As usual for right wingers, you missed the entire point and began ranting about meat.:lol: This has nothing to with affluence it has to do with ridding ourselves of cruel greedy breeders who view our beloved dogs as products, undeserving of humane treatment or care. They use pet shops as "fronts" to market their "products" and cannot stay in business without them. Their animals are products of poor breeding and are often sick and pawning them off on unsuspecting consumers is a racket we can do without. These scum brought this on themselves and only someone like you would shed a tear for them. I look forward to all States following California's lead and ridding ourselves of this scourge once and for all.
Thank you for the emotive soap box speech, were you shaking your fist in the air about "the scourge" and "the scum" vexing our pet owners? Didn't you forget to rail about being crucified on "a cross of gold" (oh wait, that was another blowhard).
To the contrary, the "point" you and a few others have made cannot be missed, so naturally my expose' of the intellectually challenged was quite easy. However, that you are intellectually unable to grasp the brutal dissection of these points by analogous principle is as unfortunate as it is pitied.
No one is disputing that part of this is about punishing something called "cruel greedy breeders" , or that sometimes their animals are poorly bred or cared for. No one is disputing that breeders who commit fraud ("a racket") is a supplier we can do without. But what some of us, including myself, are objecting too is how this law goes about it. For many reasons it is both unjust and dumb as dirt.
First, you have not shown that it is morally wrong to breed animals for sale (among those who have not been in a coma for their lifetime, that is called "animal husbandry", "ranching", "farming", etc.)
Second, you have not shown there is anything morally wrong in purchasing animal products for sale; be it for food consumption, pets, furs, recreation, or labor.
Third, the only general moral prohibition often (but not universally) recognized is that people who breed and sell unbutchered animals, should treat them humanely before they are sold.
Four, if they don't, the just way to deal with people who treat animals inhumanely an otherwise moral pursuit, is to regulate them, and for specific transgressions, fine or prosecute them. The principle of justice that the guilty, not the innocent, are eligible for punishment is likely as old as the bible, if not older.
Five, it should not be a surprise that is how other animal products businesses, when regulated, are treated: licenses, inspections, fines, and if sufficiently egregious, prosecution.
Six, "Inconveniencing buyers" makes as little sense as banning all meat and poultry sales in retail food outlets in order to punish inhumane mid-western cattle or poultry producers. It is NOT moral or just ban all retail consumers (who did nothing) from purchases for the sin acts of some product suppliers.
Seven, it's difficult to see how such blanket bans will change the behavior of breeders - what incentive is there to change IF they are going to lose some market share anyway. If anything, it will encourage further "cost-cutting" inhumane treatment.
Eight, in the meantime, the market for consumers of modest means for pet shop animals will be reduced to rescue mutts, most of whom in our local shelters are pit bull hybrids. Those of greater means, on the other hand, will buy from local specialty breeders that the majority cannot afford.
Finally, as is usual, the law of unintended consequences will help the affluent, restrict the choice of the non-affluent, and solve nothing in securing humane treatment.
The WHOLE LAW is a testimony to the usual thoughtless virtue-posturing in Sacramento, utterly oblivious to justice, moral means, or consequences.
