Talk:Unruh Civil Rights Act

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Untitled[edit]

Removed last two sentences of first paragraph (displayed below) as they are non-sequiters and are unreferenced. Replace when reference, position, and context can be provided.: . "Although the fact the School is nonprofit is not controlling, this does mean it should not be deemed a business unless it has some significant resemblance to an ordinary for-profit business." Doe v. California Lutheran High School Ass’n, No. E044811, 2009 Cal. App. LEXIS 89, at *19 (Cal. App. 4th Jan. 26, 2009). So, in essence, this case says non-profit organizations do not qualify for the business requirements of the Act. . jg (talk) 17:33, 26 March 2009 (UTC))

How is this a non sequitur? It's saying that nonprofits are not covered by the Unruh Act, because the Unruh Act only covers businesses and non-profits are not "businesses." And there's a citation in the middle of it, followed by a summary of what the sentence means if you're not proficient in reading court opinions (it says that you can find the quote on page *19 of volume 89 of the 2009 Lexis California Appellate Reporter). I think this stuff should be reinserted. Agnosticaphid (talk) 22:36, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
I thought better of it and added it back myself, hoping in a more comprehensible fashion. Agnosticaphid (talk) 22:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Language amendment vetoed[edit]

The proposed modification relating to use of language was vetoed by the Governor. I added a citation regarding this. But, maybe the statement could just be deleted altogether? Didn't want to make such a change unilaterally. Agnosticaphid (talk) 23:42, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Article faults[edit]

There is no date for the act. It should have some reference to the Civil Rights Movement and to the current practices of discrimination which it was intended to correct.

Social and political context is always useful.Bdubay (talk) 05:14, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I added the date of enactment (1905). I am somewhat at a loss with regard to your second comment. What sorts of examples do you think would be both helpful and encyclopedic? I could give examples of lawsuits brought under the act, I guess? Also, I'm not sure the Civil Rights Movement is all that closely related to this particular topic -- it would be more appropriate to link to an article about "public accommodations laws," but there isn't one. Agnosticaphid (talk) 18:32, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

hey, why is the proposed amendment, already vetoed, still in the text?[edit]

"Spoken language" was the proposed addition by Senator Leland Yee, which was vetoed! Kschang77 (talk) 03:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

That's an excellent question and point. Not sure how that happened. I've fixed it. (Next time, you could fix it yourself!) Agnosticaphid (talk) 21:30, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Weasal Words[edit]

The last paragraph of "Legal Interpretations and Effects" was recently added but has no attribution. Does this situation actually occur? Has the Act ever actually been interpreted to include political opinions? I'll leave this for a while, but at some point it needs to be either improved or deleted. Agnosticaphid (talk) 19:41, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to delete that paragraph. I don't see any evidence of, or references supporting, the existence of such a conflict. Agnosticaphid (talk) 23:20, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Age[edit]

I removed "age" from the list of covered classes. It's not mentioned in the text of the statute and the PDF reference says nothing about age. While the other reference does mention age, it's not explained at all. While the list of covered classes isn't exhaustive, this seems like a strange category to accidentally omit. Unless someone can come up with a reason to include age, it should go. AgnosticAphid talk 02:05, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

To quote from this reference (which is from the Attorney General of California, Kamella Harris), http://oag.ca.gov/publications/CRhandbook/ch4 "The Unruh Civil Rights Act (76), or Unruh Act, as discussed in the housing chapter of this publication, applies to all business establishments of every kind whatsoever which provide services, goods, or accommodations to the public. Businesses subject to the Unruh Act include bookstores, gymnasiums, shopping centers, mobile home parks, bars and restaurants, schools, medical and dental offices, hotels and motels, and condominium homeowners associations. (77) The Unruh Act prohibits all types of arbitrary discrimination, and not just discrimination based on sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, ageItalic text, disability or medical condition. (78) The Unruh Act also prohibits discrimination based on personal characteristics, geographical origin, physical attributes, and individual beliefs. For example, the arbitrary exclusion of individuals from a restaurant based on their sexual orientation is prohibited. (79)"

People can argue all they want, but the facts are the facts. Call the AG's office if you want to argue. Scottca075 (talk) 20:07, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

As I noted before, none of the other references mention age. It's not in the text of the statute. The AG doesn't explain where their inclusion of age came from. It's not a reliable source for that particular purpose and it doesn't belong in the article. AgnosticAphid talk 03:16, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
For instance:
  • Reference 2: "The language of the Unruh Civil Rights Act specifically outlaws discrimination in housing and public accommodations based on sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, mental or physical disability, age or medical condition."
  • Reference 5: "All persons within the jurisdiction of this state are free and equal, and no matter what their sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, or sexual orientation are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments of every kind whatsoever."
  • Reference 7: "The Unruh Act reads in pertinent part: All persons within the jurisdiction of this state are free and equal, and no matter what their sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, or blindness or other physical disability are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments of every kind whatsoever." (Note: from 1991)
  • Reference 10: "Generally, the statute grants all California citizens, regardless of their sex, color, race, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, marital status, or sexual orientation, full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges or services in all business establishments of every kind whatsoever."
  • Miscellaneous bulleted reference 1: "The language of the Unruh Civil Rights Act (see above) specifically outlaws discrimination in housing and public accommodations based on sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, or medical condition"
None of the other references mention age. Best, AgnosticAphid talk 03:31, 27 December 2013 (UTC)