Obviously, we protect the interests of those who have more money as priority. It's the modern American way
This comparinson makes no sense. The reason restrictions on the sale of the niqab would be offensive is because it has implications of racial/ethnic/religious discrimination. That's a big deal for us because of the protections we've written into the Constitution to protect people from discrimination for being a member of a class defined by those characteristics. Banning fur doesn't discriminate against any class defined by those characteristics that I can think of. So, a niqab ban has a very signficant difference to a fur ban that make the two completely incomparable. Yes, they are making trade irregular -- that's what regulating trade does, we do it all the time, and usually it isn't controversial. But mostly I wanted to respond to object to your implicit rationale for law-making. I know it's a very popular idea to use the harm-other-people test on the legitimacy of a law. I personally don't accept that test as the only justification for a law. And, we don't operate like that in this country in real life. Even if we were to adopt this (imo foolish and short-sighted) measuring stick for legislation, the sale of furs isn't where I would start.
Truthfuly, I was thinking of the people who scream about personal freedoms to wear fur on one hand, and want to ban the hijab when I posted, but it id doubly interestinting to me that the zealots who were unwilling to suffer any dissonance came from the opposite side. I didn't expect that. But if you want me to reach, I think there are some shamanic ritual traditions requiring bear furs, for instance. Are they given exception by this law? I mean, I know that is a pretty small segment, but so is the number of people who still buy and wear furs. And my final thought is that people who think they are avoiding guilt for cruelty to animals by not wearing fur are deluded. Living in cities has simply enabled people to pretend they are clean in this regard, while exporting the various cruel practices to be done by others wholesale. The very act of living is not clean by that standard, unfortunately.
I don't expect you'll find a lot of people who insist on fur freedom and want to ban Arabic/Muslim dress. I may be mistaken. If any of these shamanic people you refer to live in West Hollywood, they might have standing to bring suit. Even then, however, the ban is the sale of such items, not the wearing of them. I can see a major religion/ethnic group winning the argument based on the specifically discriminatory intent of something like a niqab ban -- it's a pretty clear message that we don't want 'those people' around -- whereas a shamanic practitioner can't reasonably say he was intentionally targeted. So, I would say it is quite a reach. I agree with you re animal cruelty, though I do think we can increase and decrease the severity of our cruelty. I don't even care about that angle here though; I just care about what people should and should not be empowered to do via legislation. I usually seem to be arguing against personal freedoms for the sake of empowering collective action.
