIDED, HOWEVER, That this article shall not be so construed as to forbid the employment by the state of a chaplain for such of the state custodial, correctional, and mental institutions, or by a county's or public hospital district's hospital, health care facility, or hospice, as in the discretion of the legislature may seem justified. No religious qualification shall be required for any public office or employment, nor shall any person be incompetent as a witness or juror, in consequence of his opinion on matters of religion, nor be questioned in any court of justice touching his religious belief to affect the weight of his testimony.
pierce the corporate liability protections, then it must be that the personal religious protection must apply. Forcing her to sell her possessions against her will because of religious sentiment is
molesting or disturbing in person or property.