Spokane Public Library in Spokane, Washington hosted a drag queen story hour inside its library on June 15, 2019. This event was open to the public, and it primary focused on children to expose them to drag. A drag queen story hour is where performers, typically a man dressed in flamboyant woman clothing, read to children. Spokane Public Library is located in a fairly small, quiet residential neighborhood in Spokane, and yet this event drew about 600 protestors outside the public library. Some of the protestors raised issues of immorality of transgender ideology, whereas others protested the drag costume itself saying it was misogynistic and they compared it to white people wearing blackface. One protestor who was interviewed said she was standing up for “truth and righteousness.” Those who were there supporting the event said the story hour supported diversity in education, and they said this while carrying signs showing Jesus in a dress and saying “more glitter, less bitter. Because the event was so controversial and attracted so many protestors, 40 police officers were present at the event to divide protestors from supports.
An issue arose when Afshin Yaghtin, a Baptist pastor at New Covenant Baptist Church was arrested. Yaghit said that he wanted access to the library to observe the drag queen story hour event, but the police denied him access based on his support for the protesters. He was then asked to remain on the protesters’ side of the street. Video evidence shows Yaghtin interacting with the police multiple times trying to explain to them his belief. The police told Yaghtin that they would arrest him if he continued, and he refused to move. He was then arrested and put into the back of a police patrol car until the event ended, and was ultimately jailed on charges of obstructing a police officer and was later released on a $1,000 bond.
Afshin Yaghtin and his lawyers said Yaghtin was being discriminated against by the police department and his First Amendment rights were violated, in particular, his freedom of speech and his free exercise of religion. Within the First Amendment of the Constitution, the phrase reads “Congress shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” Yaghtin and his lawyers believed it was clear the police department gave preferential treatment to the pro-drag queen protesters. Yaghtin was simply trying O observe the story hour. He was not holding a sign or shouting anything that would have gotten himself labeled as a protestor, yet he was not allowed in due to his beliefs. It is important to remember that this event was open to the public, which means anyone was invited to attend as long as they were not deemed a threat to the event.
The president of the legal group defending Yaghtin said, “If someone is not creating a disturbance, there’s no reason that they should be removed from a public place simply because of their perceived religious beliefs or convictions.” The police said they felt Yaghtin’s sudden decision to distance himself from the other protestors was a security threat. They gave him multiple warnings to stay in the public area, and when he resisted, they arrested him for the safety of the event. An officer interviewed was quoted saying, “the law says that while we are trying to protect everybody’s liberty and ensure their rights to exercise their First Amendment rights or Second Amendment rights, we are allowed to put restrictions on that in order to keep participants away from each other that have the potential to…cause harm.”
I think this is a difficult case to decide who is right and who is in the wrong. From the police viewpoint, they were doing their jobs by keeping the event safe. They deemed Yaghtin a threat to the event, and thus had the right to not allow him access to the library. As we examine this situation from Yaghtin’s viewpoint, however, we see that he had no intention to harm anyone or any part of the event, he was simply there to observe. The police deemed him a threat based on his views and his support for the protesters. I believe Yaghtin’s First Amendment rights given by the Free Exercise Clause were violated here because the police did not have probable cause to take those rights away from him in order to protect the event. He was not shown as being hostile or aggressive with any signs, he simply stated he wanted to observe the event.
9 comments:
This is a difficult determination to make. Under repeated precedential decisions, the Supreme Court has held that the Free Exercise clause defends all beliefs, but not all actions. Those actions that directly violate a compelling state interest must be restricted to create a safe, cordial civil society. In this case, I question the validity behind the threat, as the man simply requested to enter the public library. I believe the Supreme Court would side with the priest simply because he was restricted from a public space without truly displaying any threatening posture that would have violated a compelling state interest of safety. Therefore, the man's Free Exercise rights were violated by the local officers.
