There is a queer sense of irony that the news of late has been about registered sex offenders (volunteering with Pride) and bias against registered domestic partners (practiced by a local golf club and medical clinic).

It was only a couple of decades ago that state law required gays and lesbians to register as sex offenders for engaging in consensual sex with each other. Just two years ago, the Supreme Court struck down state laws prohibiting consensual sodomy between consenting adults.

Now California prohibits bias against registered domestic partners. In a case that we profiled here, the California Supreme Court in Koebke v. Bernardo Heights Country Club ruled that businesses cannot engage in bias against registered domestic partners. They must treat domestic partners the same as “married couples.”

While the court outcome is a victory of sorts, it’s not as encompassing as I advocated here. The court rejected the notion that favoring marital couples is a form of bias against gays (because gays cannot marry). Rather than conclude that favoring marital couples is a form bias based upon sexual orientation and marital status, the court simply said bias against registered domestic partners is a form of arbitrary bias banned by state law. According to the California Supreme Court, businesses may still give benefits to married couples (and now domestic partnerships). As a practical matter, the case doesn’t change the fact that the government and businesses may still engage in bias against “single” people, or those not married or domestically partnered. Thus, it is still fine for insurers to charge singles more for auto, health and life insurance.

This will become a moot point if the Legislature passes Assembly Bill 1600, which would add both “sexual orientation” and “marital status” to the forms of arbitrary bias California businesses may not engage in. The law has passed the California Assembly, should soon pass the California State Senate, and will then await the governor’s approval.

As I’ve argued here for the past five years, passing AB 1600 should be the highest priority now. Here’s why: Assuming the very worst, voters pass a state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage and domestic partnership rights. At the very least, businesses and the government could no longer distinguish between “married” and “unmarried” individuals. Ideally, employees would receive equal pay for equal work, regardless of their marital status. That’s the way it should be.

Getting the majority of California voters, the majority of who are single now, to repeal such a law would be most difficult. On the same-sex marriage front, the Supreme Court’s reasoning that “businesses” have no legitimate interest in distinguishing between married and same-sex couples is instructive. It’s inconceivable to me how this court can say that it’s wrong for businesses to distinguish between married partners and domestic partners, but it’s perfectly fine for the state to do so.

The court knows full well that “separate but equal” systems are inherently unequal. Imagine a child asks another child if her parents are married, and she says that they’re registered domestic partners. Right away the other child knows not only that her parents are gay or lesbian, but they are “inferior” because they can’t marry. The California Supreme Court is unlikely to institutionalize “Jim Crowe” laws against gays and lesbians.

And those on the right know this. That’s why they are putting forward these initiatives to try and thwart equality. They have also taken up efforts (and don’t be surprised to see this on a ballot) to gut the state’s civil rights law.

In yet another San Diego case, a fertility specialist refused to provide services to a lesbian couple on “religious grounds.” A trial court rejected the idea, noting that one cannot engage in business with the public but pick and choose those customers based upon one’s religion. The case will probably head to the California Supreme Court. Supporting the doctor is the Alliance Defense Fund, the same group funding the same-sex marriage (and Chase Harper Poway T-shirt) case. The California Medical Association has waffled, but apparently supports the doctor, too.

If the Supreme Court rules in favor of the doctor, it could end civil rights because it would make every “religious” defense a jury question. In other words, a jury would have to determine whether the doctor had a bona fide religious objection that was sincerely held.