Preacher or Prisoner

        Ryan Denton is a street preacher in Texas who sought to spread the messages and ideals of Christianity with the rest of the world. However, in August of last year, while Ryan was street preaching at a local farmer’s market, he was asked by the market director, Ismael Acosta, along with a policeman, to preach in an area away from the market as it became private property and was no longer public when the market was held. If Denton did not stop preaching and leave the premises, the officer told Denton he would have to arrest him. Denton actually recorded the interaction with the officer and Acosta and his subsequent interactions with others at the market (video below). Ultimately, Denton left the market but filed a lawsuit stating that not only was his right to free speech violated but also his right to freely exercise his religion, as he believes evangelizing to be an important part of his faith. One of the policies brought up by Denton clearly states the market is "NOT a venue for fundraising, political campaigning, or religious proselytizing," and thus, singles out religious proselytizing from other forms. Furthermore, Denton believed he was being peaceful and standing out of the way, although the City and Acosta did not believe this to be the case.

        The City believes they have not only a compelling interest, but a legitimate interest in preventing disturbance of the peace along with promoting the safety of all the individuals at the market, as it can become a very crowded place. Furthermore, the market has an interest in promoting business and economic development within the city for its vendors. The City also requires that everyone is required to get a permit in order to have a place at the market, which Denton did not have, and so, this policy is not preferential nor hostile towards religion but is instead neutral. Denton, however, argues that his request would have been denied and so there was no point in applying for a permit to which the City responded, they would have granted him the permit if he had more of a conversational tone and allowed people to come to him, rather than Denton approach them. The restrictions and policy regarding who is not allowed at the market do not single out religious groups but cover a wide array of different people including protesters, fundraisers, campaigners, all of which have secular purposes. However, musicians are not required to file for a permit, as can be seen in the video taken by Denton. Additionally, due to the market being private, they believe they have the right to restrict who, when, and what people are doing at the market. Ultimately, the City acknowledges they are violating the First Amendment of Denton but believe it is justified since they are providing an alternative location for people to carry on with such matters and there is a compelling interest.                                   

        The primary issue at stake then is whether or not the policies adopted by the City are unconstitutional as they violate the free exercise of religion guaranteed in the first amendment to Denton.

        In my opinion, I do not think that the City and the market directors are deliberately discriminating against religion but instead are trying to ensure peace at the market; however, that does not mean that the burden they are facing by Denton’s preaching is a justifiable reason to violate the freedoms guaranteed to him by the first amendment. Of course there should be restrictions on when, how, and where people exercise their religion but in this case, it seems to me that there is not that compelling of an interest to justify the violation of the first amendment. To me, I cannot see how Denton's preaching compromises others’ safety. It seems as if the market is trying to use safety and economic interests as excuses, rather than as valid and true interests, so they are not burdened with the presence of Denton and his preaching. As the Supreme Court made quite clear in Cantwell v Connecticut, violations of the free exercise clause cannot be made because of the potential burden they may pose to some people. The Jehovah’s witnesses in this case were required to seek out a permit in which the state would have to decide whether or not their religion was valid and were charged with a breach of the peace. Ultimately, the court decided the state was not capable to decide which religions are true and which are fraudulent along with the fact that although the Cantwells’ preaching may have been very offensive to Catholics, they had a right to exercise their religion and free speech. Additionally, I do not think the policy held by the City is neutral towards religion as it specifically mentions no “religious proselytization” and does not require everyone to get permits including musicians, who one could argue are being much louder and more disruptive than Denton could be from speaking. Additionally, previous class discussions have revealed that the Constitution itself is privileging religion and so in this case especially, I do not think those wanting to have a fundraiser can be equated to someone desiring to exercise their religion. 

        In the case of Denton v City of el Paso, the judge ended up ruling in favor of the City which I believe directly contradicts precedence established in the Cantwell decision and could lead to a slippery slope where if someone’s religious beliefs pose a burden to someone, it would be fine to violate their free exercise of religion.

Here is the video of Denton's encounter with the City.