Would Proposed West Hollywood Fur Ban Survive a Court Challenge?

By Dennis Romero Wed., Jan. 26 2011 at 6:03 AM

SoniaT 360

This fur is faux.

In ultra-liberal West Hollywood, which already operates as a "Cruelty Free Zone for Animals," one City Council candidate is going for left-wing gold with a proposal to ban fur at retailers.

As the Weekly's Patrick Range McDonald reports, John D'Amico wants the Westside city to be free from the ravages of silky smooth clothing made from otherwise cozy critters.

D'Amico states on his site:

"West Hollywood has the opportunity to once again be a leader for animal welfare by becoming the first fur free city in the nation."

Strict limits over smoking in the city are already in place. Is this taking things too far. And, more importantly, as commenter of the day Brett asks, would it be legal?

"So, anybody wearing fur or fur products gets arrested? I don't see this law surviving a challenge. Unlike anti-smoking ordinances, which debatably have something to do with public health (even though non-smokers are still sucking in exhaust fumes from gas-burning cars in those "no smoking" cities), a ban on fur has nothing to do with public health and everything to do with legislating some kind of morality. It's no good when the Right does it, and it's no better when the Left does it."

Actually, the idea, as we understand it, would have WeHo ban retail fur sales, possibly at places the city wouldn't want to lose to nearby Beverly Hills or Los Angeles: boutiques and clothiers like Maxfield, Alexander McQueen, John Varvatos, 3.1 Philip Lim, and more.

But it's a good point: In West Hollywood, the left is so wacky about its animals (the city also has a cat-declawing ban on the books) that it could be seen as more rigid and controlling than the right, which, as Sarah Palin would attest, seems to like its animals dead, claws and all.

Tags:

fur, fur ban, John D'Amico, West Hollywood

We Recommend

Putter3370

Ban fur.... Give the anti fur zealots there platform.. But when they come back to ban leather, suede, goose down, silk, meat, fish, chicken ,pork and dairy products. Next maybe a ban on insulin in trendy west Hollywood......

West Hollywood...please wake up.

Animalrights Guide

Of course we legislate morality. That's why robbery, assault, rape and murder are illegal. And it's why animal cruelty is illegal.

This ordinance would only have to survive a rational basis test, and banning the sale of fur is rationally related to protecting animals from cruelty.

SusanaS

So really, the question you're asking should be more accurately phrased "will fashion designers like Maxfield etc. have more pull than the wishes of a progressive community?"

Ed Buck

Do your homework Dennis. This is to ban the sale of fur, not the wearing of it, so we're still ok with you wearing that fur lined loincloth.

buggered

It's not a bad idea, but are they going to ban leather too and the sale of meat? Seems a tad arbitrary--to the animal, dead is dead. But hey, if they can do it, I say do it.