Letters to the Editor: Any other public health rules In-N-Out might decline to follow?

The sign for the flagship In-N-Out restaurant just off the 10 Freeway in Baldwin Park.
(Los Angeles Times)

To the editor: Another In-N-Out dining room has been closed by San Francisco Bay Area health officials. During a once-in-a-century pandemic that has left more than 700,000 Americans dead, the company’s chief lawyer and his billionaire heiress boss have thumbed their noses at health directives, concluding that they know what is best, and that they can choose to which laws they adhere.

This display of hubris adds to the burden of public health officials and purports to substitute In-N-Out’s knowledge of the hamburger business for what is best during a public health crisis.

Attorney Arnie Wensinger, In-N-Out’s chief legal and business officer, should revisit his ethical obligations, which require him to follow the law, call upon his clients do so, and when they do not, to withdraw further representation, unless he or she has a good-faith belief that following the law is unconstitutional. If he and In-N-Out believe the law is wrong, let them file the appropriate court action.

None of us likes restrictions, masks or the disruption to our lives, but we do our small part to help slow the pandemic and save lives. Why doesn’t In-N-Out?


Jon Gilbert, Los Angeles


To the editor: If we are going have the health experts at In-N-Out check on their hamburger purchasers’ COVID-19 vaccination status, why can’t we have them check on clients’ immigration status at well?

Why stop at burger stands? Let’s set up vaccine checkers in front of supermarkets, drug stores and gas stations. Customers could be fingerprinted and photographed within a few minutes. If your papers are not in order, no service.

Let’s make it really easy and park a prison bus at the back of the store.

Nathan Post, Santa Barbara


To the editor: Thank you, In-N-Out, for helping to make my family’s diet just a little more healthful.

Yours was the only fast-food hamburger chain my family ate at, but given your refusal to follow health and safety regulations, of course we can’t eat there anymore. You’ve decided you can pick and choose (or pick-n-choose) which regulations to follow; perhaps next you’ll decide food expiration dates are optional.

Your stand not to “discriminate” against any patron tells me that “no shirt, no shoes, no service” is out the window too. Naked patrons? Clearly intoxicated patrons? In-N-Out won’t discriminate!

Well thank you, In-N-Out. I’ll cook something at home.

John Ferrari, Claremont