West Hollywood

[auzmink]

I'm sure by now many of the American users would have seen the issues by West Hollywood City to ban fur within the city boundary.

 

Here is Fur insiders page regarding this:

 

http://www.furinsider.com/west-hollywood-rip-vol-1/

 

Also is an e-mail link to the said Council. perhaps as a group we need to e-mail COuncil. I have.

 

Auzmink.

[auzmink]

HAS ANYONE here organised an e-mail to the said Council??? I know some of you have read the opening thread but does anyone else care regarding the implications of this???

 

Auzmink

[Guest]

I put an entry on to the Fur Insider to ask if they wanted letters written (or other contact). As was pointed out in the article, there are over 90 stores sell fur-related products in West Hollywood. If even half close, let the city feel the pinch when these retailers LEAVE the city! Rents will be lost, tax revenue will be lost, there will be vacated store fronts. My guess is various people may inhabit vacated properties. If this happens, crime goes up.

 

Like I always say, we can't argue emotion with logic (even though I get emotional about fur ).

 

My $0.02

[fuzzin_fox]

Well put furlessinCA! These bureaucrats are totally irrational fools

[Worker 11811]

Even if the law passes there's no way it can be enforced. It is impossible to stop people from wearing fur when and where they want to.

 

I can see several challenges on constitutional grounds.

There is the right to property and freedom of expression. I can also imagine that some sharp lawyer could challenge the law as ex post facto or as a bill of attainder, i.e., punishing somebody for something that wasn't illegal until some law is passed then defining them as a part of a class of criminals who must forfeit their property to the state.

 

Even then, there might have to be a "grandfather clause" setting some date, before which, people who owned furs could keep them but, after which, they could not have new ones. That, in itself, would create such a bureaucratic and logistical nightmare which would make the law virtually unenforceable.

 

Can you imagine cops hauling people into court to prove whether they bought their furs before the grandfather date? How could they prove it? How could the courts even know the difference? Would this law require people to register their furs? Would the government have to establish a "fur police?" Would tax money be used to pay for it? What other government services would the people have to forgo in order to fund this?

 

Basically, this would be an unfunded, unenforceable mandate. Can you imagine all the greedy lawyers who would take up fighting this law on both sides of the issue? It would be an unholy mess! I can't see this law lasting one day before all Hell breaks loose.

 

If I was head of City Council (or whatever legislative body there is in H'wood) I would warn any councilman who pressed this issue that they would be censured and possibly impeached, recalled or removed from office on the grounds of negligent dereliction of duty. The entire state of California, to say the least, and the entire country has many bigger fish to fry than this. If they spend any time discussing, debating and passing a law which is likely to be challenged and struck down, they are leaving critical issues of the economy by the wayside while they engage in little more than a legislative circle jerk.

 

The only reason this law has come to the forefront is probably because some f*cking freak has opened his fat mouth and decided to stir the pot. He probably knows this law will never go anywhere. He's only doing it for publicity.

 

As such, I suggest this law be roundly ignored and anybody who tries to press the issue should be charged exorbitant administrative fees for wasting the government's time.

[Guest]

Worker:

 

You are SO right! California has so much more to think (worry) about than whether vendors in Hollywood can sell fur. I am a professor at a university, and we are being told, after this year's budget cuts that next year wil be even WORSE! I really don't know what administrators at any level think. They are a bunch of wangos (idiots) who don't know about economics, or eduations, yet they are setting policy for both.

 

Bottom line. STAY AWAY FROM CALIFORNIA! I really used to think that this was the most progressive sate in the union (really). Now I know it is one of the LEAST progressive.

 

Again, My $0.02 (which is probably all its worth).

 

J

[Worker 11811]

In my post above I said this was a legislative circle jerk.

 

If I was arguing this law in front of the council I would try to get the term "circle jerk" recorded in the minutes as many times as possible so that it becomes a permanent part of the legislative record.

 

...Okay... Not really but it would be funny! Wouldn't it?

 

[Worker 11811]

I put my two cents into the discussion at that website:

 

Worker 11811

Your comment is awaiting moderation.

September 29, 2011 at 9:30 pm

 

What does West Hollywood City Council think it is doing? They are completely out in left field on this one. Way out where the buses don’t even stop!

 

First and foremost, this ordinance will never stand. Not only is it unenforceable, any sharp lawyer could argue on Constitutional grounds to get it struck down. This piece of tripe wouldn’t stand for one day before legislative Hell breaks loose!

