If fur is repugnant (in West Hollywood, CA), why not leather?

That's the question the NY Times asks (Ban Fur? Then Why Not Leather?) following the decision by the city of West Hollywood California to ban the sale of fur garments.

(In addition, "The city has established no-kill animal shelters, outlawed the declawing of cats, and banned the sale of dogs and cats in pet stores...")

In my discussions of repugnance I've often been struck by how hard it is to model just what will strike some people as repugnant and what not. This isn't surprising in view of the fact that what is repugnant at one place or at one time may not be regarded that way at another place or time.