A Right To Theatricality?

As California courts resume sessions for the new year, they’ll face another round of tough cases on the question of religion.

According to the Los Angeles Times:

California jurists next year will rule on the constitutionality of
crosses on public land, teachers’ speech rights and students’ Bible
clubs.

Ordinarily, one would hope for justice, but given the dismal
recent record of California’s courts, the best one can hope for is
probably damage control. Still, these three cases may provide a
tantalizing realm of debate and a good source of political advantage
for one or the other of California’s parties, so it’s only natural that
a little discussion should be devoted to each of them.

According to the Times, there are five cases to be decided
by the Court, and they do deal with, among other things, the issues of
teachers, Bible clubs and crosses on public land. But things get
much more interesting and constitutionally gray than that.

The first
case implicates not just free speech
rights, but also questions of property rights. That is the case of
Borden v. City of Modesto, whose facts follow: Kevin Borden, a preacher
of some unidentified religion, was preaching in front of a movie
theatre in what he thought was a public plaza when he alleges that the
theatre security guards singled him out for harassment and forced him
to leave the area. Borden is suing for religious discrimination,
claiming that the plaza was public and that the theatre had no right to
throw him out. The theatre, by contrast, is alleging that because they
had rented the plaza, they therefore enjoyed temporary private property
rights over it which allow them to discriminate as they wish.

As constitutional questions go, this is one of the more
unpleasant ones because it directly implicates two rights which are
supposedly vested with equal protection by the Constitution itself.
Those two rights are the right to freedom of religion promised by the First amendment, and the right to property promised by the Fifth amendment,
respectively. More distressingly, both of these rights are intimately
tied with some idea of “due process of law.” This phrase is so
ambiguous it’s given countless judges excuses to reach activist
conclusions and besides, it also means that neither of the two rights
can be considered more absolute than the other, given that they both
have been filtered into state jurisdiction through the “due process”
clause of the Fourteenth amendment.

it’s very easy to predict how the California courts will
decide this case. Because property has been almost utterly destroyed as
a “right” by previous Supreme Court precedent, and because the right to
freedom of religion (often read erroneously as “freedom from religion”
due to the fabricated “wall of separation” doctrine) has a history of trumping almost everything else. As such, the Court is likely to rule for Borden.

But should it? This is a more difficult question. It is
certainly true that if the plaza were public, then Borden’s removal would be unconstitutional. But it is not clear that that
is what happened. The theater’s security guards may have been privately
hired, in which case there is nothing on earth which says people
cannot hire other people to make others go away. Of course, Borden
could allege that this “get off my lawn” tactic was illegitimate, as
the theater lacked jurisdiction over the plaza. This is where the issue
of renting comes in. If the court rules for Borden, it may land a
sort of victory for religious liberty, but there are other potential
threats. For instance, the idea that the State can restrict its
renters’ freedom of assembly is surely problematic for more direct
renters like, say, politicians, who may rent state property to hold
rallies, or to meet with different groups. A decision against the
theater would effectively rule that if anyone felt left out from such
an event, the state could force the politician (or any other entity) in
question to allow those people to join them. This would be especially
problematic in a situation like, say, an NAACP rally where a group of
Klansmen seeks to be included. The danger of someone gaming the system
in this situation seems far more unpleasant than the prospect of
private businesses/individuals being able to exclude others from rented
land.

As such, as the Constitution is silent on the issue and it is too
late for the court to refuse to take the case, the Court should adopt
the policy of least import and rule for the theater, which would thus
preserve a sort of tacit assumption about the rights of tenants, even
when those tenants rent from the State. As for Border, he can take to
preaching somewhere genuinely public.

Besides, it’s very difficult to
earn converts when all your potential audience wants to do is get in
and buy popcorn for a more amusing performance than you can give.