04/30/1973 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

- -- ~.-. - \~ ,'- --- Ron Couser, member of the Commission, could see no interference wi th the first amendment to the Constitution by adoption of the affidavit requirement, which he said appeared to be the reason for previous rejection of the Commission's request. He said granting of licenses to private clubs having discriminatory policies con- dones those discriminatory practices. . Molly Anderson, member of the Commission, stated the Commission's belief that the affidavit requirement would in no way infringe upon the right of members of private club~ t~ meet, and in no wai;'}s the Commission advocating a law which would prevent people from assembling. Councd.~lman Williams said that it is clearly evident if the '-, thesis is taken that the State shoul"d;in no way act to permit any discriminatory group to operate, then failure to act can be r~~tricting the right of assembly. It would hinge on a judgment a,s to what in fact Ts~~ailinfringement of right of assembly. Other than that, he 'said it would appear that refusing to grant a liquor license w0l-ld/be~dealing in the area of what can be done in assembly, rights and privileges of individuals when assembled, and whether that is of con- stitutional violation is not known. With regard to grantinga'liquor license, - , Mr. Williams noted court decision~.sta, ti~ng that ~.'t is below the Lev~. Onf _ State action needed to bring the first amSiidiiient-lnto_play. . ~ ' ---- Mrs. Anderson said that more recent decisions handed iow.n have held that a license may be refused on the basis of discrimination. She added that Oregon liquor licenses are issued on a quota basis and issuance of licenses to private clubs takes away from the public sector in the sense that there are fewer licenses which can ,be issued to public accommodations. She noted that the City does not hesitate to deny contractual arrangements with groups practicing discrimination. Wi th regard to inclusion of sex and religion as well as race in,the-affidavi t, Mrs. Anderson called attention to the provisions of the Code and State laws,=go-yer~ ing public accommodations and maintained that when private clubs serve the pubii~~ they should be governed by these laws. The Commission felt a more solid case could be built to end discrimination if full force q~f the affidavit were centered on racial bias rather than broadening the opp6;i~on by inclusion of sex ana re- ligion. . ./' --'---...;:;-- -L- - Mayor Andersonpoi11ted--';;~legislation currently under cO!lsideration (S .B.475 and S.B.6) which would give the local governing bOdy authori-fY'to deny liquor licenses. As it is now the Council can only make recommendations which the LiqHor Commission does not have to take i~to consideration. So it wou~d seem that efforts should be directe'd toward passage _o:E~tnis legislation rathet:' than going through the affidavit process knowing that the Liquor Commission will dis- regard recg.IrlJTlend~ons. Mrs. Anderson rel?l:f:ed that a~~~it;i!~te~nt by the Council aft;inst discri!!Jination-.....wj.l;J>i-nefi;'ctcnange the law. That is what the ~n is working for at this time. ~ Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mrs. Beal to adopt the concept of non-discriminatory affidavit in recommending the granting of a new or renewal of liquor licenses and instruct the City Attorney to prepare an affidavLt=prQcedure for Council consideration.' '~--~ .' ~y~~. In making the motion Councilman Murray ~Jfpressed strong~opposit-Jon,A;o- any form of racial di~c.rimination and sa,idhe would not personally co-operate by voting I in favor -Of gratit~ng~ige~~es ~o those organizations having discriminatory policies. ~. Mrs. Campbell referred to the previous affidavit form presented by the Commission and its inclusion of both private and public concerns. Mr. Murray said his motion did not drop the public sector; it included both. - Councilman Williams ,did not feel the issue of discrimination on the basis of sex and religion w~atisfactorilY dealt with. He maintained that if the Code in- cludes sex and religion, they should also be included in any further action of the Council. He moved seconded by Mr. McDonald to amend the motion to include sex and religion as grounds for discrimination as well as on the basis of race. Councilman 'McDonald said he would not vote on the issue because of his membership in a fraternal organization which could constitute conflict of interest. In answer 'to Mrs. 'Beal, Mayor Anderson 'ruled that> Councilman McDonald's second to the motion would stand regardless of any conflict. Mrs. Beal did not favor the amendment, saying she saw it as a gambit to defeat the proposal. , ICouncilman Hershner also declined to vote on the basis of conflict because of ~ember- :Ship in a fraternal organization. Mayor Anderson noted Council policy that indi- vidual Council members should determine whether there is conflict and they are free to consult with the City Attorney in questionable cases. The only question ~t:he Mayor saw was that one's position could be challenged because of conflict. s .- l2.\o 4/30/73 - 6