WHAT DOES ALL THIS MEAN?

To understand this seemingly paradoxical "gay" bar situation in California, it is necessary to review the longstanding battle involving the ABC, the state legislature and the courts.

In 1951 oulminating the Stoumen v. Reilly case in which the Black Cat Restaurant had been closed on grounds that the plaintiff "kept and permitted his licensed promises to be used as a disorderly house in that ... persons of known homosexual tendencies patronized said premises and used said premises as a meeting place", the California State Supreme Court ruled such evidence as insufficient and that "good cause" for suspension of a license must indicate something more than that many of the patrons were homosexuals and that they used the restaurant and bar as a moeting place. The Court decision also pointed out that the liquor board must supply sufficient evidence and that it should not act arbitrarily in determining what is contrary to public welfare or morals.

The Court stated, "Members of the public of lawful age havo a right to patronize a public restaurant and bar so long as they are acting properly and are not committing illegal or immoral acts; the proprietor has no right to exclude or oject a patron 'except for good cause', and if he does GO without good cause ho is liable in damages."

This unanimous decision would clearly indicate that there is nothing illegal about a "gay" bar por co and that a license could be revoked only if there was sufficient evidence to prove that there were illegal or immoral acts committed on the premises.

STATE LEGISLATURE NOT SATISFIED

However, in what would appear to be an attempt to overturn the Stoumen v. Reilly decision, the state legislature in 1955 enacted Section 24200(e) of the Business and Professional Code providing that a license may be suspended or revoked whore the premises "are a resort for illegal possessors or users of narcotios, prostitutes, pimps, panderers, or sexual perverts."

5