3 ms·
I don't see a single word in the operative part that suggests that the list is an inclusive list: > (b) All persons within the jurisdiction of this state are f
by jcranmer 5y ago
I don't see a single word in the operative part that suggests that the list is an inclusive list:
> (b) All persons within the jurisdiction of this state are free and equal, and no matter what their sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sexual orientation, citizenship, primary language, or immigration status are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments of every kind whatsoever.
In interpreting statute, a list of things is generally assumed to be exclusive unless there are specific words that indicate it is to be treated as nonexclusive--and those words are missing here.
- henryfjordan 5y ago> The California Supreme Court has repeatedly "interpreted the [law] as protecting classes other than those listed on its face".[6] For example, even prior to the 2005 addition of sexual orientation to the law's list of covered classes, the Unruh Act had been "construed as protecting gays and lesbians from arbitrary discrimination",[6] such as in the case of Rolon v. Kulwitzky.[7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unruh_Civil_Rights_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unruh_Civil_Rights_Act