Vegan food options may be required by law at venues in California

[Kathandira]

I demand vegan/vegitarians restaurants starts serving huge slabs of meat, for the same reasons, the idiots demand vegan food..

I would love to see that in a council meeting.

[Zyky]

No one should be forced to serve food they normally wouldn't have on their menu.

Agreed. Reality is, if they don't have vegan options don't go there. I'm pretty sure it's illegal for the government to force a food business to provide a certain kind of food.

If they'd forced me to, I'd literally just made a vegan part, small on the back of the menu that just says "lettuce" and that's what they get from me.

[therealstegblob]

We are literally reacting to the proposed legislation in front of us. And if anyone is overreacting, literally, it's you - "kiddies". Requiring any private company to serve certain foods for no other reason than people get their panties in a twist if they can't have it (which is all a vegan diet is, remember - it's not healthy, it's not to avoid allergies, it's just an aesthetic choice) is wrong. Period.

If this were about allergies there could be a conversation. But it's not.

And you seem to forget that these laws grow from small to large, or less requirements to more.

Yeah, cool. Calling something a slippery slope is a fake argument. Try again.

And no, the people who didn't read the article (even though the OP bolded the important part) to see that the law is not some business-wide across the board change and was, in fact, merely an ordinance to ensure that vegans have an option in more larger/public areas that don't allow outside food brought into them. They're the ones overreacting. Not me. You child.

Also, some people are in fact vegan because they can not eat meat or animal byproducts. Either because of allergies (which you stupidly and incorrectly claim do not exist, because you don't know what you're talking about) or other health issues. And even if it's just because they're a vegan through lifestyle choice, so what? Why shouldn't a large establishment like a zoo or an airport, a place where people will spend potentially many hours within and not allow outside food, be required to carry a single vegan-friendly option to feed people with?

You lose.

[cubby]

I demand vegan/vegitarians restaurants starts serving huge slabs of meat, for the same reasons, the idiots demand vegan food..

Yes. Exactly - and while you might be tongue-in-cheeking it, that's how these policies go. Every place must serve options for everyone. Even dumb aesthetic options like vegan.

[therealstegblob]

You do realize this is requiring someone to pre-purchase goods in order to appeal to a demand that might not be there right? This digs into the profits of these places and either will be an ineffective law where all these places have incredibly small amounts of product to make sure they sell it all and have people still not getting any food or they are going to have to have a larger amount where much of the product ends up going to waste.

Giving large public areas that wish to add vegan options a subsidy to try and "convert them" would be a much better option without getting resentment from the businesses you are trying to force into action.

You don't know how food service works. I do.

These places are going to keep one or two menu items on hold (probably frozen, places like a movie theater would obviously just serve a vegan-friendly candy snack or something in the snack bar) and cook them to order. I predict most would just have tofu or soybean burger patties or something similar to that, and nuke them to order.

This is not some nightmare scape where businesses will be dumping hundreds of pounds of wasted vegan menu items every day while shaking their heads and watching their profits plummet, or where food and concession providers are going to have only two orders on hand in the onslaught of a dozen people all wanting orders at once.

You're looking for problems that do not exist.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes. Exactly - and while you might be tongue-in-cheeking it, that's how these policies go. Every place must serve options for everyone. Even dumb aesthetic options like vegan.

You're illiterate, which is sad. I'll help you out a bit.

If you could read the article (poor guy!), you'd know that no restaurants are being affected by this, it's larger food service locations like the LA zoo, LA airport, movie theaters, etc. No restaurant is being forced to serve vegan options, so saying "EVERY RESTAURANT NOW SERVES HUGE SLABS OF MEAT IT'S ONLY FAIR" is fucking stupid.

[cubby]

Yeah, cool. Calling something a slippery slope is a fake argument. Try again.

Lol, wut? Do you even know what a slippery slope is, or refers to? Try again?

And no, the people who didn't read the article (even though the OP bolded the important part) to see that the law is not some business-wide across the board change and was, in fact, merely an ordinance to ensure that vegans have an option in more larger/public areas that don't allow outside food brought into them. They're the ones overreacting. Not me. You child.

