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

[cubby]

name a restaurant you cannot get a GF option at in these locations.

name a restaurant you cannot get a keto option at.

name a restaurant you cannot get a paleo option at.

Reported for trolling.

If you want to come back and have the conversation about legislative inconsistencies, I'm happy to do so. Otherwise you will be ignored.

[Kyphael]

Good thing I don't live in California. Windy City baby! Where the mayor wants to legalize marijuana and we got the best hot dog in the country.

I mean sure there are a lot of shootings, but that's just in the south side.

[cubby]

It never ceases to amaze me the lengths California goes to over dramatize 'problems' that were never problems to begin with, and in so doing, (ironically) create actual problems from them. My condolences, California.

It certainly amazes me, too. And I generally like California overall.

[IIamaKing]

I have an issue with it entirely because it's legislating one fad diet over any others, for not valid reason. And continuing the inconsistencies with the legislation, do vegan restaurants now have to provide an animal protein option?

The entire law is poorly thought out and idiotically executed. It won't hold the first time it's contested in court. Imo.




He's just trolling at this point, knows he lost the argument. Imo report, ignore, and move on.

Why are you comparing captive audiences to restaurants? They are not the same, you are making a strawman with the whole "vegan places need to also serve meat". Its also NOT who this law is targeting. So, your whole argument is poo.

- - - Updated - - -

The reason people are concerned is because the law is arbitrary and capricious, and not well thought out at all. Why vegan? Why not Keto? And do vegan venues now have to provide an animal protein option for those diets?

You really are bad at this. Keto is available at a stadium, as is kosher, as is paleo(I think). What large captive place are "vegan venues". This law is not saying that Joes Steak shack has to serve a tofu burger, so stop strawmanning.

[lollermittens]

The reason people are concerned is because the law is arbitrary and capricious, and not well thought out at all. Why vegan? Why not Keto? And do vegan venues now have to provide an animal protein option for those diets?

I think you're reading way too much into this.

From what I make of it, it'll simply require restaurants to offer certain non-vegan dishes as a vegan option. Not to create an entire alternate menu of only vegan dishes.

It's shocking the number of people who shit on others who demand healthier food options and the removal of garbage like soda, candy, saturated fat, gluten, and other shit you poison your body with.

Again, I'll reiterate: the reason why vegans bother people is because it forces them to question their own health habits. For whom the majority are awful.

It's not all an individual's fault however as healthier food tends to be much more expensive. Food has always been influenced by what social class you emanate from.

This law is a good thing and I hope it passes.

[cubby]

Why are you comparing captive audiences to restaurants? They are not the same, you are making a strawman with the whole "vegan places need to also serve meat". Its also NOT who this law is targeting. So, your whole argument is poo.

It includes restaurants because of the public venue section; LAX, etc. Moreover, some movie theaters are turning into restaurants, where they serve food. Finally, the whole point isn't just the specifics of this law, but the inconsistencies of the reasoning behind the law. Why vegan? Why not others? Why not all fad diets?

Do you see what I'm getting at?

Keto is available at a stadium, as is kosher, as is paleo(I think). What large captive place are "vegan venues". This law is not saying that Joes Steak shack has to serve a tofu burger, so stop strawmanning.

That is in fact exactly what the law is saying. Go back and reread it.

- - - Updated - - -

I think you're reading way too much into this.

From what I make of it, it'll simply require restaurants to offer certain non-vegan dishes as a vegan option. Not to create an entire alternate menu of only vegan dishes.

It's shocking the number of people who shit on others who demand healthier food options and the removal of garbage like soda, candy, saturated fat, gluten, and other shit you poison your body with.

Again, I'll reiterate: the reason why vegans bother people is because it forces them to question their own health habits. For whom the majority are awful.

It's not all an individual's fault however as healthier food tends to be much more expensive. Food has always been influenced by what social class you emanate from.

This law is a good thing and I hope it passes.

