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

[Maxie]

Seems reasonable enough for an airport or something similar where you would spend lots of time unable to leave.
As for the cinema, the amount of time you would spend there doesn't seem long enough to warrant it. However, I have no idea of how harsh the rule about bringing in outside food is - would you not be able to bring a fruit with you into an american cinema? There's no equivalent rule in my country, there's candy stores right next to the cinema that probably get half their customers because of it.

[Rooflesstoofless]

I'm all for it.

Places like the L.A. Zoo don't allow outside food and to be honest most of their food choices are pretty horrible and it can be hard to get any kind of clean protein...vegan or otherwise.

[cubby]

I'm all for it.

Places like the L.A. Zoo don't allow outside food and to be honest most of their food choices are pretty horrible and it can be hard to get any kind of clean protein...vegan or otherwise.

Should the vegan restaurants in those areas then have to provide an animal protein option for those on the Paleo diet? If not, why not?

[Rennadrel]

And that is false. Please link any evidence of your claim. Asking me to look up something is disingenuous. It's your point and position, if you're right, prove it.

No fad diets are REQUIRED by legislation to be accommodated. That's the entire point here. Even if what you're saying about accommodation is true, it's still less than what the LA law is requiring - which is a legal requirement to accommodate a fad diet.




So should all fad diets then be required, by law, to be accommodated? Vegan restaurants should provide a Keto option? And an animal meat protein option? And a Paleo option? Do you see where this could lead?

Don't forget about the Celiac's and gluten intolerant people!

[Prokne]

I guess I don't understand why this is necessary. If a place doesn't serve food I want to eat, I don't eat there. And requiring protein specifically? You don't need to eat protein all the time. Have some popcorn at the movie theater, which should be vegan (until added real cheese or butter).

[cubby]

I guess I don't understand why this is necessary. If a place doesn't serve food I want to eat, I don't eat there. And requiring protein specifically? You don't need to eat protein all the time. Have some popcorn at the movie theater, which should be vegan (until added real cheese or butter).

I think that's the most practical argument against the proposed legislation. Don't like the options, don't eat there. Can't bring in outside food, then don't eat for four hours.

- - - Updated - - -

Don't forget about the Celiac's and gluten intolerant people!

Now, if they were trying to help Celiacs, that might be different - as Celiac is an auto immune disorder and vegan is just a fad diet. The slippery slope on this legislation is frightening.

[Checkt]

And that is false. Please link any evidence of your claim. Asking me to look up something is disingenuous. It's your point and position, if you're right, prove it.

No fad diets are REQUIRED by legislation to be accommodated. That's the entire point here. Even if what you're saying about accommodation is true, it's still less than what the LA law is requiring - which is a legal requirement to accommodate a fad diet.




So should all fad diets then be required, by law, to be accommodated? Vegan restaurants should provide a Keto option? And an animal meat protein option? And a Paleo option? Do you see where this could lead?

I've asked you 5 times now. I'm not going further in this conversation until you answer:

Which diet does not get accommodated. Keto if there is meat, it fits. GF if there's no bread, it fits. So tell me, what isn't getting accommodated.

[IIamaKing]

How many of you caught that its about a vegan PROTEIN? SO, no salad or celery doesn't work.

[cubby]

I've asked you 5 times now. I'm not going further in this conversation until you answer:

Which diet does not get accommodated. Keto if there is meat, it fits. GF if there's no bread, it fits. So tell me, what isn't getting accommodated.

Edit: I just realized you answered your own question. When you said "GF if there's no bread" - if there "is bread" then it's not accommodated. But my original answer was:

All of them. No diet is specifically accommodated, by law, by any restaurant, in the United States. None. Zero. The restaurant might accidentally accommodate a specific diet, but it's by circumstance, not purposefully.

Now that I've answer your questions, please link evidence of what you are claiming. Where does it say, anywhere, that restaurants must accommodate specific diets.

And why don't vegan restaurants have to provide a meat protein option? An Atkins option, if you will (I finally remembered the name).

And we're still waiting for that link about Panera Bread. Actually, any links proving your assertions would be a delightful change of pace.

p.s. Your statement about "no bread = GF" is plain ignorant. Celiacs have to look out for a metric ton more than just "no bread".

- - - Updated - - -

How many of you caught that its about a vegan PROTEIN? SO, no salad or celery doesn't work.

Exactly. And no one has yet even tried to answer why vegan and no other diet.

