Comment on San Francisco bill would let people sue grocery stores for closing too quickly
BobaFuttbucker@reddthat.com 7 months agoYou mean that they must make good faith efforts to find a workable solution prior to just dipping? That just means they have to either try to be profitable so as not to leave, or tell the public why they’re not profitable so it can be worked on.
One example given mentions being a part of discussions in allowing another store to take over for them in their place of business when they leave. You’re hyper focusing and assuming that means they have to all these things that constitute government overreach.
What is it with conservatives and not liking smooth and peaceful transitions of power?
wintermute_oregon@lemm.ee 7 months ago
Just the fact they have to do it is funding It. Labor isn’t free. Why is it lefties like fascist law? Not trolling, genuinely curious.
BobaFuttbucker@reddthat.com 7 months ago
Ok so you admit you’re conflating them doing literally anything to prevent the population from not knowing where they’re going to get their food, after years of eliminating their competition (thereby creating the problem in the first place), with “funding”. Now that I understand your use of the word better, then yeah I don’t see a problem. Once again, the corporations actions have brought the city to this point, so it’s only fair they at least have a partial involvement in improving the situation.
Holding a corporation accountable for the damage they’ve done to a community isn’t fascism, it’s exactly the kind of law government is supposed to enact to improve the lives of the people.
Fascism, according to the dictionary, is:
Interesting you chose that word, almost like a form of projection.
wintermute_oregon@lemm.ee 7 months ago
If the city didn’t allow crime on the level to force the business out, the business would not leave.
It is weird you blame the corporation for not wanting their employees to be harmed at work.
Yes, it is authoritarian to force a company to do the job the government should be doing. This would never hold up in court.
BobaFuttbucker@reddthat.com 7 months ago
Wait, is the reason profitability, or crime levels? You’ve cited both here as the reason. Which is it, and can you provide proof?
Now it’s about employee harm? I’m guessing this is an extension of your “crime” reason, but again, where’s the proof?
The government supplying food to the people is literally socialism, so I’m cool with that if you’re cool paying the taxes for it IG.