I agree with the author in that this is a difficult circumstance. The government has an interest in keeping the peace. The police only inhibited the entrance of the priest because they were accounting for the safety of the drag queen. However, the man denied entrance was a priest. A man sworn to peace and religion. I think of it uncharacteristic of a priest to berate and harrass another human, especially in these circumstances. I feel as if anyone else requested entrance, their request would be accepted, making this situation unfair.
I agree with the author that this is a difficult case however taking the viewpoint of Yaghtin’s, it is understood that he had no intention to harm anyone or any part of the event and was simply there to observe. Yaghtin’s First Amendment rights given by the Free Exercise Clause were violated because the police did not have a reason to take those rights away from him in order to protect the event as to the police considered him a threat based on his opinions.
I agree with Ben in this case. While the police were attempting to maintain the peace of the event, restricting the pastor from entering the event is a clear restriction based on religious discrimination. If the pastor was not being an issue, he should have been allowed into the event.
I understand the author's standpoint but I am a bit inclined to disagree. I know that police officers have a history of making poor decisions based on belief in stereotypes of people, but I cannot help feeling a bit sympathetic. In this time of mass shootings and bombings, if I were a police officer charged with protecting the safety of a religiously controversial speaker I would choose to be on the safer side of things even if it meant infringing on someone's First Amendment rights. I do agree that it was absolutely an abuse of power used to directly infringe on the pastor's constitutional rights but there was no way to tell for sure whether he posed a threat or not. I think in this situation, the safety of the citizens inside trumped the First Amendment rights of this pastor. I feel ugly saying this, but you really just can't tell how things are going to go and precaution at the expense of one's religious liberty is better than having to attend to the injuries of many later on.
I agree with the author and the previous commenters that the police violated Yaghtin’s First Amendment rights. The police have a compelling state interest to maintain peace and safety, but I believe that since there were no signs that Yaghtin had any intention to threaten or harm anyone, the police are discriminating against Yaghtin based on religion by restricting him to enter the event. Therefore, I believe that Yaghtin’s First Amendment rights outweigh the police’s compelling state interest and thus, I think that this violated Yaghtin’s rights given by the Free Exercise Clause.
I think that Yaghtin's First Amendement rights were not necessarily violated, though I do agree that this is a particularly sticky situation. I say this because the police didn't arrest Yaghtin because of his religious beliefs, rather they arrested him because he was interfering with their perceived ability to do their jobs. Given that I was not at this event, I cannot comment as to the legitimacy of this claim. I think that if Yaghtin had been arrested simply for protesting, then this would definitely be a violation of his First Amendment rights, but that was not the reason given for his arrest. It seems to me that the police had an interest in keeping the peace inside the library and were worried about the effect Yaghtin and his protest might have had inside. Personally, I think that's a valid reason to refuse someone admittance to a venue and Yaghtin was arrested for his refusal to cooperate with authorities, not his beliefs themselves.
I agree that Yaghtin's free exercise and free speech rights were violated. The police cannot deem a belief as a threat, but can base that assertion on action. If Yaghtin was being peaceful and actually observing, showing up with no weapons or vengeful signs, then to consider him as a "threat" is discriminatory rather than justifiable. It is hard to say if this is actually how he showed up (because we were not at the event) but I think the police should have specified what was "threatening" about him, and to use his beliefs to do this is not Constitutional. He is allowed to protest, regardless of his religious beliefs, and to censure that is a slippery slope that could take away many free speech and free exercise freedoms away in the future at various events.
This is an extremely difficult case that we are going to see more and more of as the years advance. While the world is becoming more aware and accepting of lGBTQ+ and drag queens, there will also be a disagreement between this and the religious beliefs surrounding Christianity. I believe that the priest had every constitutional right to be at the protest, he is also a citizen and feels that it is his religious freedom to participate in such an event. However, we truly do not know his intention when he was walking away from the crowd. If the police believed that he was a threat then they were simply doing their job. If the priest had obeyed the spatial lines that the police set for the protesters then he would have still been exercising his freedom of speech, protest, and religion. A priest is not above the law and if the police say that he seemed like a threat then they were just simply doing their job just like he was.
Post a Comment