You seem to be doubling down on the overreacting, unless you call everyone you discuss policy issues with "child", lol. It covers movie theaters, right? Those aren't public areas, they are private establishments, right? You following so far? So, we'll add "you're a liar" to your rapidly expanding list of personal problems. But please, go on about you not overreacting. It's adorable.

Also, some people are in fact vegan because they can not eat meat or animal byproducts. Either because of allergies (which you stupidly and incorrectly claim do not exist, because you don't know what you're talking about) or other health issues. And even if it's just because they're a vegan through lifestyle choice, so what? Why shouldn't a large establishment like a zoo or an airport, a place where people will spend potentially many hours within and not allow outside food, be required to carry a single vegan-friendly option to feed people with?

Vegan is an aesthetic lifestyle choice with no nutritional or allergic reasoning behind it. People who have food allergies are not vegan, which make your argument both ignorant and poorly thought out. If this policy was enacted because of food allergies, and they required a food that was GF or nut-free, I could see having an adult conversation about it. But vegan? Nope - purely aesthetic.

People are vegan by choice. Period. Allergies might factor in, but the vegan lifestyle is not allergic free. Claiming otherwise is just ignorant.


Also, I specifically mention allergies and how they are different and actually important compared to vegan choices. You just can't read very well, apparently. You even quoted me saying allergies but I guess didn't understand? Oh well.

You lose.

And yet I'm beating you into the ground on this argument. Weird, huh?

- - - Updated - - -

You're illiterate, which is sad. I'll help you out a bit.

It is, isn't it. If I wasn't so illiterate, I'd know that slippery slope was a valid policy argument. But I guess only the literate don't know that, right?

If you could read the article (poor guy!), you'd know that no restaurants are being affected by this, it's larger food service locations like the LA zoo, LA airport, movie theaters, etc. No restaurant is being forced to serve vegan options, so saying "EVERY RESTAURANT NOW SERVES HUGE SLABS OF MEAT IT'S ONLY FAIR" is fucking stupid.

So there are no restaurants in LAX? Your ignorance is just adorable.

[hynx]

one vegan protein option. ok bag of peanuts, done. next

[cubby]

one vegan protein option. ok bag of peanuts, done. next

No one is arguing that the solution is simple - you provide a great example. The problem isn't the solution. The problem is legislating this in the first place. Law makers have no sound reasoning to enact a law like this, and despite some basement keyboard jockeys, slippery slopes are both real and frightening.

And we haven't even discussed the fact that "veganism" is just a fake lifestyle with no nutritional value. It's pure aesthetics. Might as well legislate in a Keto option as well. What's the difference?

[LedZeppelin]

You're all illiterate and overreacting.

This law is not proposing that every corner grill carry a vegan menu. It's that large public areas (movie theaters, the LA zoo, the LA airport, sports stadiums, etc) carry at least one vegan protein option, which isn't asking that much. These places tend to already have rules in place that say you can't bring outside food into their establishment, leaving no option for vegans. Of course it's KOMMIEFORNIA111 so I'm sure there's already laws long-established that require these same places to carry other specific diet foods (like Kosher and whatever else have you) options.

More 'private' restaurants and such would not be included in this law and would not be forced to serve vegan food.

So stop fucking crying about it, kiddies.

lmao get a load of this statist apologist

[stevenho]

I learned 3 things from this thread:

1. people find it offensive that there might be a soydog added to an existing menu of their fav hotdogs
2. when you are required to add the soydog, you are "forced" to do business with a stadium. You can't say fuck off and not do it because reasons
3. the number of people who only read the title, then post a dumb reply about restaurants is truly astounding

[Doctor Funkenstein]

Most proper restaurants in my country have one or several vegetarian options. It's not difficult to make good vegetarian food. Vegan however, that's difficult. The moment you remove eggs and dairy, you're suddenly very short on options for cooked food that's not really boring.

No one's complaining that vegan food is hard to prepare.

The complaint is that they're being forced to offer a service by law that they do not want, have not, and never wanted to offer.

