Arlan's Department Store of Louisville, Inc. v. Kentucky/Dissent Douglas

Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, dissenting.

This is a criminal prosecution of the owners of three retail stores for employing persons in their businesses on Sunday. Each was fined $20 and costs and the convictions were sustained (357 S.W.2d 708) against the claim that the laws violated the First Amendment, applicable to the States by reason of the Fourteenth Amendment. The case differs from Braunfeld v. Brown, 366 U.S. 599, 81 S.Ct. 1144, 6 L.Ed.2d 563, and Gallagher v. Crown Kosher Market, 366 U.S. 617, 81 S.Ct. 1122, 6 L.Ed.2d 536, in that those who actually observe the Sabbath on a day of the week other than Sunday are exempt from the penal provisions. But as I indicated in my dissent in McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U.S. 420, 561, 81 S.Ct. 1101, 1218, 6 L.Ed.2d 393, the unconstitutionality of Sunday laws strikes much deeper. By what authority can government compel one person not to work on Sunday because the majority of the populace deems Sunday to be a holy day? Moslems may someday control a state legislature. Could they make criminal the opening of a shop on Friday? Would not we Christians fervently believe, if that came to pass, that government had no authority to make us bow to the scruples of the Moslem majority?

' * *  * it is a strange Bill of Rights that makes it possible      for the dominant religious group to bring the minority to      heel because the minority, in the doing of acts which      intrinsically are wholesome and not antisocial, does not      defer to the majority's religious beliefs. Some have     religious scruples against eating pork. Those scruples, no     matter how bizzare they might seem to some, are within the ambit of the First      Amendment. * *  * Is it possible that a majority of a state      legislature having those religious scruples could make it      criminal for the nonbeliever to sell pork? Some have     religious scruples against slaughtering cattle. Could a state     legislature, dominated by that group, make it criminal to run      an abattoir? * *  * A legislature of Christians can no more      make minorities conform to their weekly regime than a      legislature of Moslems, or a legislature of Hindus. The     religious regime of every group must be respected-unless it      crosses the line of criminal conduct. But no one can be     forced to come to a halt before it, or refrain from doing      things that would offend it. That is my reading of the     Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause.' 366 U.S.,      at 575, 81 S.Ct., at 1225, 6 L.Ed.2d 393.

The religious nature of this state regulation is emphasized by the fact that it exempts 'members of a religious society' who actually observe the Sabbath on a day other than Sunday. The law is thus plainly an aid to all organized religions, bringing to heel anyone who violates the religious scruples of the majority by seeking his salvation not through organized religion but on his own.

I see no possible way by which this law can be sustained under the First Amendment.

' * *  * if a religious leaven is to be worked into the affairs      of our people, it is to be done by individuals and groups,      not by the Government. This necessarily means, first, that     the dogma, creed, scruples, or practices of no religious      group or sect are to be preferred over those of any others;      second, that no one shall be interfered with by government      for practicing the religion of his choice; third, that the      State may not require anyone to practice a religion or even      any religion; and fourth, that the State cannot compel one so to      conduct himself as not to offend the religious scruples of      another. The idea, as I understand it, was to limit the power     of government to act in religious matters *  *  * not to limit      the freedom of religious men to act religiously nor to      restrict the freedom of atheists or agnostics.' 366 U.S., at      563-564, 81 S.Ct. at 1219, 6 L.Ed.2d 393.