The Unruh Civil Rights Act in California protects us against gender, sexual orientation and marital status bias. As we know, there are plenty of businesses that still engage in these covertly. But if a business overtly practices anti-gay bias, do we have to make a formal request for equal treatment before filing suit? For example, if a bar puts a sign up that says “No gays allowed,” is a demand to enter a prerequisite to suing that business?

The California Supreme Court, in Angelucci v. Century Supper Club, will probably rule in the next few weeks that the answer is “no.” The case involves a bar that advertised drink discounts for women. While “ladies night” is a widespread practice, it is illegal. A few male patrons sued the bar without first asking the bar owner to extend the women’s discount to them. An appellate court, however, said in 2005 that the men should have requested the discount before suing the club.

The issue may be pertinent to gay and lesbian couples who want to “marry” once it becomes legal in California.

While there’s no data with regard to how many businesses may have anti-gay bias, any that do will have to change. Failure by a retailer to accommodate a same-sex couple’s commitment or marriage is discriminatory under the Unruh Act.

Forbes magazine notes that if all same-sex couples could marry in the U.S., it would produce $17 billion for the wedding industry. In that spirit, Bloomingdale’s decided to support inclusion when it recently renamed its “bridal” registry as a “gift” registry, because “not all couples include brides anymore.”

……

Some attorneys in California have voiced concern because the state bar mandates a class every three years dealing with, among other things, anti-gay bias. One class is called “Girly Men and Manly Women: What a Corporate Lawyer Should Never Say.” The state bar made lawyers take such classes after a study showed that gender, race and anti-gay bias was a “serious problem” in the legal system.

Despite the fact that the rule has been around since 1990, some attorneys don’t like it and want it repealed.

But bias still exists. For instance, I attended a local bar event where an attorney, trying to humor the audience, presented a comedy bit based on ethnic, gender and sexual orientation stereotypes. Don Imus would have loved it.

It’s not time to repeal the rule.

……

Some argue that there shouldn’t be a statute that limits the time in which a person can be charged with child sex abuse. But statutes of limitations do exist. And the statutes pertaining to oral sex/sodomy with a teen are longer than those for sexual intercourse with a teen.

Arguably, the statutes should be the same, and the Legislature shouldn’t treat consensual sodomy any more harshly than vaginal intercourse with a minor.

In People v. Baker, former Roman Catholic priest, Michael Baker, who is charged with “consensual” oral and anal sex with male minors (16 or older) from 1994 to 1998, argues that had he had vaginal sex with a 16-year-old girl during the same period, he would not now be eligible for prosecution.

He contends this constitutes anti-gay bias.

Baker may be right that the law should not distinguish between “heterosexual” and “homosexual” activity.

But he’s clearly wrong to claim his behavior is “gay.”

Men who have sex with children are not gay; they are pedophiles.

……

The National Law Journal recently conducted a survey of major U.S. law firms to determine if they had any openly gay or lesbian attorneys. On average, the firms reported at least 2 percent of their attorneys identified themselves as being gay or lesbian.

The figure is a milestone, given that it was just a few decades ago that openly gay and lesbian attorneys were unable to practice law.

All states require that attorneys, in addition to passing a bar exam, also show they have the proper “moral” character to serve as attorneys. Openly gay attorneys were once unable to get admitted, and gays who did not disclose their sexual orientation but were later discovered frequenting gay establishments, were disbarred.