Court Opinion

ID: 9647111
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 13:23:33.985868+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:11:45.552617
License: Public Domain

DEVANY, Justice,
dissenting.
I respectfully disagree with the majority. The City of Dallas ordinance in this case prohibits the exposure of the female breast. The female breast is unique to women. The Texas Constitution prohibits such a statute because it discriminates based upon gender. Therefore, the ordinance is unconstitutional on its face.
Furthermore, I respectfully disagree with Justice Whitham’s dissent because it would allow the State in a future case to offer proof about the flesh-and-blood composition of the female breast to magically transform the ordinance into one that passes constitutional muster. No amount of evidence that might be produced by the State in the face of the constitutional challenge by Messina can overcome this facially unconstitutional ordinance.
I find that the holdings in Williams v. City of Fort Worth, 782 S.W.2d 290 (Tex.App.— Fort Worth 1989, writ denied), and MJR’s Fare of Dallas, Inc. v. City of Dallas, 792 S.W.2d 569 (Tex.App.—Dallas 1990, writ denied), both civil cases cited by the majority and the dissent, would also allow the State to blow life into this facially unconstitutional statute by producing experts that can explain the flesh-and-blood composition of the female breast. Such proof is but a detailed biological explanation of one of the fundamental differences between men and women. Such an explanation of any difference between men and women does not change the concept of the Texas Constitution which strictly prohibits any legislation that would discriminate based upon gender. I would not follow Williams nor MJR insofar as permitting the city ordinance in this criminal case to become valid in view of the challenge by Messi-na because of the basic fact that the ordinance is facially unconstitutional.
Compare, for example, a ease where discrimination because of race is prohibited by the Texas Constitution. Common sense tells us that no explanation of the composition or cause of skin pigmentation will save any statute that discriminates because of race.
Therefore, I would hold that the Dallas City ordinance in this case is facially unconstitutional.
I would reverse and remand with instructions to dismiss the complaint against Messi-