Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
If those groups in question are NOT open to non-LGBT people, then that would violate the Unruh Act.I agree.
It would be one thing if they simply gave gay people a better price, however that's not what they are doing. I rent a car, I don't get the AARP discount because I'm not an AARP member, that doesn't mean I'm being discrimnated agaisnt.
Another person that did not read the OP link. In order for that argument to stand up under California law membership in those groups would have to be open to non LGBT people.
Perhaps it is "sufficient" to "plausibly allege" a violation.Let me make it easier for you since clicking on a link is too hard.
The salient allegation of the Complaint is that AVIS charged Plaintiff more money for her car rental than it would have charged Plaintiff if Plaintiff had been a member of the favored gay and lesbian groups. This is sufficient t plausibly allege a violation of [the Unruh Civil Rights Act]....
As far as I can see, not enough to "prove" it, though.
If this woman had been a member of the Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce - and straight - would she have gotten the discount?
What makes you think the Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce allows straight people to join? Are there white people in the Congressional Black Caucus?
It would violate the Unruh Act if they didn't allow straight people to join.
I'm straight, and I'm a member of the Harvey Milk LGBT Democratic Club.
Okay, so its a straight person, not a member of any gay groups, who didn't get a discount. Big deal.
Isn't this just like someone getting a discount because they are a member of, say, a certain insurance company? I don't see the issue.
The issue is AVIS is likely ignorant of California law.
From the decision:
California Civil Code § 52(a) creates a private right of action against anyone who denies, aids or incites a denial, or makes any discrimination or distinction contrary to Section 51. Stevens v. Optimum Health Inst., 810 F. Supp. 2d 1074, 1085 (S.D. Cal. 2011) (Hayes, J.). The California Supreme Court has made it clear that a customer does not have to make an express demand for equal treatment in order for a business to violate the Act. Angelucci v. Century Supper Club, 41 Cal. 4th 160, 164 (2007) (concluding that a valid claim for relief under the Unruh Act does not require customers who are discriminated against when they present themselves at a business establishment and pay the price of admission [to] also [] demand equal treatment and be refused). Finally, the Act must be construed liberally to carry out its purpose of creating and preserving a nondiscriminatory environment in California business establishments.
http://ia600809.us.archive.org/34/items/gov.uscourts.casd.373518/gov.uscourts.casd.373518.19.0.pdf
I agree.
It would be one thing if they simply gave gay people a better price, however that's not what they are doing. I rent a car, I don't get the AARP discount because I'm not an AARP member, that doesn't mean I'm being discrimnated agaisnt.
Another person that did not read the OP link. In order for that argument to stand up under California law membership in those groups would have to be open to non LGBT people.
Let me make it easier for you since clicking on a link is too hard.
The salient allegation of the Complaint is that AVIS charged Plaintiff more money for her car rental than it would have charged Plaintiff if Plaintiff had been a member of the favored gay and lesbian groups. This is sufficient to plausibly allege a violation of [the Unruh Civil Rights Act]....
Membership to those groups aren't open to the public?
If those groups in question are NOT open to non-LGBT people, then that would violate the Unruh Act.Another person that did not read the OP link. In order for that argument to stand up under California law membership in those groups would have to be open to non LGBT people.
Perhaps it is "sufficient" to "plausibly allege" a violation.Let me make it easier for you since clicking on a link is too hard.
As far as I can see, not enough to "prove" it, though.
Your argument is that it is not discrimination because the discounts are not offered on the basis of sexual preference. The fact that they go to groups that discriminate on the basis of sexual preference is enough, under California law, for it to be discrimination for Avis to offer the discounts. If you want to sue the groups, go ahead.
If those groups in question are NOT open to non-LGBT people, then that would violate the Unruh Act.
Perhaps it is "sufficient" to "plausibly allege" a violation.
As far as I can see, not enough to "prove" it, though.