It's as fucking idiotic as going to a PC repair shop and demanding they rebuild the roof of your house. Or going to a dollar store and demanding they sell you a $1,000,000 piece of jewelry. Or going to a Ferarri dealership and demanding they sell you a Ford Model T. Could any of those businesses offer such services if they really wanted to? Yes. But hey, guess what, they don't, because that's not what they fucking do.

How fucking thick does a person have to be to think a law like that makes any sense whatsoever?

[Utinil]

Yeah, cool. Calling something a slippery slope is a fake argument. Try again.

And no, the people who didn't read the article (even though the OP bolded the important part) to see that the law is not some business-wide across the board change and was, in fact, merely an ordinance to ensure that vegans have an option in more larger/public areas that don't allow outside food brought into them. They're the ones overreacting. Not me. You child.

Also, some people are in fact vegan because they can not eat meat or animal byproducts. Either because of allergies (which you stupidly and incorrectly claim do not exist, because you don't know what you're talking about) or other health issues. And even if it's just because they're a vegan through lifestyle choice, so what? Why shouldn't a large establishment like a zoo or an airport, a place where people will spend potentially many hours within and not allow outside food, be required to carry a single vegan-friendly option to feed people with?

You lose.

Yes there are people who can't eat meat, almost exclusively people with Phenylketonuria. This affects roughly one out of every twelve thousand or 0.008% of people and only before they reach 8-10 years of age (there is some debate on the exact age as to when it is safe). There are other conditions like Alpha-gal syndrome, but that only prevents you from eating red-meat. There are far more allergies to nuts or shellfish yet this isn't proposing a ban on them. Don't try to make the medical argument in this situation because it is laughable.

I would be ok with the legislation if it only covered places which receive a large amounts of government funding such as Zoos or Airports, but once it crosses into private businesses like Cinemas then it is wrong. Yes you can be expected to spend 3+ hours inside a cinema when you go, yes it is reasonable that in that three hour span you will get hungry, that doesn't mean you have to buy a hot dog. You can buy popcorn (generally no real butter is used) or other snacks.

Veganism is a choice for 99.99% of vegans out there. A business shouldn't be required to cater to your choice. We have a Spanish-language theater probably 5 miles from where I live, should I have the right to go there and demand they play something in English simply because I chose not to ever learn Spanish, absolutely not. For those vegans out there who want to see businesses offer vegan options vote with your wallets and get others to do the same. Refuse to go to places that don't cater to your desires. If there is a high vegan density in an area and no vegans went to a business, the business would change on it's own to include such options in order to get money.

I learned 3 things from this thread:

1. people find it offensive that there might be a soydog added to an existing menu of their fav hotdogs
2. when you are required to add the soydog, you are "forced" to do business with a stadium. You can't say fuck off and not do it because reasons
3. the number of people who only read the title, then post a dumb reply about restaurants is truly astounding

Absolutely nobody is offended that there might be a soy dog added to a menu. We are offended at the idea of the government pushing an agenda without a good reason. An no, "but some people want it" is not a good reason.

[Mumba]

So you wanna say most people are allergic to meat? I'm allergic to eggplant and many similar things like eggplant. I get stomach sores from orange juice, stomach cramps from pumpkin and so on... So any chef thats working in vegan restaurant that isn't capable of making something that has meat should quit that job, because they suck at it....

Where did you get that silly idea from?
Many people are allergic or sensitive to milk, lactose and egg and those three ingredients can often be found in regular vegetarian food. All vegan food is also halal and kosher by default.

The second part is just absurd. This law is not aimed at butcheries or "Bob's bloody BBQ", but mostly public places with a broad range of visitors.

[Kasierith]

Even recognizing that it is limited to particular venues and that the law is so vague that unless the actual wording narrows it down more it could be satisfied by chucking 20 dollar heads of lettuce with salt sprinkled on top, my first reaction to a city government compelling private businesses to serve a particular product based on their personal zealotry is "fuck you." And I really doubt that I'm the only one experiencing that. I am absolutely for organic changes where if a business cannot keep up with the changing culture of a city they deserve to go under. Pushing change like this, though, is actually disgusting.

[Jonnusthegreat]

Public places. Not private businesses.

Your steakhouse won't be force to serve tofu. Calm down.

