Moore v. Thompson

• Decision Date: 16 December 1960
• Citation: 126 So.2d 543
• Parties: 42 Lab.Cas. P 50,158 J. T. MOORE, doing business as Moore's Central Service, Appellant, v. Ina S. THOMPSON, as Motor Vehicle Commissioner of the State of Florida, Appellee.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

Page 543

126 So.2d 543

42 Lab.Cas. P 50,158

J. T. MOORE, doing business as Moore's Central Service, Appellant, v. Ina S. THOMPSON, as Motor Vehicle Commissioner of the State of Florida, Appellee.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Dec. 16, 1960.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 20, 1961.

Wm. McHardy Berson, of Berson, Barnes & Inman, Orlando, for appellant.

Richard W. Ervin, Atty. Gen., Joseph C. Jacobs, Asst. Atty. Gen., Charles V. Knott, Tallahassee, and W. J. Steed, Orlando, for appellee.

Robert J. Pauley, St. Petersburg, amicus curiae.

DREW, Justice.

This appeal is from a final decree of the Circuit Court for Orange County declaring Chapter 59-295 Laws of Florida to be valid and constitutional. ¹

Prior to 1951, our statutes spelled out the prohibition of following 'any pursuit, business or trade on Sunday, either by manual labor, or with animal or mechanical power, unless the same be work of necessity * * *.' ² However, the history of this act is traced to the 1879 Legislature. Chapter 3146, Laws of Florida 1879 reads as follows:

'The people of the State of Florida, represented in Senate and Assembly, do enact as follows:

'Section 1. It shall not be lawful for any person to follow any pursuit, business or trade on the Sabbath, the first day of the week, either by manual labor or with animal or mechanical power, except the same be work of 'necessity,' or justified by the accident or circumstances of the occasion.

'Sec. 2. No merchant or shopkeeper or other person shall keep open store, or dispose of any wares, merchandise, goods or chattels on the Sabbath day, or sell or barter the same: Provided, That in cases of emergency or necessity they may dispose of the comforts and necessaries of life to customers without keeping open doors.

'Sec. 3. Any violation of this act shall be deemed a misdemeanor, and any person convicted thereof shall be subject to a fine of not less than twenty dollars and not more than fifty dollars.

'Sec. 4. All laws and parts of laws in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.

'Approved March 11, 1879.'

Throughout the years the word, 'Sabbath' has been changed to 'Sunday', however the original command coming down to us from biblical sources is quite clear:

'Ye shall keep the Sabbath therefore; for it is holy unto you: every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death. * * *' ³

By 321 A.D. Constantine issued an edict which required that all work should cease on that day and this ban was incorporated in several statutes in England, later to be found in the laws of many states. ⁴ The early American Sunday laws upon analysis reveal their original purpose to be the protection of the Christian Sabbath. ⁵ These laws followed two patterns. One, making church attendance compulsory in combination with severe punishment for failure to comply; two, requiring both attendance at worship on Sunday and the abstention from all worldly labor. By 1800, statutes were enacted no longer emphasizing the religious aspects of the subject directly so that now instead of, for instance, requiring church attendance, they seek to prohibit other activity thereby removing temptation to stay away from religious services.

In light of the decisions of the United States Supreme Court in People of State of Ill. ex rel. McCollum v. Board of Education, 1948, 333 U.S. 203, 68 S.Ct. 461, 92 L.Ed. 649 and Everson v. Board of Education, 1946, 330 U.S. 1, 67 S.Ct. 504, 91 L.Ed. 711 holding that the fourteenth amendment protected the individual against any state statute which infringed upon his individual beliefs or convictions, it was inevitable that the so-called Sunday legislation would be subject to attack on this constitutional ground. A study of the judicial history of the 'blue' laws, however, shows they have not generally been interpreted as laws establishing or infringing upon religion, but have been viewed as welfare legislation which provides for a general day of rest and relaxation. ⁶

The two landmark cases in Florida relating to the constitutionality of the so-called Blue Laws or Sunday Closing Laws are Henderson v. Antonacci, Fla.1952, 62 So.2d 5 and Kelly v. Blackburn, Fla.1957, 95 So.2d 260.

