Posted on 05/26/2005 8:28:37 PM PDT by SmithL
The California Supreme Court took a look today at a lesbian couple’s claim that a golf country club discriminated against them by charging them higher membership fees than spouses pay. The case could be a preview of how the court approaches the same-sex marriage issue.
By granting family memberships only to married couples, the San Diego country club “chose criteria that same-sex couples could not possibly meet," said Jon Davidson, legal director of the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund and lawyer for the couple who filed the suit.
His argument – that a spouses-only policy amounts to discrimination against gays and lesbians – parallels a central argument in the pending suit over the state’s ban on same-sex marriage, which is likely to reach the state’s high court next year. A San Francisco judge ruled in March that the marriage law discriminates based on sex and violates the right to marry a partner of one’s choice, a ruling that has been suspended while it is being appealed.
In granting review of the country club case, the court said it would consider whether businesses could legally discriminate against unmarried couples, gay or straight. But justices at Thursday’s hearing in San Francisco seemed more interested in a narrower issue: whether granting favorable treatment to spouses discriminates against domestic partners, who gained new rights under a state law that took effect this year.
When Jeremy Rosen, lawyer for Bernardo Heights Country Club, said the new law was irrelevant to the case, Justice Joyce Kennard asked, “How can you say that when the (law) equates registered domestic partners with spouses?’’
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
This country is becoming one big insane asylum.
Hey lesbos, prop 22.
Could it have been a case of "bad breath?"
Frivolous lawsuit. The court should make them reimburse the state for the money wasted on hearing this case.
"Lesbo couple lose chance at hole in one"
That's quite a ruling. I choose to marry...Angelina Jolie. If she refuses, I will sue her for violating my right to marry the partner of my choice.
BTW, couldn't partner also include my loving dog Smooches the Pooches?
Sorry, I thought this was about a Lebanese couple. Never mind.
They're just "green" with envy.
You listen to Bill Handel!
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
No actually I don't. Never heard of him. Actually checked out a thread a few months ago about a lesbian minister. I really thought it was about a Lebanese minister. Imagine my surprise! /sarc. I've just been waiting to use the comment.
The club shouldn't have kept them out for their sexual perversions. They should have just adopted a dress code that excludes plaid flannel shirts. Same outcome, more defensible in court.
Too funny! A few years ago, I shared a house with another woman at a very nice country club in Florida. She owned the house, I rented what was essentially one wing of the house. I paid half of the club dues for the year, but the club did not want to accord me membership privileges because, though I was officially a paying resident, I was not officially a member.
When we pointed to neighbors, two men, who shared a house and a membership, the club said that was different because we were just roommates but the men WERE GAY AND LIVING AS A COUPLE. We threatened to sue to get the same rights as gays, so the club relented and gave me a membership card that I had to renew every three months...no problem renewing it, but still, it wasn't quite the same status as the gay guys.
It was biology that chose a criteria they could not possibly meet...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.