8/3/2019 Letter re Stockton Asparagus Festival's Violation of the Unruh Act

1/2

1

January 20, 2012

Kate Post

Executive DirectorStockton Asparagus Festival

343 E. Main Street

10th

Floor, Suite B

Stockton, CA 95202kate@asparagusfest.com

Re: Stockton Asparagus Festivals Refusal to Rent a Vendors Booth to the San

Joaquin Valley Coalition of Reason in Violation of the Unruh Act

Ms. Post:

I am writing regarding the decision of the Stockton Asparagus Festival (the Festival) torefuse to allow the San Joaquin Valley Coalition of Reason (the Coalition) to rent a vendors

booth at the Festival.

As you know, on February 25, 2011, David Diskin, a member of the Coalition, emailed

you, as the Festivals executive director, to apply for a vendors booth at the 2011 Festival. Diskinwas put in touch with Suzi DeSilva, the booth coordinator, whom he asked about non-profit ratefor vendors. After not receiving a response, Diskin followed-up with DeSilva and was told that he

should apply right away because space [was] nearly gone. Diskin faxed the Coalitions

application to DeSilva later that day, but was told that the Coalitions application had been deniedbecause the Festival no longer had space for non-profits. Despite offering to pay the commercial

rate, Kate Post told Diskin that the Coalition was too controversial and that the Festival would

not deal with the Coalition, adding Ive seen your website. You hate God.

Diskin again contacted the Festival in October 2011 and January 2012 in hopes of renting a

booth at the 2012 Festival, but the Festival still refused to do business with the Coalition, stating

that our position has not changed.

Californias Unruh Civil Rights Act1(the Act) prohibits a business establishment such as

the Festival from discriminating on the basis of religious views. Specifically, Section 51.5 of the

1California Civil Code Section 51 states that [a]ll persons [in] . . . this State are free and equal, and no matter what

their race, color, religion, ancestry, or national origin are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages,

facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments of every kind whatsoever.

8/3/2019 Letter re Stockton Asparagus Festival's Violation of the Unruh Act

2/2

2

Act makes it illegal for a business of any kind whatsoever . . . [to] discriminate against, . . . or

refuse to . . . contract with [or] sell to any person because of their religious views.

Because the Festival leases vendor booths and sells admission tickets to the general public,it is clearly a business establishment under the Act.

2 The Supreme Court of California has ruled

that courts must interpret the term business establishment in the Act in the broadest sense

reasonably possible. OConnor v. Village Green, 33 Cal.3d 790, 795 (1983). It applies to non-profit corporations such as the Festival. Id.

The Festivals past practice show that it does not exclude other religious exhibitors thatsome may consider controversial, such as the First Baptist Church, Kingdom Culture Ministries,

the Legion of Mary and a psychic and palm and tarot card reader, all of whom were leased exhibit

space at the 2011 Festival. It is clear that the Coalitions application was instead rejected because

you, as executive director of the Festival, dislike the Coalitions atheist religious beliefs.

The Festival cannot lawfully accept or reject vendor applications on this discriminatory

basis. Under the Act, the Coalition may bring suit to obtain an injunction to require you to stop

discriminating against it and to lease it space. The Act also provides for the recovery of damages

and attorneys fees.

If you would like to avoid litigation, please contact me immediately and indicate that youwill lease commercial exhibit space to the Coalition as the Act requires.

Sincerely,

/s/ William J. Burgess

William J. Burgess

Appignani Humanist Legal CenterAmerican Humanist Association

2The Supreme Court of California has ruled that courts must interpret the term business establishment in the Act in

the broadest sense reasonably possible. OConnor v. Village Green, 33 Cal.3d 790, 795 (1983).