Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Federal Judiciary Blogs -> Supreme Dicta

Federal Judiciary

: Supreme Dicta

I'll have the Reuben with a side of intercourse, please

Breaking news! A Pennsylvania appellate court has ruled that sex is not an accessory use of a restaurant. Who says being an appellate judge isn't any fun?

In MAJ Entertainment Inc. v. the City of Philadelphia, the panel consisting of President Judge Bonnie Brigance Leadbetter and Judges Renée Cohn Jubelirer, Robert Simpson and Doris A. Smith-Ribner -- with Judges Dan Pellegrini and Mary Hannah Leavitt concurring -- ruled that the MAJ-owned Club Kama Sutra violated its restaurant permit by providing an area on the premises where patrons could openly engage in sexual activity with one another.

Judge Rochelle S. Friedman dissented.

I think it's kind of hot that the lone dissenter in this case is a female judge. Is that wrong?

The Club's permit does allow it to provide "live entertainment," which they maintained allowed them to set up rooms for their customer to have sex. The court's majority claims the Club would need a special license to operate a sex club, which - under the quaint wording Philadelphia zoning laws - is called a cabaret permit. They cited the club's pricing policy, which charges single men at a higher rate than single women. "This pricing structure seems geared more toward maintaining a felicitous gender balance for the operation of a swingers' club than to the operation of a restaurant," Judge Cohn Jubelirer wrote. Apparently Judge Jubelirer has never been to a nightclub before. If this court uses this as a precedent to crack down on Ladies' Nights at bars, we need to take up arms in revolt.

The dissent argues that so long the people having sex are not paid to do so, then the Club does not need a cabaret permit:

The majority and concurring opinions suggest that MAJ needs a permit to operate a ?cabaret? under section 14-102(24) of the zoning code. However, I submit that MAJ?s 2000 Permit is, in effect, a permit for a ?cabaret? under section 14-102(24) of the zoning code. MAJ?s entertainers are not paid performers. Thus, MAJ?s restaurant fits within the definition of a ?cabaret? in section 14-102(24), but not within the definition in section 14-1605. Thus, a section 14-102(24) ?cabaret? without paid performers is not prohibited by the 2000 Permit, which makes the 2000 Permit, in effect, a permit for a ?cabaret? without paid performers.

That is the hottest discussion of zoning laws ever (sorry for sounding like Paris Hilton).

Full post as published by Supreme Dicta on May 14, 2008 (boomark / email).