Court Opinion

ID: 9650719
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 15:50:11.208384+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:22:33.164462
License: Public Domain

Proctor, J.
(concurring). Since the charges against the three taverns did not specify any particular offensive acts by the patrons, I concur with the majority opinion. However, I wish to emphasize that, although well-behaved homosexuals cannot be forbidden to patronize taverns, they may not engage in any conduct which would be offensive to public decency. In the record before us it áppears that there was evidence of conduct (men kissing each other on the lips, etc.) which would form the basis for disciplinary action at least against One Eleven and Murphy’s had they properly been charged. A tavern should not provide an arena for *343the behavior disclosed by this record. I appreciate that the majority opinion does not say that such conduct will be tolerated, but nonetheless I am expressing my positive view that it should not be.
For reversal — Chief Justice Weintraub and Justices Jacobs, Francis, Proctor, Schettino and Haneman — 6.
For affirmance — None.