Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site decwrl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!akgua!sdcsvax!dcdwest!ittvax!decvax!decwrl!dyer@vaxuum.DEC
From: dyer@vaxuum.DEC
Newsgroups: net.motss
Subject: Good News
Message-ID: <312@decwrl.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 18-May-84 18:40:16 EDT
Article-I.D.: decwrl.312
Posted: Fri May 18 18:40:16 1984
Date-Received: Sun, 20-May-84 00:27:20 EDT
Organization: DEC Engineering Network
Lines: 37

Good News_____________________________________________________________________

  SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - Restaurant booths reserved for ``romantic
evenings'' must be available to heterosexuals and homosexuals
alike, the California Supreme Court has ruled.
   The court Thursday let stand, without comment, a state Court of
Appeal ruling in favor of two avowed lesbians denied a special
`'romantic'' table at Papa Choux's restaurant in Los Angeles.
   The appeal court on March 21 had overturned a ruling by Los
Angeles Superior Court Judge Bruce Geernaert, who had visited the
restaurant, looked at the booths and refused to grant an injunction
against it.
   ``We're elated,'' said Gloria Allred, attorney for the two
women, Deborah Johnson and Zandra Rolon. ``That ends the issue and
speeds up the process of justice. It means this is the law of the
state now.''
   The couple had reserved a booth for dinner Jan. 13, 1983, but
were told upon arriving that ``restaurant policy'' prevented them
from using the booth. They refused the offer of a table in the main
dining room and left the restaurant.
   Owner Seymour Jacoby said the booths were specifically designed
for ``romantic evenings by heterosexual couples.''
   Ms. Rolon and Ms. Johnson filed suit, claiming illegal
discrimation.
   The appeal court said that ``although the briefs suggest that
the (restaurant's) policy is intended to protect patrons from acts
of intimacy between homosexuals, it clearly could have no such
effect.''
   ``Further, we are unable to conceive of any conduct that the
resaurant could reasonably fear might offend the sensitivity of
the most prudent patron,'' the court said. ``The kind of intimate
conduct which the briefs seem to fear is not that kind of conduct
that is undertaken in a public restaurant in a booth open to public
view.''
   Ms. Allred said she plans to return to Superior Court to seek a
preliminary injunction against the restaurant and also ask for a
summary judgment and damages.