 

Our country, in general, and California, specifically, has many bigger fish to fry. Our economy is going down the toilet and they are doing what? Debating fur? Unbelievable!

 

The pro or anti fur issue is completely and wholly irrelevant.

 

Any council member who wastes time even discussing this in public should be censured, impeached and run out of office on the grounds of negligent dereliction of duty! The government can’t even pay its own bills but they sit around in a legislative circle jerk!

 

Not ONE of those idiots deserves the oxygen they breathe, let alone to hold public office!

 

If I lived in Hollywood, I’d be rallying everybody I know to show up at that meeting and tell them so!

[ew19975]

I'm not sure why, but stuff like this makes me ashamed to admit that I'm a California native (San Diego branch ). Thankfully have escaped the growing madness of the whole mess.

 

If the subject of selling fur in West Hollywood (becoming W. Hollywierd ) is becoming such an important subject to the city council; my opinion is that they all need to be removed from office immediately, or allow the silly policies to be implemented and watch the city spiral downhill with no governmental assistance allowed from the surrounding communities or state (kind of harsh IMO, but...).

 

This may not be the place to say this, but I think the persons that are perpetrating this silliness need to have Romans 14:1-4 (Law of Liberty) brought up to them. This actually is in the context of consuming/not consuming meat, but can be interpreted into a fur/no fur context without, I hope, deviating from the scriptural message too much.

(my apologies if this is not appropriate and needs to be edited out)

[furlondon]

I think that many of those shops will consider to move. Once the council won't receive any tax, shops will be empty and other businesses will suffer from this (cafes without customers, hairdressers etc) it'll be too late " title="Applause" />

[Worker 11811]

If I remember correctly, it is San Fancisco that is outlawing toys in McDonald's Happy Meals on some spurious charge that kids will get fat.

 

Again, they have no damn business doing this and they are wasting their time and our tax dollars on the STUPIDEST things. People must sit around and try to come up with the craziest s#it they can dream up!

 

I had a thought when I heard about the Happy Meal thing. McDonald's, Burger King, Wendy's and all the other restaurants should just shut down. On the day the ordinance takes effect, they just lock their doors, fire all the employees and send them home. They should gut the stores, raze the buildings, pave over the holes, fence the property off and leave them vacant. Then, in a public statement that says, "We have determined that it is no longer viable to do business in this city," they should list the names off all the city council members who voted on the ordinance.

 

After hearing about this thing in West Hollywood, I think all the clothing retailers should do the same.

 

 

{BTW: No foul on the Bible quote. You only used the citation as a reference.}

[grouchomg]

I'm not sure where the American predeliction for the imperative of forcing our individual moral judgments on everyone else comes from, but it is rampant in society. Whether it's furs, gay marriage, circumcision, or cruelty to lobsters (yeah, lobsters..... I'm not kidding), it seems we all want to ban something.

 

For the morally self righteous, there is a need to recognize - as some here have pointed out - that there are ways around any rule. West Hollywood clothiers and furriers can simply move and take their jobs and tax revenues elsewhere. In my opinion, moral pre-emption of behaviors one doesn't like fails in direct proportion to the absurdity of the unction.

 

I get this from from grand pappy I guess, who ignored Prohibition and in fact thumbed his nose at it. As a railroad freight agent during the 20s, he helped smuggle good Canadian whiskey for local consumption. Even the local priest was in on the conspiracy, for the hooch was stored in the church rectory. The distribution method was novel and ecumenical. Seems a lot of Protestants went to confession at St. Peter's, or so my mother said.

[White Fox]

As long as the Whisky was Canadian it is ok!!!

 

W

[grouchomg]

As long as the Whisky was Canadian it is ok!!!

 

W

 

Does Canadian whiskey make Snoopy dance? It would me.

 

Alas! It would have to have been Canadian whiskey. All the Kentucky and Tennessee distilleries were closed, at least the legal ones. I would not have done well, as single malt sour mash corn whiskeys put me on .

 

Not that I would turn down a good Canadian, you understand.

[Cunning Fox]

Ah, how liquor detours even the most focused people!

 

We have laws in NZ surrounding the sale of of liquor and tabaco that prohibits sale but not purchase (age related restrictions, overcome by many under the age of 18). I guess, from reading the article, that this law concerns only the sale aspect and as such has no bearing on the wearing!