Los Angeles Bans Fur

JLibourel

Honors Member and King Fop
5,955
United States
California
Long Beach
I just heard on the radio and saw online that the Los Angeles City Council voted 13-1 to ban all fur sales (with a few exceptions) in that City, urged on by the fanatics of PETA. Hats were specifically included among the banned items. I have to wonder if the city council were aware that virtually every good quality hat (men's hats, anyway) is made from fur felt. Cowboys, country singers and others will have too look elsewhere, I guess.

I should think religious freedom issues might be at stake here. There are those Torah-true Jews who wear those splendid fur hats, and I believe all observant Orthodox Jews are supposed to wear hats, at least outside. I hope they do raise a stink about it.

I suppose my hometown of Long Beach will follow suit, given the composition of our city council.

If I were a younger man, I would be strongly tempted to bail from California and move back to the good ol' USA.
 

StephenRG

Honors Member
3,313
United States
New York
Merrick
There are those Torah-true Jews who wear those splendid fur hats, and I believe all observant Orthodox Jews are supposed to wear hats, at least outside.
The requirement to have the head covered is not to be found in the Torah - it's a rabbinical prohibition. Nor is the type of covering specified to be a hat. The fur hats - shtreimels - are customary amongst some Orthodox groups, but they're not a requirement: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shtreimel

Arguably if the fur is acquired by causing suffering to the animal, then that should render it unfit to be worn, but I would not assume consistency in such matters.
 

JBierly

Advanced Member
2,756
United States
Tennessee
Chattanooga
It's a bit of a slippery slope. The use of animal fur for protective clothing is probably as old as humanity. Perhaps the next step is banning meat.
 

momsdoc

Connoisseur
6,445
United States
New Jersey
Ocean
Does that mean shearing coats are not acceptable? What are we to do with the skin after enjoying the Lamb Chops?

They’re farm produce. They wouldn’t exist if we weren’t going to eat them. Get over the “Top of the food chain” guilt. Kill them humanely and consume their bodies. Or give them the vote and let them decide. That’s coming from a Progressive. I draw the line at farmed species. It’s good to be King. God said so in Genesis. Are these Californians really ready to argue against the Western world’s accepted word gf God? Not a strong position.
 

Color 8

Active Member with Corp. Privileges
178
United States
PA - Pennsylvania
Philadelphia
It's the trend - everyone now seems to think they can scold you and tell you what to do, on matters that have nothing to do with them.
 

Fraser Tartan

Senior Member
758
United States
California
SF
Gaining the publicity that comes with being the "first" or "largest city" in the nation to do something is what's important for our local politicians, to further their own political careers. Whether something is actually a good idea or not is besides the point.
 
Last edited:

Fraser Tartan

Senior Member
758
United States
California
SF
I just looked at the ordinance and it has fur defined as being animal skin with hair, fleece, or fur fibers attached. Exceptions are made for cowhide with hair, and sheepskin or lambskin with fleece attached. So, no coonskin caps but a hat made from felt ought to be fine.

Source:

http://clkrep.lacity.org/onlinedocs/2018/18-0538_ord_draft_12-19-2018.pdf

We have one of these bans here too and fur is defined similarly.
 
Last edited: