Businesses Can't Discriminate Against Gay Couples Calif. Court Rules

[davidinalameda]

http://www.365gay.com/newscon05/08/080105golfSuit.htm

Country clubs must offer same-sex couples the same discounted memberships that they give married couples California's Supreme Court ruled Monday in a decision that will spillover to affect all businesses in the state.

The court ruled that Bernardo Heights Country Club in San Diego discriminated against a lesbian couple when it refused to give B. Birgit Koebke and Kendall French the full benefit of Koebke's membership.

Bernardo Heights' membership policy allows a spouse to be included in membership. Although Koebke and French have been together since 1993 and registered partners since 1998, Bernardo Heights Country Club refused to recognize the couple's relationship, limited how frequently they could use the course together, and forced them to pay additional greens fees whenever French seeks to play golf as Koebke's "guest."

[Brian_Expat]

1. I wouldn't patronize a business like this anyway

Why force them to recognize you grudgingly? I'd prefer to take my business somewhere that wants me, and let them know just how much they've lost through their stupidity.

[ladeuxiemevoiture]

2. I know what you're saying, but I don't agree.

Forcing them to recognize that you have equal rights sets a precedent for other businesses which intend to discriminate. So there is great value in such a ruling, in my opinion. :hi:

[TaleWgnDg]

4. Then there NEVER would have been that sit-down in Woolworth's

.
Then there NEVER would have been that sit-down at the Woolworth's lunch counter back in the 60s when blacks couldn't get served due to state segregation. And on and on. Nope. Tis far better to hold what's called a "civil disobedience" sit-in or protest or a court challenge as did these two lesbians. Due to their actions, similar discriminatory actions against gays in the entire State of California are prohibited. The law has unfolded to have that meaning "spelled out" so that all can understand it clearly.

Speaking as an old pro bono ACLU attorney, they did the correct action for themselves and for the entire California homosexual community and others protected u/ that California law.


"ACLU: FREEDOM DOESN'T PROTECT ITSELF."



____________________________________________

edited to include: Greensboro, South Carolina lunch counter sit-in history that "started" the black civil rights movement back in 1960 or so http://www.greensboro.com/sitins/950115.htm

.

[crikkett]

3. kick n/t

[TaleWgnDg]

5. Uuummmm, for those so inclined . . .

.
Uuummmm, for those so inclined . . . here's the parties and docket number: Koebke v. Bernardo Heights Country Club, # S124179 (Cal. August 01, 2005). Under the California Unruh Civil Rights Act (California Civil Code, § 51 et seq.), a business that extends benefits to spouses it denies to registered domestic partners engages in impermissible marital status discrimination.

And, for those who want to read the *real thing* . . . here's the full text of the California Supreme Court opinion from freebie findlaw.com:

1.) pdf format at: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/californiastatecases/s124179.pdf

2.) doc format at: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/data2/californiastatecases/s124179.doc

And, for those so inclined to read statutes, here's the California Civil Code, § 51 (scroll down to number 51 where it states "This section shall be known, and may be cited, as the Unruh Civil Rights Act" . . . ): http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=1857521086+1+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve
(as last visited, Thursday, August 4, 2005)


.