Mississippi In Big Trouble: Call in the Fat-Police
Actually the fat police in Mississippi may become the Fat-Police, or owners of restaurants may become Fat-Police.
The Lard Patrol.
Fat-busters.
“Any food establishment to which this section applies shall not be allowed to serve food to any person who is obese…” So starts a bill by two Republicans and a Democrat in Mississippi’s House of Representatives…
“Excuse me ma’am,” the always polite southern gentlemen restaurateur would say, “are you havin’ a baby, are you jess fat?” Like Emeril says: BAM – except it would be the restaurateur’s head hitting the sneeze guard on the buffet.
Next day:
“Hey Bubba, looks like you dropped a few pounds, help yourself to the biscuits and gravy.” BAM – The Chubby-Checkers slam the cuffs on Big Mike, of Big Mike’s Potatoes and More Drive-In.
Next week:
“Judge, I put Dulcolax in all the Iced Tea.”
Judge “Tiny” Doolittle, 5’0″, 276 pounds: “Case dismissed. That’s lunch, take 90 minutes.”
Next on Montel: “Mississippi Law Establishes Density of Black.”
Attn: Miss Teen South Carolina:
@Gretchen: and that’s why we all like you!
Yes, but Ben is not a plaintiff whore; he is a construction defect defense attorney. His job is settling cases, and although he’s tried a motherlode of suits, we’re all about peace. (I also work for an insurance defense firm.)
@Gretchen: Since when to lawmakers care about causing litigation? I’m sure this will go nowhere, but still…
No. That is Ben sober. Ben drunk is quite another proposition and usually involves obscure points of law and/or foreign movies.
Also, being a lawyer, he says it’s impossible to phrase such a law and define its terms in a way that won’t open the floodgates of litigation seeking to clarify its terms and/or have it found unconstitutional. (Now you know why so many members of the legal profession are into substance abuse.)
@Gretchen: OMG, is he into the wine already? LOL, that’s perfect. A Special “Lard Ass” entrance, with Lard Ass Parking – as far away as possible. You guys are a couple of horn dogs.
I mentioned this to Ben, and he suggests that such restaurants have greased, narrow doorways in order to determine worthiness. If you can slide in, you’re in. If not, not. (Perhaps he’s thinking of his sex life?”)
@Gretchen: Chill. It’s not a Federal law – yet. But there are enough other federal laws similar that if this gets traction somebody will introduce a bill. Which will be killed by the fast food lobby so fast it will make your head spin.
@Hilga: Whew! Got your motor going too. Thanks for writing.
Defining “normal” weight for health issues is impossible, of course.
Compensation – I don’t want gummit interfering with business unless it’s safety related.
Oil – Supply and demand should run it’s course. If we keep buying gas hogs, we have nobody to blame but ourselves.
This is soo funny and ridiculous. I guess they will add a note that you cannot sue for health discrimination either.
I know ‘normal’ (look a little ‘skinny’) sized people who have high cholesterol and high blood pressure— and I know people are ‘overweight’ and have normal blood pressure and normal cholesterol.
Here’s the fix: Let’s make everyone wear their printed health stats so we can refuse service to the all “unhealthy” individuals.
Speaking of ridiculous. What we really need right now is a law that requires individuals who get HUGE compensation packages (and/or humungous bonuses) to spend, at minimum, a quarter of their compensation on local services to their primary U.S. residence NOT capital goods, but local services say – at a smaller business (not to include ‘affiliates’ or partners of a huge business). I’m guessing this would be a true trickle down effect.
While I’m on my roll:
Something that has puzzled me for several years, is the fact that oil companies are reporting record profits, while there is economic decline towards recession. If we can give a 10 cent per gallon gasoline price break for 2 days, why not one entire month? I don’t gamble on the stock market but why don’t we negotiate long term pricing for oil in times of economic decline.
No low income household can “budget” on these price fluctuations we are encountering.
rhetorical question: Where does the 2.3% “cost of living” increase fit into the fluctuation part? or maybe I should ask “Cost of Living” WHERE? LOL
Now, that is just not right. Gets my Libertarian up.