Movie theaters are still private businesses. They are just considered semi-public because of their nature. The government IS forcing private businesses to offer vegan options.

[crakerjack]

"WHAT DO YOU MEAN YOU DON'T SERVE BACON?! I DON'T ENJOY HAMBURGER WITHOUT BACON!!!" *Falls to floor, grabs knees and rocks itself back in forth*

[therealstegblob]

Lol, wut? Do you even know what a slippery slope is, or refers to? Try again?

You literally whined, and these are your own words: And you seem to forget that these laws grow from small to large, or less requirements to more.

You're claiming this is some kind of slippery slope, that even tougher or further stretching laws will come from this one. It's a fallacy and a fake argument.

You seem to be doubling down on the overreacting, unless you call everyone you discuss policy issues with "child", lol. It covers movie theaters, right? Those aren't public areas, they are private establishments, right? You following so far? So, we'll add "you're a liar" to your rapidly expanding list of personal problems. But please, go on about you not overreacting. It's adorable.

I didn't say strictly public areas, again you fail to read basic English, because you're a troll.

A movie theater is obviously considered a large enough venue by the bill that they'll be required to keep a protein snack on hand. I don't necessarily believe that a movie theater should need to offer a vegan option, but if they don't offer one then vegans are out of luck because theaters wouldn't allow outside food, so whatever. It gets a little murky there, but all it really means is that theaters will make a few more bucks off of some shitty protein vegan bar.

Vegan is an aesthetic lifestyle choice with no nutritional or allergic reasoning behind it. People who have food allergies are not vegan, which make your argument both ignorant and poorly thought out. If this policy was enacted because of food allergies, and they required a food that was GF or nut-free, I could see having an adult conversation about it. But vegan? Nope - purely aesthetic.

People are vegan by choice. Period. Allergies might factor in, but the vegan lifestyle is not allergic free. Claiming otherwise is just ignorant.


Also, I specifically mention allergies and how they are different and actually important compared to vegan choices. You just can't read very well, apparently. You even quoted me saying allergies but I guess didn't understand? Oh well.

Except for people with meat allergies and people unable to process meat and meat byproducts.

Two seconds. Two seconds on Google to prove your unfounded claims incorrect. You lose.

And yet I'm beating you into the ground on this argument. Weird, huh?

lol

So there are no restaurants in LAX? Your ignorance is just adorable.

...What. There are plenty of restaurants in the LA airport, and it's a large public venue (outside restaurants themselves) full of people who need to eat.

The only thing adorable is how quickly a pathetic troll like you is getting added to my ignore list. Enough of this. You lose.

[klepp0906]

Whats next... forced kosher/halal option for jews/muslims? Or non kosher/halal options at a place that only offers kosher/halal food? This is a joke right .

ikr

lawl california

[therealstegblob]

Yes you can be expected to spend 3+ hours inside a cinema when you go, yes it is reasonable that in that three hour span you will get hungry, that doesn't mean you have to buy a hot dog. You can buy popcorn (generally no real butter is used) or other snacks.

The linchpin is offering protein, and this isn't so bad. There are vegan protein bars, so it'll only end up being a slight net profit for the theaters. I'd agree it seems a little bit "Big Brother"ish to require theaters to carry a vegan protein option, but the theaters retain their private right to not allow outside food to be brought in, so it seems a fair middle ground to just tell them to stock an overpriced vegan protein bar or something.

[hynx]

No one is arguing that the solution is simple - you provide a great example. The problem isn't the solution. The problem is legislating this in the first place. Law makers have no sound reasoning to enact a law like this, and despite some basement keyboard jockeys, slippery slopes are both real and frightening.

And we haven't even discussed the fact that "veganism" is just a fake lifestyle with no nutritional value. It's pure aesthetics. Might as well legislate in a Keto option as well. What's the difference?

no; i get it shouldnt be about dictating what should be a free market. if vegans made up a much larger chunk of people than the less than 2% of California's population, the free market would dictate that any business that didnt adopt some vegan choices, would struggle far greater than the average place, and have a significantly increased risk of failure due to potential revenue's now being losses instead of capture and retention partnerships.