Court: Businesses can't deny discounts to gay domestic partners

AP ^ | 8/1/5 | LISA LEFF

[SmithL]

San Francisco (AP) --

A country club must offer spousal discounts to same-sex domestic partners, the California Supreme Court ruled Monday, saying that a San Diego golf course discriminated against lesbians when relatives of married members played for free.

Deciding a case brought against Bernardo Heights Country Club in San Diego, the state's highest court said that allowing the families of married members to golf gratis while charging the partners of gay members constitutes "impermissible marital status discrimination."

While businesses might have once claimed a legitimate business interest for maintaining different policies for married couples and gay members who cannot legally wed, such distinctions are no longer justified under a sweeping domestic partner law that took effect Jan. 1, according to the court.

[SmithL]

Welcome to California.

[VRWCmember]

They should make the butches play from the back tees then.

[Gabz]

Does the same ruling hold true for unmarried heterosexual couples?

[CharlesWayneCT]

Why can't any person then bring any other person and get the freebie?

Why do we continue to let our judges pass laws.

[ClearCase_guy]

I fully expect that in some similar cases, the organization which is affected will say "Fine. No benefits for partners."

And a lot of people will (justifiably) become angry "My wife and I used to golf there all the time. Then the homosexuals got the rules changed, and now my wife and I can't afford to belong. But I drive past and see Adam and Steve traipsing around with pink golf bags. Grrrrrrrrr."

[rintense]

Exactly! It has to otherwise it would be discrimination, even though liberals will argue that gays can't marry but straights can.

[satchmodog9]

I thought private... never mind.

[montag813]

Does the same ruling hold true for unmarried heterosexual couples?

the answer is no, but the ACLU would have no objection to expanding it there. anything that can undermine traditional culture and religion is their goal.

[FormerLib]

Hey, who are you to say that a family unit must consist of only TWO people, you monogamistic bigot? /wise-guy mode off

[Ruth A.]

"impermissible marital status discrimination."

The slippery slop to tax credit, insurance, ... Marriage status is that and it is in the interest of society to encourage heterosexual marriage.

[Last Dakotan]

"impermissible marital status discrimination."

When was that law passed?

[Gabz]

Had they granted the discount to unmarried heterosexual couples, I could see the arguement for other unmarrieds........but since the other unmarrieds now get it, it should hold true for the unmarried hetero couple.

However, the part that gets me more than anything is that this is a private club - the courts have no business involved in their policies IMO.

[siunevada]

Welcome to California.

The beauties of a permanent Democratic majority in the legislature. Motto: We'll pass any law you can dream up and then some!

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

But but but.....I thought it was all about privacy and not about using the force of gov't to stamp out the moral beliefs of others.

[Gabz]

the answer is no, but the ACLU would have no objection to expanding it there.

THe ACLU HAD better make sure it is expanded there.

[Gabz]

ROFL!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

Hey, and just how many times does one person have to have sex with another person before he/she/it gets the benefits? If it's about living together, what about roommates that do not have sex together?

[Gabz]

There you go!!!!!

[FormerLib]

My cat can golf, but he's usually only good for 9 holes before he needs a nap.

[One Proud Dad]

Take solis that Steve and Adam will not be members long both of the club and this planet. They will be heading toward warmer temperatures as they put their putters in other peoples holes.

[America's Resolve]

"impermissible marital status discrimination."

So hmmmm. WHen did Calif pass "gay marriage?"

Boggles the mind. Yeah, what happened to the difference between private and public? Oh yeah, we haven't had those in decades, since race quotas went into effect.

[Gabz]

"impermissible marital status discrimination."

And that basically tells me that they must now grant the same discount to unmarried heterosexual couples........otherwise it is discrimination.

[11Bush]

He could go the 18, but you have to cough up the bucks for the cart.

[auntyfemenist]

I have three "domestic" partners, we demand to play next thrusday at 9:30a.m....

[Tacis]

More faggot BS! Each lesbo has the same right/ability to marry as any normal person doers. Their deviance/perversion causes them to choose not to. Why is that the problem of any business? Does that allow single normal people to have a date golf free? If not, why does a faggot get a date in free but a normal person, not?

[DryFly]

Actually, the answer is yes, provided that one of the heterosexual unmarried "partners" is over the age of 62. And NO, I am not making that up.

[heleny]

such distinctions are no longer justified under a sweeping domestic partner law that took effect Jan. 1, according to the court.

Thanks for nothing, Gray Davis!

Gray Davis signed this travesty around the time (after?) his Recall in 2003.

[Clock King]

The "gay" movement is still about rich white elitists with sexual fetishes.

[caseinpoint]

Oh so true. When I was practicing law in Utah, we always researched California case law because we knew that if any state had tried something weird, it was California. Also, if someone came up with an interesting statutory scheme, they tried to put it in the ear of a California legislator because California would enact it and we could watch it from afar, shielded from the often unintended consequences. If it seemed to work, we could try it in our own state.

But the joke is on me because my husband was transferred to California and my taxes have to pay for that legislative experimentation, judicial nonsense, and bureacratese.

[goldstategop]

I predict the California Supreme will strike down Propoasition 22. If its impermissable to deny discounts to gay partners at a golf course, then its just as bigoted to deny them the ultimate societal sacrament: marriage. Granted discounts and marriage not in the same category but the courts will strike down anything that sounds remotely homophobic these days. That's why we have to amend our State Constitution to forestall a California Goodrich. One is definitely coming up the pike - its simply a matter of time.

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)

[goldstategop]

If the VoteYES proposed constitutional amendment is adopted by the voters next year this ruling as a well as a score of pro-homosexual lobby agenda rulings are bound to be reversed with it.

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)

[ApplegateRanch]

So, what about unmarried hetero couples? How about unmarried, dating couples? Isn't it "discrimination" to charge a guy for his girl friend, but not for his mistress nor his wife? What about a "couple for a day"? Let's not even get started on manage-a-trois...

Instead, why doesn't the court & legislature butt out?

Oh, I should not have phrased it that way; we're talking CA libs. Naughty, naughty!