[Hilhen7]

How many of you caught that its about a vegan PROTEIN? SO, no salad or celery doesn't work.

Add beans to the salad?

[cubby]

Add beans to the salad?

Lol, no. But I like the idea.

The point isn't any specific food or diet. The issue is why vegan is being legislated as required in certain private venues when other fad diets aren't. And then, if a vegan option is required in non-vegan establishments, then shouldn't an animal protein option be required in vegan only establishments?

The problem is the legislative reasoning behind the proposed law. It's 100% arbitrary and capricious.

[Checkt]

Edit: I just realized you answered your own question. When you said "GF if there's no bread" - if there "is bread" then it's not accommodated. But my original answer was:

All of them. No diet is specifically accommodated, by law, by any restaurant, in the United States. None. Zero. The restaurant might accidentally accommodate a specific diet, but it's by circumstance, not purposefully.

Now that I've answer your questions, please link evidence of what you are claiming. Where does it say, anywhere, that restaurants must accommodate specific diets.

And why don't vegan restaurants have to provide a meat protein option? An Atkins option, if you will (I finally remembered the name).

And we're still waiting for that link about Panera Bread. Actually, any links proving your assertions would be a delightful change of pace.

p.s. Your statement about "no bread = GF" is plain ignorant. Celiacs have to look out for a metric ton more than just "no bread".

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.

[lollermittens]

The only reason why people are mad at vegans is because seeing someone else eat healthy inherently triggers you own insecurities: am I eating like shit? I mean, where does this person get off telling me what I should eat?

I actually think this is a great law. People eat like garbage in this country (trust me, I'm from France and I've never gotten used to the portion sizes in this country; it's shameful) and it's about time a healthy lifestyle becomes mandated into law.

If you're against obesity or fat people in general, but you eat like shit, you seriously have no room to talk and are a part of the problem.

Let's not even get into how Americans are addicted to fast food since over 60% of people in this country eat fast food once a week.

[IIamaKing]

Exactly. And no one has yet even tried to answer why vegan and no other diet.

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 - - -

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.

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

[Cizr]

Unless they want to force people to eat it (or remove normal food because of that) I would not really care tbh.

- - - Updated - - -

The only reason why people are mad at vegans is because seeing someone else eat healthy inherently triggers you own insecurities: am I eating like shit? I mean, where does this person get off telling me what I should eat?

I actually think this is a great law. People eat like garbage in this country (trust me, I'm from France and I've never gotten used to the portion sizes in this country; it's shameful) and it's about time a healthy lifestyle becomes mandated into law.

If you're against obesity or fat people in general, but you eat like shit, you seriously have no room to talk and are a part of the problem.

Let's not even get into how Americans are addicted to fast food since over 60% of people in this country eat fast food once a week.

Objectively wrong seeing how vegan eating is not healthy.

People are mad at vegans when they push their believes on others.

[cubby]

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.

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.

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

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

[Jimusmc]

sure when vegan restaurants offer me a big ass steak.

[therealbowser]

This just in: Not every restaurant is for every consumer. There is also a breaking story about how people can actually choose where they want to eat, and don't have to eat at shitty places just because their friends want to go there. More at 11.

Seriously, though, this doesn't surprise me. California sure knows how to lower the bar on almost everything. I am glad I don't live in a place where I have to deal with nonsense like this.

Don't get me wrong, I like the idea of restaurants having options for vegans and vegetarians, but forcing them to do this by law? lol, just lol. What the hell are they thinking? Even if this goes through, do you think that they are going to offer great options for them? It's just going to be crap they have in the back, like prepackaged salads that just sit for weeks on the offchance someone might order them or something. I can only imagine, and my imagination on this topic frankly is not that vivid.

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.

[cubby]

The only reason why people are mad at vegans is because seeing someone else eat healthy inherently triggers you own insecurities: am I eating like shit? I mean, where does this person get off telling me what I should eat?

I actually think this is a great law. People eat like garbage in this country (trust me, I'm from France and I've never gotten used to the portion sizes in this country; it's shameful) and it's about time a healthy lifestyle becomes mandated into law.

If you're against obesity or fat people in general, but you eat like shit, you seriously have no room to talk and are a part of the problem.

Let's not even get into how Americans are addicted to fast food since over 60% of people in this country eat fast food once a week.

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?

[therealbowser]

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

Thankfully, this is almost certainly true.