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

[cubby]

So it's insane because you think vegans should just eat animal products. Got it.

No. Stop putting words in my mouth. You go ahead and quote me where I said that or apologize. I'm trying to have a serious conversation about a bad policy. If you're not into that, fine, but don't lie - that does neither of us any good.

Please feel free to address the actual arguments I made above that you quoted and then ignored. I'm open to being wrong about this, but I still can't find any similar policy regarding any other fad diet - or even addressing severe allergies.

Why vegan and not Keto or GF?

[cubby]

Additionally to Cubby's explanation, this legislation is a one way street.

If the goal is to expand options at eateries, why aren't vegan places being asked to provide non-vegan options?

If for example, a steak house gets forced to provide vegan options, a vegan place should be forced to sell steak.

- - - Updated - - -



No, it is insane because they can eat at vegan places. There is no reason that a place that doesn't have vegan options, should be forced to put them on the menu. If you don't like the menu, eat somewhere else that has the food that you agree with.

Very good point about the one-way street. Why don't vegan restaurants have to provide an animal protein option?

- - - Updated - - -

Because keto is already available and they already offer options that are GF. Basic logic...

But they aren't required to, which is the whole point. Why vegan? Why require it? There is no logical reason for this policy, at all.

And you still haven't addressed the why? Aside from being some fad diet, vegan doesn't do anything more or less than other diets. Why this one?

[Kathandira]

Why? People who eat steak also eat vegetables. They already have food options at vegan places.

You totally just defeated your whole argument.

[Machismo]

He's an idiot.

[daem]

itt: Severe misconceptions of the public on what vegan food actually is.

More news at 11

Vegan options already (accidentally) exist in many chain restaurants you probably already enjoy yourself. Bean burritos at taco bell, for example.

Would you have a problem if they were labeled as "plant-based" on the menu, rather than the dreaded, unholy "vegan"? Are you afraid some tofu will make you want to wear lipstick? Like really, at some point you need to realize how absolutely silly these misconceptions are.

[cubby]

Why? People who eat steak also eat vegetables. They already have food options at vegan places.

How do you know? You're making things up at this point. Remember that high protein diet, the one awhile back, why not require those options.

Yes, they do. And they aren't required to by law because they're already offering those options.

Nothing else is required by law. You aren't answering any of the policy questions. Why veganism? It's a choice, just like any other diet fad.

[cubby]

itt: Severe misconceptions of the public on what vegan food actually is.

More news at 11

Vegan options already (accidentally) exist in many chain restaurants you probably already enjoy yourself. Bean burritos at taco bell, for example.

Would you have a problem if they were labeled as "plant-based" on the menu, rather than the dreaded, unholy "vegan"? Are you afraid some tofu will make you want to wear lipstick? Like really, at some point you need to realize how absolutely silly these misconceptions are.

I can't even tell what your point is. If they "already exist", then why require them? If they don't, then again, why do we need to FORCE restaurants to provide them? There is no logical reason this diet fad should be REQUIRED while others shouldn't.

[Kathandira]

itt: Severe misconceptions of the public on what vegan food actually is.

More news at 11

Vegan options already (accidentally) exist in many chain restaurants you probably already enjoy yourself. Bean burritos at taco bell, for example.

Would you have a problem if they were labeled as "plant-based" on the menu, rather than the dreaded, unholy "vegan"? Are you afraid some tofu will make you want to wear lipstick? Like really, at some point you need to realize how absolutely silly these misconceptions are.

I think I and some others aren't mad that options are made available at restaurants, its the idea that it would become law.

[markos82]

Muslims can't eat pork meat, or any kind of food that was prepared in a kitchen where pork meat was prepared, so does that mean that any restaurant or venue should have 2 kitchens, one where no pork meat has ever entered?

[cubby]

The high protein diet from a while back? You mean with all the protein options they're already serving that don't require you to buy any bread or vegetables? Again, they already offer options for those people.

It was that crazy one, with an "A" where the guy who started it was a MD but died because he was severely overweight. I just can't remember the name.

And there are actually quite a few laws regarding what foods you can and can't serve. Not sure how this is news to you...

Show me the laws where it requires restaurants to provide specific items adhering to fad diets. I'll wait.

[Kathandira]

No I didn't. There aren't any vegan options available at these places. There's food anyone can eat at a vegan place. Your false equivalence doesn't really prove anything but that you don't understand the difference between vegans and people who are omnivorous.

You can't get mashed potatoes and vegetables at a steak house? I thought people who eat steak also eat vegetables?

[cubby]

Muslims can't eat pork meat, or any kind of food that was prepared in a kitchen where pork meat was prepared, so does that mean that any restaurant or venue should have 2 kitchens, one where no pork meat has ever entered?

Exactly. Get it on the books! That has the fun distinction of being required by a religion, so you can make that rule a First Amendment issue.

The LA Council didn't take a single second to think this policy through. At all.

[zenkai]

You're the one calling a state stupid for potentially requiring large venues to offer more diverse food options to cover the range of diets. It won't hurt you OR the businesses to offer vegan options.

But please, do tell me what the argument is about.

- - - Updated - - -



How is it insane?

You don't even understand the argument, if you haven't figured it out by now, you're being willful ignorant.

[cubby]

Again, they already offer options for those people.

Tell us again why restaurants have to provide all options for all fad diets again?

[Kathandira]

And there are actually quite a few laws regarding what foods you can and can't serve. Not sure how this is news to you...

What you can and cannot serve is different from what you must serve. Mandated menu options is quite stupid.

[cubby]

What you can and cannot serve is different from what you must serve. Mandated menu options is quite stupid.

This. Precisely. And if vegan is on the required list, then nut-free and GF and a host of other ones should do. Those are life threatening, too. Vegan isn't.

- - - Updated - - -

You don't even understand the argument, if you haven't figured it out by now, you're being willful ignorant.

You're not helping at all. Please post constructively and add to the discussion instead of just taunting.

[Checkt]

So wouldn't the actual solution to be making a law against banning outside food in public places like this?

No?

Too simple?

Because requiring a public place that is an at-will business to serve food for all is definitely NOT way too simple. entirely, totally.

[zenkai]

This. Precisely. And if vegan is on the required list, then nut-free and GF and a host of other ones should do. Those are life threatening, too. Vegan isn't.

- - - Updated - - -



You're not helping at all. Please post constructively and add to the discussion instead of just taunting.

I am not going to waste time on someone who hasn't bothered reading the thread, please keep your opinions to yourself.

[Morg]

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.

Until the same whiney cunts come and whinge that the food was prepared with the same bench and knives the meat was and how that's personally villifying there choices

[Checkt]

Well one solution requires a person making a decision to be responsible for themselves, and the other requires private businesses to be responsible for individuals life choices... So It's pretty easy to see which one is actually simpler. There is also the fact that this law WILL lead to more food waste, by default.

My solution seems like a pretty reasonable compromise, that also benefits non-vegans.

The airport isn't a private business. The zoo isn't a private business. These are public locations that do not fall into the 'if you don't like it don't eat here' ideology that is perfectly fine. This is not trying to get steakhouses to served sauteed tofu, and almost everyone in this thread is acting as such....because if a day goes by where MMOC doesn't overreact to a nonissue it might get deleted from the internet...or something.