Two courts in California rendered decisions recently that will prove quite helpful in fighting anti-gay bias.

A federal judge in San Francisco ruled that an Arizona-based, international Internet adoption service is subject to California’s law prohibiting anti-gay bias because its Web site solicits California residents for its services.

Parentprofiles.com, would not allow a San Jose same-sex couple (two gay men) to use its adoption services. When the company refused to post the profile of the gay men, who have been together 11 years, the couple filed suit in federal court in Northern California.

Federal law allows the couple to sue in a federal court because the other party – the Web site – is not incorporated in California, but another state.

The agency contended that it was not subject to jurisdiction in California, either in a federal or California court, arguing that Arizona law should apply. Arizona doesn’t have the broad civil rights guarantees that California provides.

However, a federal judge noted that because the Web site solicits business from California residents, it is subject to jurisdiction in California and it must comply with California law. Consequently, once the court establishes jurisdiction over both parties, it can then apply California law, which protects against discrimination based on gender, sexual orientation and marital status.

The adoption agency doesn’t necessarily claim any “religious” objection to same-sex couples adopting children. Rather, it simply is expressing a discriminatory viewpoint.

Nevertheless, the Alliance Defense Fund, a right-wing fundamentalist group that finances a lot of cases involving anti-gay businesses and individuals is representing the school. It doesn’t seem to matter whether there is a religious basis for the discrimination. If it’s anti-gay, the ADF is there to help.

This ruling is very significant because it means that businesses/services that use the Internet to solicit customers are subject to California jurisdiction and subject to California law.

The second case is one we reported on in December 2005.

It involves two girls who attended California Lutheran High School outside Los Angeles. The school’s principal expelled the girls because he deemed that their alleged romantic interest in each other was incompatible with the school’s religious tenets.

The girls and their parents sued under the state civil rights law, contending the school engaged in anti-gay bias because of the girls’ perceived sexual orientation.

The school claims that it’s not subject to civil rights laws because it’s organized around religious precepts. Like the Boy Scouts of America (BSA), it claims it’s exempt from the law.

But the girls’ attorney, Kirk D. Hanson, argued that the school is not exclusively Lutheran. It accepts students from various religions, and students are not required to attend church.

Religious groups are only exempted from anti-bias laws when all members must adhere to the precepts of the group. This is what gives the BSA the right to claim freedom of expressive association. However, when a group doesn’t require all its members to adhere to the same standards, its opposition to homosexuality is shown up for what it is — a pretext for anti-gay bias cloaked under the banner of the First Amendment — and that doesn’t fly with the courts.

Last week, a judge held that the girls can also sue for gender discrimination because the school board has an all-male board of education, and, the defendents allege, the boys are not subject to the same standards applicable to girls at the school.

Both cases will go to trial within the year.