.

Special 'Shop-In' Honors Fur Ban

Twenty-one West Hollywood businesses are offering a 10 percent discount of Saturday to show their support for the city's ban on the sale of clothing apparel containing animal fur set to go into effect in Sept. 2013.

Twenty-one West Hollywood businesses  are participating in a special “Shop-In” on Saturday to support the Fur Free Weho movement.

Those stores will offer a 10 percent discount on purchases made on Saturday. The Shop-In is being held to honor the one year anniversary of the introduction of the ordinance which bans the sale of clothing apparel with animal fur.

Councilmember John D’Amico . The City Council . It is set to go into effect on Sept. 21, 2013.

People opposed to the fur ban said the ban would hurt local businesses. So, fur-free supporters came up with the idea of the Shop-In to support business that support the fur ban.

The 21 shops offering the discount range from clothing stores to florists to booksellers. A complete list of participating stores can be found on the Fur Free Weho website.

“This is something we expect will grow and grow in the years to come,” D’Amico said during a press conference on Thursday. “We hope people will come out and shop in West Hollywood.”

“We can show people that where you spend your money will make a difference and that you want to make a difference for the better,” said Chris DeRose, president of Last Chance for Animals.

A champagne and cupcake reception will be held Saturday at noon at the Nicole Miller boutique in Sunset Plaza. Nicole Miller is one of the stores participating in the Shop-In.

With West Hollywood becoming the first city in the world to ban the sale of fur, D’Amico hopes the idea will spread

“We want to export an idea that’s really good not just for [West Hollywood] but for the whole world,” D’Amico said.

joninla May 25, 2012 at 11:14 PM
The article has not accurately described the opponents to the formal City Council Created and Approved ban on the sale of fur in the City of WeHo. I am anti-fur (but do not support or believe the activists who assault people wearing fur should be commended or not prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law for a physical assault on a person - it makes their decision to physically assault a person as bad as a person who makes and enjoys the killing of animals for their fur). However, it is not within the power or authority of the City of West Hollywood, a tiny municipality in the greater County of Los Angeles) to create laws such as this one that bans the rights of people to purchase a non-regulated legal product for sale. It goes way beyond any power of the City. The City wanted to grab bragging rights to the very first and only City to even show interest in passing such a law indicates no other City is stupid enough to think they have the legislative authority to pass this law. As I said I am anti-fur and against violence leaving the political process to stop fur sales. But it abridges the Constitution for it to be done by our 'party of 5' to make the decision for residents of California. Next time the City doesn't like something and passes a law - it may be for something people don't like. It's a dangerous and improper abuse of elected office to pass a law. This event is perfect - community support. Not a law, however.
Sheila Lightfoot May 26, 2012 at 12:17 AM
Seriously? The article says, “People opposed to the fur ban said the ban would hurt local businesses. So, fur-free supporters came up with the idea of the Shop-In to support business that support the fur ban.” So what’s your point? That businesses that aren’t being affected by the ban won’t be hurt because of the ban and, therefore, they support it? How much more disingenuous could this be? That’s like the Soho House’s lobbyist supporting the outdoor smoking ban for other restaurants once he secured an exemption for the restaurant at Soho House. What percentage of their business are the participants giving up to support the fur ban? The businesses that are listed sell novelties, books, cigars, wine & spirits, flowers, shoes, pet supplies, furniture (furnishings are exempt from the ban), pizza, underwear, swimwear, smoking accessories, jewelry, haircuts. And what is The Hustler Store giving up? I only count 5 clothing stores and one is for kids. Did they all sell fur and voluntarily remove those items from their inventory? What percentage of their profits have they given up?
Sheila Lightfoot May 26, 2012 at 12:18 AM
Please don’t tell us this proves the fur ban won’t hurt business. All you’re proving is that it won’t hurt the businesses that don’t sell fur. Duh! No one said it would hurt a florist, a book shop or a liquor store. You can do better than this, Mr. D’Amico. We’re used to these kinds of disingenuous gestures from the dinosaurs on the Council, but it’s disappointing seeing it from you. I don’t buy fur but, quite frankly, the Fur Ban nullifies something I find more important… my freedom of choice to “not buy fur.” This is one of those issues that people should have to rely on the power of persuasion, instead of the power of the state.
joninla May 26, 2012 at 12:35 AM
I never noticed your having such strong opinions and certitude until recently. Or was I just not paying enough attention as usual. Either way, I like it! :)
Amy May 26, 2012 at 09:07 AM
The comments have absolutely no concern over the welfare of animals. Come on... We can live without fur. Especially in West Hollywood. I can't think of any reason (other than GREED) as to why a business would want to sell fur that was obtained via anal electrocution. If you are anti fur, then stand up to animal cruelty. If we don't expose it and work to end it, the brutality will continue to go on and animals will continue to suffer.
WeHoOne May 26, 2012 at 04:40 PM
Anyone who has seen the videos, heard and read about the hideous torment & torture of innocent animals for needless fur clothing, then still calls it a "choice" at least lacks compassion. This "choice" includes the mass slaughter of cats and dogs, mostly from China, whose skins are included in this "luxury" aparrel. Maybe these same folks also think the Chinese products that contain dangerous leads and other poisions, should also be a "choice". Very few people are affected by this law, many of the objections are frivilous and meaningless, coming from people who admit they don't wear fur and would better serve themselves and others by finding a more worth while cause. You do not have the "choice" to use marijuana which hurts no one, that might be a worthy way to promote feeedom of "choice" for everyone; animal torture is not. Maybe outlawing the copying of designer products nullifies your "choice" to buy counterfiet products as well, buy it is still illegal, and you don't have any choice when something is illegal, unless you want to break the law. This law will by no means be hurtful to business in West Hollywood, but it does speak to West Hollywood's push toward a more civilized and sophisticated society.
long time resident May 26, 2012 at 06:09 PM
It is easy to ban fur under our climate! We should try the ban in New York or Chicago
josephzladner May 27, 2012 at 05:27 AM
The methods of saving have significantly changed over the past five years. More people are looking for their savings online Printapons, in their inbox, Facebook and Twitter.
Sheila Lightfoot May 27, 2012 at 09:10 PM
Only vegans can come to this discussion as pure advocates with unassailable positions regarding compassion for and the protection of animals. Most people draw lines more arbitrarily. Should the sale of fur be banned in retail clothing stores and not in the home furnishing retailers and wholesalers? What about leather? Do you ban meat, chicken, and fish in restaurants and grocery stores? I doubt we have research labs in WeHo, but do you ban using animals in medical research? You can call that exaggeration, but it demonstrates how differently people feel about the broader issue and where they individually draw the lines. Where do supporters of the ban draw that line? And what is the best approach for actually achieving the particular goal of reducing the use of animal fur? Probably fewer people buy expensive fur coats these days because of societal persuasion, but they know they’re buying fur. I’ll bet many, many more people buy items fashioned from cheaper real fur because they believe they’re buying faux fur. If items were clearly labeled as real vs. faux, I’ll wager far more people would stop buying real fur, and that would cause more fashion and furniture lines to use faux instead of real fur in the first place. If businesses are selling out of faux fur and the real fur items stay on the shelves, I simply believe that would be more compelling, persuasive and successful in the long run than any ban could be.

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »