Talk:Unruh Civil Rights Act

message: Removed last two sentences of first paragraph (displayed below) as they are non-sequiters and are unreferenced. Replace when reference, position, and context can be provided.:
. 
"Although the fact the School is nonprofit is not controlling, this does mean it should not be deemed a business unless it has some significant resemblance to an ordinary for-profit business." Doe v. California Lutheran High School Ass’n, No. E044811, 2009 Cal. App. LEXIS 89, at *19 (Cal. App. 4th Jan. 26, 2009). So, in essence, this case says non-profit organizations do not qualify for the business requirements of the Act.
.
jg (talk) 17:33, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: How is this a non sequitur?  It's saying that nonprofits are not covered by the Unruh Act, because the Unruh Act only covers businesses and non-profits are not "businesses."  And there's a citation in the middle of it, followed by a summary of what the sentence means if you're not proficient in reading court opinions (it says that you can find the quote on page *19 of volume 89 of the 2009 Lexis California Appellate Reporter).  I think this stuff should be reinserted. Agnosticaphid (talk) 22:36, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

text: I thought better of it and added it back myself, hoping in a more comprehensible fashion. Agnosticaphid (talk) 22:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: The proposed modification relating to use of language was vetoed by the Governor.  I added a citation regarding this.  But, maybe the statement could just be deleted altogether?  Didn't want to make such a change unilaterally.  Agnosticaphid (talk) 23:42, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Language amendment vetoed

message: There is no date for the act. 
It should have some reference to the Civil Rights Movement and to the current practices of discrimination which it was intended to correct. 
Social and political context is always useful.Bdubay (talk) 05:14, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I added the date of enactment (1905).  I am somewhat at a loss with regard to your second comment.  What sorts of examples do you think would be both helpful and encyclopedic?  I could give examples of lawsuits brought under the act, I guess?  Also, I'm not sure the Civil Rights Movement is all that closely related to this particular topic -- it would be more appropriate to link to an article about "public accommodations laws," but there isn't one.  Agnosticaphid (talk) 18:32, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Article faults

message: "Spoken language" was the proposed addition by Senator Leland Yee, which was vetoed! 
Kschang77 (talk) 03:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That's an excellent question and point.  Not sure how that happened. I've fixed it.  (Next time, you could fix it yourself!)  Agnosticaphid (talk) 21:30, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: hey, why is the proposed amendment, already vetoed, still in the text?

message: The last paragraph of "Legal Interpretations and Effects" was recently added but has no attribution.  Does this situation actually occur?  Has the Act ever actually been interpreted to include political opinions?  I'll leave this for a while, but at some point it needs to be either improved or deleted.  Agnosticaphid (talk) 19:41, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to delete that paragraph.  I don't see any evidence of, or references supporting, the existence of such a conflict. Agnosticaphid (talk) 23:20, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Weasal Words