his associates . . . and association

with thieves... may be very injurious to the person seeking such society, but it is not the business of the legislature to keep guard over individual morality.

"Our Constitution and laws guarantee to every citizen the right to go where and when he pleases, and to associate with whom he pleases, exacting from him only that he conduct himself in a decent and orderly manner, that he disturb no one, and that he interfere with the rights of no other citizen."

Mr. Lowenthal carried the argument on, challenging the contention that

even if homosexuals have the right to congregate the bar in which they do so can have its license revoked. He further argued that homosexuals also have the right to "dress, talk, walk or in any other way appear to act like homosexuals." He argued that the terms "sexual pervert" and "resort" as used in section 24200 (e) were so vague as to be legally untenable. Citing Perez v. Sharp, "An act is void where its language appears on its face to have a meaning, but it is impossible to give it any precise or intelligible application..." He pointed up various New York and Oklahoma cases involving prostitution. "In the Patterson case the court pointed out that such women are human beings entitled to shelter and that it is not a crime to give them lodging unless it is done for immoral purposes."

Agreeing with this, the court held in this case that the same reasoning applies to the patronage of a public restaurant and bar by homosexuals.

The police evidence, so scrupulously gathered, didn't add up to much in the court's opinion. The cops said the bar had a bad reputation in the neighborhood, in that it was known to be a gathering place for homosexuals and lesbians. They produced several officers who admitted

one

they had heard of this reputation. The court brushed this aside, as merely evidencing that which the owner had already admitted was the purpose for which the bar was operated. Mere evidence that the patrons were or reputedly were homosexual, since this was already taken for granted, was not grounds for revocation of the license, as laid down in the Stoumen case.

As the court summed up the police evidence: "During the nine-month period of intensive surveillance the police officers did testify that they did observe a few isolated acts which are relied upon to support the revocation. order. Several of the police officers testified that, on occasion, women were observed dancing with, and kissing, other women. This is not necessarily offensive, illegal or improper conduct that would justify the revocation of the license.

"The most damaging testimony was given by a policewoman who went to the bar as an undercover agent. She testified that she sat at a table and that a patron dressed in mannish costume sat down and stated to her 'You're a cute little butch. Later in the evening this patron kissed the witness. A waitress of the establishment, Buddy by name, came by and warned the participants that if they wanted to continue such activity they should go into the rest room. Other than through this waitress, there was no evidence the licensees knew of this activity or that they had been told of it. The officer did not complain to anyone about this conduct.

"Another police officer (who had been in the bar 10 times) on one occasion observed a display of affection between two men. He observed these two embrace and whisper to each other with their foreheads touching. He heard one of the men state to the bartender 'Arley and I are going steady.' There was no evi-