oliveDC Posted February 18, 2007 Share Posted February 18, 2007 Hot Doug's gets in hot water for hot dog: story here. Will foie gras speakeasies be far behind? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacques Gastreaux Posted February 18, 2007 Share Posted February 18, 2007 Hot Doug's gets in hot water for hot dog: story here.Will foie gras speakeasies be far behind? I predict that foie gras hang-outs will spring up right outside the city limits; like liquor stores and fireworks stands at the state line. And I wonder if the law could be circumvented with a byofg policy. That way, technically, the restaurannt wouldn't be "selling" foie gras. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Slater Posted February 18, 2007 Share Posted February 18, 2007 The easy way around it is to put on the menu "Frog Wah". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanCole42 Posted February 19, 2007 Share Posted February 19, 2007 The easy way around it is to put on the menu "Frog Wah". But what if we want actual frog wahs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dinwiddie Posted February 19, 2007 Share Posted February 19, 2007 I would hope that this is going to be a test case for the law. After all you can't challenge the law until there is someone harmed, and now someone has been cited, the court can look at it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Slater Posted February 19, 2007 Share Posted February 19, 2007 I would hope that this is going to be a test case for the law. After all you can't challenge the law until there is someone harmed, and now someone has been cited, the court can look at it. Who was harmed? A duck? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dinwiddie Posted February 19, 2007 Share Posted February 19, 2007 Who was harmed? A duck? The guy who got busted Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacques Gastreaux Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 I would hope that this is going to be a test case for the law. After all you can't challenge the law until there is someone harmed, and now someone has been cited, the court can look at it.What, the restaurant is going to claim that the ordinance is somehow invalid? He could make that claim, but di doubt he would win. If a foie gras ordinance is invalid, then so is a no smoking ordinance. The ordinance is valid. The restaurnat association in Chitown needs to make a special assessment of its members to create a fund to pay the fines, sort of an foie gras ticket insurance fund. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Slater Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dinwiddie Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 What, the restaurant is going to claim that the ordinance is somehow invalid? He could make that claim, but di doubt he would win. If a foie gras ordinance is invalid, then so is a no smoking ordinance. The ordinance is valid. The restaurnat association in Chitown needs to make a special assessment of its members to create a fund to pay the fines, sort of an foie gras ticket insurance fund. Nonsmoking ordinances are valid based on harm to those who are in the restaurant by second hand smoke. (such as employees and other patrons) However, the foie gras ban is based soley on the perception that the production of it is cruel to animals. It isn't even tied to a health threat like the transfat bans are. The question the court will have to decide is whether the city's authority in regulating restaurants for the purpose of protecting the public's health covers this ban or is it purely a political decision that is outside the city's authority. If this is valid then a city could ban all restaurants from serving meat and require that they have a completely vegan menu. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oliveDC Posted February 20, 2007 Author Share Posted February 20, 2007 I just love the owner's final quote in the story: “It’s sort of at the point where I don’t really care,” he said. “If we don’t serve it, we don’t serve it. I hope people opposed to it are leading ethical and moral lives. And they better not be wearing leather shoes.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now