I'm not, but thanks for asking. What's shocking is that people are somehow ok with the government requiring private business to serve fad diet options. That's exactly what this law does.

[Checkt]

Reported for trolling.

If you want to come back and have the conversation about legislative inconsistencies, I'm happy to do so. Otherwise you will be ignored.

you're wrong and you just don't want to accept it. I don't care if we continue to have the conversation because you've been adding nothing of value to the conversation.

You leaving is a netgain for the thread.

[VanishingAct]

You would think they would worry about real issues like having the lowest quality of life index due to the massive discrepancy between the haves and the have nots in that state. But then this is what always happens throughout history when places are ran by cultural marxists masquerading as 'normal' left wing.

[cubby]

Doesn't matter how many times you say it, this is still incorrect.

Doesn't matter how many times you deny it, it's still 100% true. (am I doing that right? )

And the fact that vegan is mentioned in the law is legally irrelevant. The issue is requiring one diet option to be served but not others. Why not GF? Why not others? Why don't the vegan establishments that fall under this law have to provide an animal protein option.

The issue isn't the details, the issue is the legislative requirement of menu items by private restaurants for no legal reasons.

[Checkt]

Do the places this would affect have to serve kosher/halal meals? I don't have an issue simply because its for large captive audience areas, places where they do not let you bring in food and you will be stuck there for a LONG time. Comparing a restaurant where you can just leave and get what you want is a BS argument.

- - - Updated - - -



Why even talk about restaurants? That's not who this law would affect. Large captive audience places like stadiums and theatres.

Because Airports are affected, and they have restaurants. That's how we got there. For movie theatres a vegan dog solves their issue. It's a non-issue being made an issue by internet nerds

[cubby]

Because Airports are affected, and they have restaurants. That's how we got there. For movie theatres a vegan dog solves their issue. It's a non-issue being made an issue by internet nerds

Thank you. I guess you can post constructively when you try.

That's how restaurants come into play, and how just about anywhere can be affected, depending on how they define the law. Or expand it.

[Checkt]

Thank you. I guess you can post constructively when you try.

That's how restaurants come into play, and how just about anywhere can be affected, depending on how they define the law. Or expand it.

asking you to provide reasoning for your thoughts is posting constructively. You cannot come up with a "fad diet" (I'm still confused why you think this is such a great buzzword) that doesn't get accommodated by pretty much every resturaunt on earth so asking you to provide an example of one that doesn't count as unconstructive just because you cannot fulfil the request -- it simply shows you how weak your argument is.

[cubby]

asking you to provide reasoning for your thoughts is posting constructively. You cannot come up with a "fad diet" (I'm still confused why you think this is such a great buzzword) that doesn't get accommodated by pretty much every resturaunt on earth so asking you to provide an example of one that doesn't count as unconstructive just because you cannot fulfil the request -- it simply shows you how weak your argument is.

The bolded is more definitive proof that you prove your own point wrong.

I've pointed out in several ways why the law is both arbitrary and capricious, along with being legally inconsistent. There is no logic behind the rule, and it's biased towards one fad diet over all the others. If you're confused by the solid reasoning and logic behind my points, ask specific questions, and I'll answer. So far all you've done is ask the same question several times, even though it's been answered.

Which is why you've been reported for trolling.

The issue isn't that most restaurants accidentally cover most fad diets. The issue is that a legislative body is requiring private businesses to offer one fad diet option, but no others. It doesn't matter if other fad diets options are covered by accident. That isn't the point at all. The point is why vegan and no other.

Which you have failed, each and every time to answer, to defend your point, while you continue to post your childish questions.

[Zantos]

No it isn't. A very poor analogy.
It's more like having kosher and halal options.

Its a perfect analogy. Forcing vegan restaurants to have non vegan options is the exact same thing.

