FCUSA: San Francisco’s Attack on Consumer Choice is Unconstitutional
Medford, OR— Fur Commission USA (FCUSA) applauds the filing of a lawsuit seeking to overturn San Francisco’s ban on the sale of new fur and fur trimmed coats. The City ordinance/ban prohibits the sale of all fur apparel, including coats, trims, and accessories. It took full effect on January 1st.
The lawsuit argues that San Francisco’s ban is unconstitutional, discriminatory, and does not serve a legitimate local interest, such as health or safety. The ordinance is so far-reaching that it even bans fur products regulated by the fish and wildlife agencies, or certified under science-based programs that verify sustainability and animal welfare standards in fur production.
San Francisco’s ban also opens the door to greater infringement on consumer choice. The ban was driven by animal liberation zealots who also want to ban wool, leather, cashmere, and other animal-based fibers or food products, such as meat, poultry, eggs, seafood and even pet companionship.
Michael Whelan, spokesman for FCUSA, stated: “This ban does nothing to improve animal welfare. True progressivism is not the city council dictating to people that they can’t buy fur or what they must eat or wear, but in supporting science-based programs that ensure environmental responsibility and robust animal welfare standards.”
This litigation is one of many against overbearing California laws, including litigation by the state of Louisiana against a California state law prohibiting sale of alligator byproducts—which has resulted in a temporary stay on this ban.
For more on the realities of fur bans, read here….
To read the Complaint filed in District Court, click here….
