1.) Why are you stereotyping? They were doing they're job. The same could be said of Parking enforcement but it's still their job. Plus the law says no one is above the law, meaning the is no age restriction. (Ignorance of the law doesn't mean that you're exempt.)
2.) So? She's still selling a product to the general public, which requires a permit. Law is law.
3.) Laws may not be static but that doesn't mean that the current law doesn't apply.
...
A little kid needs an license to run a lemonade stand? What's going on?
She needs a permit to serve people at an event, not in her front yard. (Though technically she needs one there too but no one's gonna check
1. There are cases where just because you broke a law, it doesn't result in this high of a fine or this amount of stupidity. Just because it's the health inspector's job to enforce this law doesn't mean they always have to, I'm not sure about the American Judicial System and their laws but I'm pretty sure you can easily exempt this case.
2. If you decide to sell a personal item and run around the streets and ask someone if they would like to buy it, you need a permit? That's not just, they just stupid.
3. True, can't argue with that.
...
A little kid needs an license to run a lemonade stand? What's going on?
1. There are cases where just because you broke a law, it doesn't result in this high of a fine or this amount of stupidity. Just because it's the health inspector's job to enforce this law doesn't mean they always have to, I'm not sure about the American Judicial System and their laws but I'm pretty sure you can easily exempt this case.
2. If you decide to sell a personal item and run around the streets and ask someone if they would like to buy it, you need a permit? That's not just, they just stupid.
3. True, can't argue with that.
1. So you're saying a police officer doesn't necessarily need to write up an accident report when someone gets into a crash?
2. Vendors at a Farmer's Market need a license. Some Farmer's Markets and this girl both set up shop on a street. Why should this girl be exempt?
1.) As Chiri said, it was a public event, they needed a permit, no permit means a fine. No one would care if she sold it on her lawn because less people would be exposed to it but a public event will have many people in attendance that could potential ingest the lemonade and become sick (I know I said something a bit hypocritical but I just don't know where :what:)
2.) o_O Would you consume that personal item? Does it have a chance of making you sick if you do? Besides you need a permit to set up a STAND which she did without a permit.
3.):lol:
1. So you're saying a police officer doesn't necessarily need to write up an accident report when someone gets into a crash?
2. Vendors at a Farmer's Market need a license. Some Farmer's Markets and this girl both set up shop on a street. Why should this girl be exempt?
So if someone had a neighbor BBQ sale, you would need a permit? Sorry if my response seems opinionated because it is, but that seems dumb.
1. You said: "No one would care if she sold it on her lawn because less people would be exposed to it but a public event will have many people in attendance that could potential ingest the lemonade and become sick", but the article states that quote "Technically, any lemonade stand -- even one on your front lawn -- must be licensed under state law, said Eric Pippert, the food-borne illness prevention program manager for the state's public health division.".
They do care because they put people's health up front.
And even if it's a public event I don't think it's just to fine a girl $120 for not having a permit regardless of location and time. It may be justice for those that don't want to become sick from drinking lemonade, but it's not just for the girl at all.
2. Yes I would, because I trust the citizens of my city.
3. That's why law is constantly changing, so people won't have to get hit with the stupidity of the law.
So if someone had a neighbor BBQ sale, you would need a permit? Sorry if my response seems opinionated because it is, but that seems dumb.
1. You said: "No one would care if she sold it on her lawn because less people would be exposed to it but a public event will have many people in attendance that could potential ingest the lemonade and become sick", but the article states that quote "Technically, any lemonade stand -- even one on your front lawn -- must be licensed under state law, said Eric Pippert, the food-borne illness prevention program manager for the state's public health division.".
They do care because they put people's health up front.
And even if it's a public event I don't think it's just to fine a girl $120 for not having a permit regardless of location and time. It may be justice for those that don't want to become sick from drinking lemonade, but it's not just for the girl at all.
2. Yes I would, because I trust the citizens of my city.
3. That's why law is constantly changing, so people won't have to get hit with the stupidity of the law.
1.) Where in the article does it actually say she was fined? The health inspectors came around asking for their permits, she didn't have one so was asked to leave or be fined (She was warned!) Does it actually matter if it was a little girl? Either way even just opening that stand and selling lemonade was an act of commerce which required a permit, there should be no discrimination even/especially if it was a little girl :s
2.) I don't, never know what they're putting in their candy >_>
3.) I doubt laws concerning permits will change much seeing as it brings in money :lol:
1. Opps... misread that hehehehehhee
And no, it does not matter if it was a little girl, it could be old people trying to get money instead of taking money out of their bank account, young adults raising money to pay off their tuition. You're right that there should be no discrimination, regardless of: age, race, sex or whatever, it still does not give just to the girl. Sure the law may be the law, but the law isn't always right and in this case, it for sure isn't for the girl.
2. Sorry, but would you answer my proposal and give your opinion on it, sorry I went off topic, but I said: "If you decide to sell a personal item and run around the streets and ask someone if they would like to buy it, you need a permit? ". Sorry for going off topic with that point.
3. Capitalism, it just works. Too bad it doesn't work for people's freedom.
1. Yes, you would need a permit if you were selling BBQ at a neighborhood sale. If you've seen a large neighborhood sale, it was most likely coordinated with the city beforehand. However, health inspectors are not likely to be snooping around your neighborhood, just like the highway patrol is not always there to see if you are going 100 MPH on the freeway.
2. You may trust your city, but you aren't the representative of every person in that city. As title says, the license is $120, not the fine. Unfortunately, the girl did not prepare this bit beforehand. Just because that Swiss Army Knife I carry is only used to cut open letters doesn't mean the airport police can't take it away.
3. The law is not that fluid. What would happen if laws changed every few days? The law cannot cover every scenario, but it works in general.
1.) Herp a Derp
2.) ...I'm not sure but I doubt you need a permit seeing as it's only one item and you're not using a stand.
3.) Capitalism, it brought us out of the great Depression :3 ( You know what? I don't even know anymore >_>)
2. Since my response was off-topic, mehh... But for the fun of it.
True, and nice to know about the Swiss Army Knife.
3. The law will never cover every scenario, but it can at least try. You also cannot just forget about the people the just fall into the holes of the law and get ripped off, they're people as well, we should protect them.
If the law were to change every few days that would be fine if a senseable reason were to back up the reason why the law was changing.
2. Now turn that personal item to food, and multiply that. Where would you draw the line to state that you need to license and to not require one? You need to protect those that are innocent and the bystanders as well as charge those that ignore the law. I don't believe the line is "straight" but a curved one that can protect everyone and charge those that are guilty.
Now tell me how you would design that curved law, in specific terms. Hence our problem.
With killing in the act of self defense, it my opinion it's perfectly fine if someone wants to kill you, you have the right to kill them in self defense.
In the case where you stated that the threatened doesn't always have the intent of killing or doing harm, I believe that the person that committed accidental murder should serve time, but for a lesser time because they did not have a guilty conscious.
And yes, it is nearly impossible to satisfy everyone, but in those cases where it is NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE, there is a possible way to protect everyone, I believe that's why the law is changing.
P.S. Woah, lemonade stand to opinion on murder situations is pretty wild.