04/11/1977 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Williams explained the two bills, HB 2432 and HB2433, which had been considered by the Legislative Subcommittee. He noted the Subcommittee had been unanimously in favor of HB 2432, which would eliminate tax exemption for those organizations practicing discrimination. However, Mr. Williams and Mr. Obie felt that on HB 2433 there was a question of whether a club should be denied a liquor license because of discrimination and that perhaps the granting of a liquor license is something below a significant State action which involves the 14th Amendment. It was felt that an organization should be able to form a private club and serve whomever it wanted. . Mr. Bradley did not agree that it was below the State standard of significant action. He noted that in his opinion a signifi- cant State action in granting a privilege occurs whenever the State issues a license and therefore the State is involved. Mr. Delay noted he supported HB 2433, saying that clubs should be able to organize in any way they so desired. However, if a State liquor license was involved he felt clubs should not d iscr iminate. Mr. Obie said that at some point the government entity has to give a permit for something along the way, whether it be for a building permit or liquor license. He felt it was not the liquor license, but the right to form or not form a club which was the issue, and a club should be able to form in any way desired. Mr. Delay did not agree, saying a liquor license was primarily given to different organizations and therefore was a legitimate concern to address discrimination in any form. . Mr. Williams said he felt the issue was to determine what is significant State activity. He cited a case in which the pennsylvania Supreme Court had stated very clearly that liquor licenses were in the category of State actions which fell below the standards meeting the 14th Amendment. Mr. Lieuallen raised the question about public establishments discriminating and if they were subject to losing their licenses. Mayor Keller questioned who removed the liquor licenses or as- sessed fines. Manager noted that the person would file a com- plaint with OLCC and they would act accordingly. Ms. Benjamin said there had been cases in court involving public restaurants which had discriminated. Mr. Bradley felt there was a philosophical question involved in making the decision whether it was right or wrong, that the CounciL could not compare Oregon to Pennsylvania, as Oregon is known to have very strict laws governing liquor licenses. Mr Bradley moved seconded by Mr. Delay to support HB 2433. Motion failed with Delay, Bradley, Smith, and Haws voting aye, Obie, Williams, Hamel,and Lieuallen voting no and Mayor Keller voting no to break the tie. '. 301 4/11/77 - 22