PDA

View Full Version : $1 Burger a Human Right?



Apparition
12th September 2010, 10:38 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1G7R8xxVU40

Osaka
12th September 2010, 11:07 PM
"This video contains content from FOX News Network, who has blocked it in your country on copyright grounds."

Apparition
12th September 2010, 11:10 PM
"This video contains content from FOX News Network, who has blocked it in your country on copyright grounds."


It was blocked? How pointless on their part.

Well, below is an alternative video link & an article covering the incident if you wish you read it:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/09/06/homeless-outraged-menu-san-francisco-mcdonalds-cents/

http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/4331002/1-burger-a-human-right


In the above video, Judge Napolitano stated that it is a violation of the 1st Amendment and 4th Amendment because it interferes with contracts and property rights.

In addition, it was mentioned that SF enacted that idiotic law because they wanted something sold to the homeless so that the homeless wouldn't be prosecuted for a violating stupid anti-vagrancy law that SF enacted prior to the stupid price-control law.

madfranks
13th September 2010, 07:26 AM
I had no idea San Francisco has a law that requires certain restaurants to serve food below cost to feed the homeless. If I were a restaurant owner, I'd never open a store in San Francisco.

Joe King
13th September 2010, 08:34 AM
I had no idea San Francisco has a law that requires certain restaurants to serve food below cost to feed the homeless. If I were a restaurant owner, I'd never open a store in San Francisco.

That would be called doing something out of principle. Or in your case, not doing something.

Either way, that's what's severely lacking today.

RJB
13th September 2010, 08:45 AM
Don't blame the restaraunt, San Fran. Blame your "money" system.

the white rabbit
13th September 2010, 09:08 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJ6xBaZ92uA

joe_momma
13th September 2010, 10:33 AM
SF has a history of trying to force businesses to subsidize their social programs.

A couple of years ago the city got spanked for trying to force residence motels to give renter status to indigents (this means rent control and tenant's rights ordinances would take effect).

By local law, if you stay in the same rented hotel room for a period of time (30 days) your status changes from (hotel) guest to renter - this entitles the renter to significant benefits and legal rights particularly the rules around eviction - a hotel can throw a non-payer out immediately while a rental eviction often takes 6 months (while no rent is paid) and normally nets the deadbeat a $5,000 payout to get them to leave - the whole eviction process is in the mid $10,000's plus the lost rents).

Naturally, the (fleabag) hotels have no interest being in the rental business, so they required "homeless" people to change rooms every so often to prevent the change in status.

SF City council saw a chance to decrease the cities "homeless budget" - They could pass a law forbidding the rotation of long term guests. That way, as soon as the guests became "renters", the city does not have to provide money to pay for the hotel room - ka-ching! (Never mind that the guests are indigent and the hotel owner would now have to begin eviction proceedings.)

The Hotel (slumlords) saw this coming a mile away, fought the law, and won - part of the judge's comments included (paraphrasing) ".... while the homeless housing situation is deplorable, it is not the responsibility for private businesses to address the social issues. To force the plantiffs (Hotel owners) to subsidize the ...."

SF is bankrupt and always looking for a way to sneak in a new tax or redistribute wealth. (Examples include the $0.05 plastic shopping bag tax, Cigarette butt tax, fast food wrapper tax.....)

mike88
13th September 2010, 10:42 AM
this line of thought?

madfranks
13th September 2010, 12:33 PM
I had no idea San Francisco has a law that requires certain restaurants to serve food below cost to feed the homeless. If I were a restaurant owner, I'd never open a store in San Francisco.

That would be called doing something out of principle. Or in your case, not doing something.

Either way, that's what's severely lacking today.


I agree with you that voluntarily giving your own property and resources for charitable causes is one of the highest forms of principled morality. However, forcing someone else to give their property and resources away under threat of prosecution and penalty, as the SF city council has done to restaurant owners, is not the same thing.