Your argument is that it is not discrimination because the discounts are not offered on the basis of sexual preference. The fact that they go to groups that discriminate on the basis of sexual preference is enough, under California law, for it to be discrimination for Avis to offer the discounts. If you want to sue the groups, go ahead.
You've shown no evidence that either of the groups discriminates of the basis of sexual preference.
According to the Complaint, Plaintiff rented a car from AVIS in July 2011, in the County of San Diego, California. She was charged $311.36. According to the Complaint, at that time AVIS gave large price discounts to members of two groups: the International Gay and Lesbian Travel Association and the National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce. Plaintiff is not a member of either group. The Complaint further alleges that AVIS did not give her the gay and lesbian group member price discount. Plaintiff alleges that California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act ... prohibits a business from discriminating between its customers on the basis of sexual orientation....
Another person that did not read the OP link. In order for that argument to stand up under California law membership in those groups would have to be open to non LGBT people.
Let me make it easier for you since clicking on a link is too hard.
Membership to those groups aren't open to the public?
Since Avis could not prove that they knew the answer to that question before they offered the discount, and the purpose of the groups is to promote a sexual preference, they are potentially liable for discrimination under California law. By the way, this is the same law that allowed a white power group to sue a minority owned restaurant because they refused to serve them unless they removed jackets with a patch that prominently displayed a swastika. This was even though both groups stipulated that the restaurant was perfectly willing to serve them after they removed the jackets.
The law in California is seriously fucked up.
You are seeing discrimination where there is none.
Membership to those groups aren't open to the public?
Since Avis could not prove that they knew the answer to that question before they offered the discount, and the purpose of the groups is to promote a sexual preference, they are potentially liable for discrimination under California law. By the way, this is the same law that allowed a white power group to sue a minority owned restaurant because they refused to serve them unless they removed jackets with a patch that prominently displayed a swastika. This was even though both groups stipulated that the restaurant was perfectly willing to serve them after they removed the jackets.
The law in California is seriously fucked up.
These groups do no promote a sexual preference, and they are indeed open to anyone not just homosexuals.
It will be interesting to see what the judge rules.
You are seeing discrimination where there is none.
Strange. I bet you can go back through every post I made in this thread and not find a single example of me arguing that this is discrimination. What is confusing you is the fact that, instead of expressing my outrage at this stupidity, I let the story stand on it s own, and then carefully argued that, under California law, this easily rises to the standard of discrimination.
You are seeing discrimination where there is none.
Strange. I bet you can go back through every post I made in this thread and not find a single example of me arguing that this is discrimination. What is confusing you is the fact that, instead of expressing my outrage at this stupidity, I let the story stand on it s own, and then carefully argued that, under California law, this easily rises to the standard of discrimination.
I don't see anything stupid about the story at all.
I wonder how many people aren't going to actually read this before they post.
The Volokh Conspiracy » Case Alleging Discrimination Against Straight Car Renters May Go Forward
I wonder how many people aren't going to actually read this before they post.
I am going to sue Avis for age discrimination because I cannot get the same discount as AARP members.
I wonder how many people aren't going to actually read this before they post.
The Volokh Conspiracy » Case Alleging Discrimination Against Straight Car Renters May Go Forward
I am going to sue Avis for age discrimination because I cannot get the same discount as AARP members.
I wonder how many people aren't going to actually read this before they post.
The Volokh Conspiracy » Case Alleging Discrimination Against Straight Car Renters May Go Forward
I am going to sue Avis for age discrimination because I cannot get the same discount as AARP members.
I think you should.
Clearly AARP discounts ARE a form of age discrimination.
Strange. I bet you can go back through every post I made in this thread and not find a single example of me arguing that this is discrimination. What is confusing you is the fact that, instead of expressing my outrage at this stupidity, I let the story stand on it s own, and then carefully argued that, under California law, this easily rises to the standard of discrimination.
I don't see anything stupid about the story at all.
Really? Why do you keep insisting there is no ground for a charge of discrimination if you think the story is not stupid?
