pages: RecreationandParkCommission/2017-12-14.pdf, 20
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
RecreationandParkCommission | 2017-12-14 | 20 | supra, 454 U.S. at 269, the court recognized religious worship and discussion as "forms of speech and association protected by the First Amendment. [Citations.] Clearly, the operation of a private nonprofit religious school implicates constitutional rights of the free exercise of religion, speech, and association. With these constitutional freedoms and rights in mind, we examine whether there is a "valid and neutral law of general applicability" that would prevent a private religious school from denying admission to a student with contrary religious beliefs. Only one statute appears to require analysis, the Unruh Civil Rights Act (Civ. Code, ยง 51; "Act"). Footnote No. 5 Section 51 states in 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 disability are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments of every kind whatsoever." In interpreting the language of section 51, we apply well established rules of statutory construction. "Statutes must be construed so as to give a reasonable and common-sense construction consistent with the apparent purpose and intention of the law makers - a construction that is practical rather than technical, and will lead to wise policy rather than mischief or absurdity. [Citation.]' (People v. Turner (1993) 15 l.App. 4th 1690, 1696; see also Harris v. Capitol Growth Investors XIV (1991) 52 Cal.3d 1142, 1165-1166.) "'Judicial doctrine governing construction of a law to avoid unconstitutionality is well settled. If "the terms of a statute are by fair and reasonable interpretation capable of a meaning consistent with the requirements of the Constitution, the statute will be given that meaning, rather than one in conflict with the Constitution." (Rowe v. Superior Court, supra, 15 Cal.App.4th at 1722.) Recently the California Supreme Court examined the requirements of the Act with respect to membership in the Boy Scouts of America. (Curran v. Mount Diablo Council of the Boy Scouts (1998) 17 Cal.4th 670.) After reviewing the legislative history of the statute and prior judicial decisions, the court observed: [A]lthough past California decisions demonstrate that the Act clearly applies to any type of for-profit commercial enterprise, and to nonprofit entities whose purpose is to serve the business or economic interests of its owners or members, no prior decision has interpreted the 'business establishments' language of the Act so expansively as to include the membership decisions of a charitable, expressive, and social organization, like the Boy Scouts, whose formation and activities are unrelated to the promotion or advancement of the economic or business interests of its members. (See, e.g., Hart v. Cult Awareness Network (1993) 13 Cal.App.4th 777 [organization established to educate the public about the harmful effect of cults is not a business establishment for purposes of the Unruh Civil Rights Act].) In our view, given the organization's overall purpose and function, the Boy Scouts cannot reasonably be found to constitute a business establishment whose membership decisions are subject to the Act." (Id., at p. 697; fn. omitted.) | RecreationandParkCommission/2017-12-14.pdf |