GOESART v.

CLEARY FACTS: The State of Michigan, as part of its system for controlling the sale of liquor, bartenders are required to be licensed in all cities having a population of 50,000 or more, but no female may be so licensed unless she be the wife or daughter of athe male owner of a licensed liquor establishment. This case is a direct appeal the basis of which is that Michigan cannot forbid females generally from being barmaids and at the same time make an exception in favor of the wives and daughters of the owners of liquor establishment, ISSUE: Whether or not the Equal Protection of the Laws Clause of the 14th Amendment barred Michigan from making the classification the State has made between wives and daughters of non-owners? RULING/RATIO: No, the EP Clause has not been violated and nor is it unconstitutional for Michigan to withdraw women form the occupation of bartending. Although it was claimed that Michigan cannot play favorites among women within the State, the Court recognized the need to acknowledge the belief of the Michigan legislature that bartending by women may give rise to moral and social problems. These problems are believed to be minimized when the ownership of the bar belongs to a a barmaids husband or father. The Court emphasized that it cannot cross-examine either actually argumentatively the mind of the Michigan legislators nor question their motives. Dissenting: The statute should be held invalid as a denial of equal protection because the statute arbitrarily discriminates between male and female ownerrs of liquor establishments. A male owner, although he is always absent from the bar, may employ his wife and daughter as barmaids. A female owner may neither work as barmaid nor employ her daughter in that position even if a man is always present in the establishment to keep order. The end to which the legislature heavily weighs their argument is not achieved. or