OpEd: An Attack on Heritage, Business, and Choice: Why Chicago’s Fur Ban Must Be Opposed (Chicago, IL) — The Greater Chicagoland Black Chamber of Commerce strongly opposes the proposed ban on the sale of new fur products in Chicago. This legislation, disguised as a move to curb animal cruelty, goes far beyond just a matter of fashion—it is a direct assault on our cultural heritage, Black-owned businesses, and the fundamental right to make personal choices.
First and foremost, we must address the cultural significance of fur, especially within the Black community. Fur is more than just a luxury item for many—it is a symbol of resilience, tradition, and history. For decades, fur has been passed down through generations, representing the enduring spirit of our people. To ban fur under the guise of ethical concern is to erase a critical part of our heritage. We cannot allow well-meaning, but misguided, policies to undermine our traditions and the cultural significance that items like fur hold for us.
Beyond cultural heritage, this ban poses a significant threat to Black-owned businesses like Andriana Furs in Beverly, which has served the community for nearly 40 years. Owner Cherry Tebyanian, who survived the devastation of looting after the 2020 murder of George Floyd, now faces the looming threat of closure due to the fur ban. Her business, along with others like Island Furs, is part of the fabric of our local economy, providing jobs, supporting families, and enriching our neighborhoods. The fur ban would force these businesses to shut their doors, leading to devastating and irreparable economic hardship for their owners, employees, and the community at large.
These businesses are not just selling a product—they are part of the cultural and economic heartbeat of our city. If this ban passes, it will harm not only the fur industry but also Chicago’s broader economic ecosystem, particularly for Black entrepreneurs who have worked tirelessly to create these local institutions.
The fur ban, introduced by Ald. Ray Lopez, also presents a dangerous precedent for further erosion of personal freedoms. Lopez argues that the ban is necessary to protect animals, citing a shift away from live fur products. However, this raises troubling questions about where this moral judgment will end. If the city can tell businesses what they can and cannot sell based on the personal ethics of politicians or activists, what comes next? Should we ban leather products or close steakhouses because of concerns about animal rights? We must draw the line now and protect the right of Chicagoans to make their own choices without unnecessary interference from government overreach.
Moreover, this proposal is out of touch with the real issues facing our city. Chicago continues to struggle with systemic problems like poverty, inadequate education, and disparities in healthcare. These are the challenges that demand our immediate attention and action—not symbolic bans that distract us from the work that truly needs to be done. We should be focused on policies that address these urgent issues, not on banning a product that has been a part of our city’s economy and culture for decades.
The proposed fur ban is a misguided policy that threatens our cultural heritage, economic vitality, and personal freedoms. We urge the Chicago City Council to reject this ordinance and instead focus on addressing the real challenges that affect our communities. Let us support policies that empower our businesses, preserve our traditions, and protect the right of every Chicagoan to make their own choices. The fight to preserve these businesses and the values of freedom and choice that we hold dear is one worth winning.
OpEd: An Attack on Heritage, Business, and Choice: Why Chicago’s Fur Ban Must Be Opposed
