Hamilton v. City of Montrose

I dissent, for two reasons: First, the conduct of Hamilton does not constitute a violation of the ordinance involved; second, the ordinance, if construed to apply to such conduct, is unconstitutional and void, in that it abridges the exercise of freedom of speech and religion as guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the federal Constitution.

The legislative intent, as disclosed by the ordinance, was to regulate the sale and advertising of commodities, not to regulate the exercise of freedom of speech or religion. The only language which, if we ignore this legislative intent, may…