Posted on 08/01/2005 12:44:34 PM PDT by 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
They should make the butches play from the back tees then.
Does the same ruling hold true for unmarried heterosexual couples?
Why can't any person then bring any other person and get the freebie?
Why do we continue to let our judges pass laws.
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."
Exactly! It has to otherwise it would be discrimination, even though liberals will argue that gays can't marry but straights can.
I thought private... never mind.
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.
Hey, who are you to say that a family unit must consist of only TWO people, you monogamistic bigot? /wise-guy mode off
The slippery slop to tax credit, insurance, ... Marriage status is that and it is in the interest of society to encourage heterosexual marriage.
When was that law passed?
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.
The beauties of a permanent Democratic majority in the legislature. Motto: We'll pass any law you can dream up and then some!
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.
THe ACLU HAD better make sure it is expanded there.
ROFL!!!!!!!!!!!!!
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?
There you go!!!!!
My cat can golf, but he's usually only good for 9 holes before he needs a nap.
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.