The Conservative Cave
Current Events => General Discussion => Topic started by: Ralph Wiggum on October 14, 2022, 10:04:23 AM
-
Democratic California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a measure into law last month that doesn’t allow businesses to sell products for women at a higher price than they are sold to men.
The law, AB 1287, states that a business or other entity “shall not charge a different price for any two goods that are substantially similar if those goods are priced differently based on the gender of the individuals for whom the goods are marketed and intended.”
In the bill, “substantially similar” means two products where there are “no substantial differences in the materials used in production,” “the intended use is similar,” “the functional design and features are similar,” and “the brand is the same or both brands are owned by the same individual or entity.”
However, the law notably allows price disparities for specific reasons. It points out that costs of items can be different if the price is based on how much time it takes to make the items, how difficult it is to make them, the “cost incurred in manufacturing,” “the labor used,” the materials used,” as well as “any other gender-neutral reason for charging a different price for those goods.”
A company could face a fine of $10,000 for an initial violation, and $1,000 for each following violation, not totaling to more than $100,000.
https://www.dailywire.com/news/california-bans-selling-womens-products-for-more-money-than-mens
Isn't it problematic to call something a "woman's" product?
-
Democratic California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a measure into law last month that doesn’t allow businesses to sell products for women at a higher price than they are sold to men.
The law, AB 1287, states that a business or other entity “shall not charge a different price for any two goods that are substantially similar if those goods are priced differently based on the gender of the individuals for whom the goods are marketed and intended.”
In the bill, “substantially similar” means two products where there are “no substantial differences in the materials used in production,” “the intended use is similar,” “the functional design and features are similar,” and “the brand is the same or both brands are owned by the same individual or entity.”
However, the law notably allows price disparities for specific reasons. It points out that costs of items can be different if the price is based on how much time it takes to make the items, how difficult it is to make them, the “cost incurred in manufacturing,” “the labor used,” the materials used,” as well as “any other gender-neutral reason for charging a different price for those goods.”
A company could face a fine of $10,000 for an initial violation, and $1,000 for each following violation, not totaling to more than $100,000.
https://www.dailywire.com/news/california-bans-selling-womens-products-for-more-money-than-mens
Isn't it problematic to call something a "woman's" product?
What is a woman?
-
I was shocked when Mrs E showed me her made-for-women jeans, which had a pocket you MIGHT be able to get a thimble in. Virtually zero space. So right off the bat, jeans won't be one of those items that Governor Hairstyle can look towards.
I suppose the ubiquitous bolts-through-the-nose and other "jewelry" reminiscent of cattle might be part of the schtick...
-
Lawsuit in 3...2...1
-
Just more meaningless bull shit from the woke crowd over there,
-
This is what California politicians spend their time on. Just one more reason to never go to the sunshine state.
-
Florida is the sunshine state.
California is the golden state. but should be re named the state of confusion!! :thatsright: :-)