This law is dumb and costly. No one wants to carry vegan only junk that will just rot. Its literally asking them to throw out thousands of dollars in lost revenue to satisfy someone who they are just fine without. Like most others pointed out, if it gets passed, they probably will offer something cheap and simple. My guess? Beans. Vegan and protien. No real expiration or shelf life on dried beans.

Its a dumb law and the quality will suffer because of it. Not only that, but it will cost everyone else money since they will have to offset the cost of throwing out all of that wasted product somehow.

- - - Updated - - -

You would think they would worry about real issues like having the lowest quality of life index due to the massive discrepancy between the haves and the have nots in that state. But then this is what always happens throughout history when places are ran by cultural marxists masquerading as 'normal' left wing.

I mean, the big hint that that state doesn't care should have come when they had a county painting its streets white to the tune of $40,000 per mile. For a whole 10degree difference.

[markos82]

I'm still waiting if it would be Ok for Muslim, Hindu and other religions demand that all such restaurants/venues have separate kitchens considering that your constitution ( US i mean ) is guaranteeing freedom of religion by First Amendment. I mean that would have more sense ( even though im atheist ) than vegans demanding that venues that sell only meat should have vegan option.

[cubby]

I'm still waiting if it would be Ok for Muslim, Hindu and other religions demand that all such restaurants/venues have separate kitchens considering that your constitution ( US i mean ) is guaranteeing freedom of religion by First Amendment. I mean that would have more sense ( even though im atheist ) than vegans demanding that venues that sell only meat should have vegan option.

And you make the larger picture more precise. The legislative reasoning behind this law is poor, with no foresight to how it could be implemented in future iterations. Not to mention why the vegan fad diet is singled out to need special treatment over others.

- - - Updated - - -

Its a perfect analogy. Forcing vegan restaurants to have non vegan options is the exact same thing.

Exactly. And what about other fad diets? What about lethal allergies? Why aren't those prioritized over a lifestyle choice? I could go on . . . .

[Morg]

1.) They would never know that.

2.) You're already required, by food safety laws, to use different (or clean) knives for preparing vegetables and meat, including different cutting boards.

You don't know what you're talking about. Try again.

You've clearly never worked in a kitchen have you?

[therealstegblob]

You've clearly never worked in a kitchen have you?

Actually, yes. I have. In fact, I've worked in more than one kitchen. So why don't you try again with the baseless, pointless accusation? Or maybe you'd like to just stop trolling and wasting everyone's time with worthless shit posts?

[Prokne]

I think this whole thing could be kept from being blown out of proportion if:

Movie theaters were excepted - I'm not sure why people need to eat a meal at a movie theater. Have some popcorn and eat before/after the movie.

Airports were required to include a vegan restaurant or x number of vegan providing restaurants - Airport is owned by the city so it should be the one required to get vegan stuff, not the restaurants operating there.

Zoo is city owned too, so it should have vegan options.

You can bring your own food to the sports game so no need to include that.


The other thing is that it is just weird that the dish has to have vegan protein. If you have to eat at one of those places, there are probably a lot of things you can eat that are vegan. You don't need protein in every meal. The only places I think this protein requirement has any validity is in an airport (since you might not have other options when flying for a day) and maybe the Zoo because it is a lot to walk around the zoo all day (but even the you wouldn't need protein and it's only one meal in a day).

[Andyclan]

Are you guys really crying about this? WTF is the big deal? Is the law forcing you to eat the vegan options? No. I think it's great they're adding vegan options to menus at large venues like these. It literally has zero impact on any non vegans out there. The fact that anyone is upset about this shows how close minded and ignorant people are.

Also I want to touch on people saying "well then vegan restaurants should serve meat!" This is what the article states: "movie theaters, sports stadiums, the Los Angeles Zoo, Los Angeles International Airport restaurants and other large-scale entertainment venues to sell at least one vegan protein option.". It does NOT say add vegan options to steakhouses, Korean BBQ, seafood restaurants etc. People go to steakhouses for steak, seafood places for seafood, and vegan places for vegan food. That argument is invalid.