In Henderson, an action was brought by certain used car dealers for a declaratory judgment as to the constitutionality of Sections 855.01 and 855.02, Florida Statutes, as amended by Laws of Florida 1951, F.S.A. ⁷ There the Court stated :

'These Sections as amended cannot be upheld upon any religious principle tenet or belief although it be founded upon the Biblical admonition to 'remember the Sabbath Day to keep it holy,' because of our constitutional provision requiring the complete separation of church and state. Section 5, Florida Declaration of Rights, F.S.A. and Amendment 1 to Federal Constitution. The constitutionality of these laws must be determined upon a consideration of the query whether each or either was justified as an exercise of the police power which inheres in the state. It is clear that this question must be resolved by application of the civil law without regard to religious precepts, tenets or beliefs except insofar as they furnish a guide for good public morals or health. Hennington v. State of Georgia, 163 U.S. 299, 16 S.Ct. 1086, 41 L.Ed. 166; Brunswick-Balke-Collander Co. v. Evans, D.C., 228 F. 991; Soon Hing v. Crowley, 113 U.S. 703, 5 S.Ct. 730, 28 L.Ed. 1145. See also concurring opinion prepared by Mr. Justice Brown in Gillooley v. Vaughn, 92 Fla. 943, 110 So. 653, in which he quoted with approval from the last cited case. Laws similar to these have been upheld as a general rule not, as aforesaid, because of any right of the government to promote religious observances by legislative enactment but only as an exercise of the police power in the protection of all citizens from the physical, as well as moral, degradation which might result from continuous labor.'

In Kelly, a discussion of the religious aspects was unnecessary, but the Court upheld the Henderson reasoning which was grounded upon an entirely separate aspect of the legislation.

We reached the conclusion in Henderson that such statutory provisions were unconstitutional, since the distinctions made in them between businesses permitted to operate on Sunday and those which were prohibited from operating were wholly arbitrary and made without a reasonable basis for upholding them as a valid exercise of the police power. We disposed of the Kelly case on the authority of the Henderson case, re-affirming and holding decisive of the question presented the following language in that case:

'If may be said that the closing of all business houses on Sunday, except in cases of emergency, bears a rational and reasonable relationship to the public health, safety, morals or general welfare because thereby protection is afforded all citizens from the evils attendant upon uninterrupted labor. Nevertheless, it does not follow that laws containing the exemption of many business and vocations, such as the legislative enactments now under consideration, can be said to bear such relationship to the public health, safety, morals or general welfare as to declare them to be valid general laws (although they may be general laws in the sense that they are effective in each and every county of the State) simply because they operate equally upon all within a certain class or classes. It is necessary that there be a valid and substantial reason to make such laws operate only upon certain classes rather than generally upon all. State ex rel. Pennington v. Quigg, 94 Fla. 1056, 114 So. 859; Mayo v. Polk Co., 124 Fla. 534, 169 So. 41, appeal dismissed Polk Co. v. Mayo, 299 U.S. 507, 57 S.Ct. 39, 81 L.Ed. 376; Crandon v. Hazlett, 157 Fla. 574, 26 So.2d 638; Ex parte Jentzsch, 112 Cal. 468, 44 P. 803, 32 L.R.A. 664; City of Denver v. Bach, 26 Colo. 530, 58 P. 1089, 46 L.R.A. 848.

'It is not suggested that the parties who work on used car lots need protection from being cajoled into uninterrupted labor more than do citizens who are engaged in any of the exempt businesses or vocations. We can think of no reason, and none has been suggested to us, why the health, safety, morals or general welfare of our citizens would be safeguarded to any greater degree by requiring used car dealers to close their places of business on Sunday than such rights or guaranties would be safeguarded were such persons allowed to do business on the Sabbath along with proprietors of tourist attractions. Nor is it clear to us that any reasonable basis exists for exempting parking lots and filling stations from the operation of these so-called 'Sunday Closing Laws' and not exempting garages. Such distinctions appear to be nebulous, wholly arbitrary and are made without a reasonable basis for upholding them as a valid exercise of the police power. Indeed, each of these distinctions fits into the category of a 'distinction without a difference."

Having thus held Sections 855.01 and 855.02 Florida Statutes as amended by Laws of Florida 1951, F.S.A., unconstitutional by the Henderson case in 1952, and again by the Kelly case in 1957, we are now called upon to consider the constitutionality vel non of Chapter 59-295, Laws of Florida. As the court below succinctly phrased it:

'* * * and it appears to the Court that no facts are in dispute and the only issue is one of law involving the validity of Chapter 59-295, Laws of Florida.'

The pertinent sections of the act follow:

'Section 1. It shall be unlawful for any person, firm or corporation licensed under Section 320.27, Florida Statutes, to engage in the business of buying, selling, trading or exchanging new, used or second-hand motor vehicles, or to offer to buy, sell, trade or exchange new, used or second-hand motor vehicle or interest therein or any written instrument pertaining thereto, on the first day of the week, commonly called Sunday, or on legal holidays, commonly called New Year's Day, Fourth of July, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day...