Happy meals would play havoc with our girlish figures, doncha know.
Posted on 11/03/2010 4:19:33 PM PDT by Eric Blair 2084
Fast food giant McDonald's said Wednesday it was "extremely disappointed" at a ruling by San Francisco authorities banning high-calorie Happy Meals, which entice children to eat with free toys.
The response came after the Californian city's board of supervisors voted to forbid restaurants from giving gifts with meals that contain too much fat and sugar.
"We are extremely disappointed with this decision. It?s not what our customers want, nor is it something they asked for," said McDonald's spokeswoman Danya Proud.
Happy Meals, which typically come in a colorful cardboard box packed with a burger, a drink, fries and desert, are popular with hard-pressed parents as well as children, she said.
"Public opinion continues to be overwhelmingly against this misguided legislation. Parents tell us it's their right and responsibility, not the government's, to ... to choose what?s right for their children."
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
The City Attorney will go to court and get an injunction, and any store manager who sells a Happy Meal will be arrested for contempt of court and will go to jail.
What if the people DEMAND them contrary to this edict?
They can vote out the Board of Supervisors, or they can go to a McDonald's in neighboring Oakland. (From what I know of San Francisco, I think the latter is much more likely.)
They must be right. God let them win the World Series.
Sigh.
This is why future presidents will hide their records.
STOP THE CYCLE OF DECEIT!
Happy meals would play havoc with our girlish figures, doncha know.
Don't be so damn polite, they're definitely too stupid or too stoned to do anything like ask for something different the way normal folks do. Only an entire herd of people that stupid could elect the sort that not only make rules like this but gloat over them.
Regards
Ronald needs to take his happy a$$ down the road and leave THE GAY city without.
Go Galt.
Just to be a wiseass I would stand at the counter with a big bag of little toys and hand them to any kids who ordered a burger.
Just out of spite.
Wonder what will be in the Sad Meals. Lima beans and brussel sprouts?
Happy Meals exit via the one way anus-—as for the SF Gays it’s a two lane highway.
What about Snickers bars? What about T-bone steaks? How about ice cream sundaes sold to children?
Tell me how this decision cannot be viewed as arbitrary or capricious?
They banned Happy Meals? Why stop with Happy Meals? Why don’t they just ban McDonalds and be done with it?
Incrementalism. Give them time.
If they told people what the real agenda is up front, people would be horrified.
It is questionable which is more healthy for you...
Why?
This isn't the federal government, so it isn't an issue of overstepping federal authority.
I'm not aware of anything in the US Constitution that bans state and local governments from making such stupid laws.
Are you saying it violates the California constitution?
One of the points of federalism is that some states can allow such foolishness if it makes their citizens happy, and people in other states can scoff at the idiots and point out how they are happy they don't live there.
LOL - That would be awesome!
{You could also get one of those big 5 Ga buckets of lard and offer to give people a free tablespoon for their burger out of spite too.}
>Is a happy meal toy in the same category as a controlled substance?
Called in on a tip, the local SWAT Team stormed Mrs. Smith’s Day Care and found nearly four-hundred pounds of controlled substances, including the “gateway” ‘drug’ of Engineers: the Erector Set.
[/sarc][/cynic]
Art 1, Sec 10, Para 1:
NO STATE SHALL enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; PASS ANY BILL OF ATTAINDER, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
Bill of Attainder
Definition: A legislative act that singles out an individual or group for punishment without a trial.
(TehcLawJournal.com)
I think the group 'children' is a readily identifiable group that is being singled out for punishment w/o a trial [by the legislation].
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.