theoretically at least, all bars would be closed.

Such a ridiculous result was never intended by the Legislaturo and such a possibility should not be sanctioned by the certainly not where human values and civil rights are endangered."

Courts

CONTRARY TO PUBLIC WELFARE OR MORALS?

The basic promise of the ABC would appear to be that the "gay" bar in general is a "disorderly house for purposes injurious to public morals". And while we have cited cases above where they were unable to make this charge stick, we must also point out that such a ruling was upheld in the Kershaw case because "there was evidence of illegal and immoral conduct on the part of patrons to the knowledge of the licensees sufficient to sustain the revocation". Likewise in the Nickola case there was ample evidence of improper conduct on the premises, and of the licensee's knowledge of such conduct.

The problem of conduct on public promises is thus the real issue not the "resort for homosexuals" itself as posed

by the Legislature and the ABC.

We must agree that "seeking sexual satisfaction in a public tavern", as provod in the Kershaw and Nickola cases, is offensive to public morals and decency. Such conduct in public is as of fonsive to the average homosexual as to the average he terosexual. It should also be stated that such conduct is the exception to the rule in the case of the homo sexual as in the case of the hetero sexual.

We contend, too, that the average "gay" bar is not contrary to the public welfare. To moct, drink, oat or chat in a congenial atmosphere is all that most homosexuals are looking for in a "gay" bar. In a society which demands repression of his or her true nature, such association with others sharing the same problem is one of release and mental health continued isolation and denial would indeed effect a public liability.

WHAT ABOUT BAR MANAGEMENT?

As regards conduct in the bars, the problem in largo