queencitybuckeye;1574737 wrote:Yet she could give them away to the masses. What's more important, the rules or the purpose for the rules?

You raise an interesting point - would non-profit soup kitchens be exempt from standards and regulation? A quick search brings up the Michigan Cottage Food Law which allows "non-hazardous" food items not requiring temperature or time control to be prepared at home and sold for retail. "Cakes" is a qualifying item (assuming the frosting isn't something requiring refridgeration). Sales are limited to $20k, however (I guess she makes nowhere near that).

Still don't know about soup kitchens. I assume the exception is mostly carved-out for bake sales/pot-lucks and for farmers selling fresh produce. Otherwise, besides being a waste of time inspections/compliance isn't really practical in those cases.

Con_Alma;1574742 wrote:For me, at least, what's more important is following the rules...whether I agree with them or not. Everybody doesn't agree with all rules. We can't pick and choose the ones we want to follow.

Actually, we can do that and more importantly, public officials can use sensible judgement in how or whether the rules are enforced (cops do that tens of times every day) without the foundation of society crumbling.

WebFire;1574743 wrote:Some things just can't work that way. Many things can, food regulation is not one. Where would you draw the line? Why would I not run my food business through the my kids to avoid regulations and fees. Surely you people aren't this simple-minded?

We aren't talking about making cupcakes once or twice. She has been running a for-profit BUSINESS for 2 years.

What difference does it make if it's a "business" for her or a hobby and she was giving the food away? What is the purpose of licenses and inspections and how does money changing hands change the purpose?

WebFire;1574743 wrote:Some things just can't work that way. Many things can, food regulation is not one. Where would you draw the line? Why would I not run my food business through the my kids to avoid regulations and fees. Surely you people aren't this simple-minded?

Because it would not work for any number of reasons, starting with the fact that with few exceptions, minors cannot enter into contracts.

You're taking a slippery slope argument and turning it into a vertical cliff on this one.

Con_Alma;1574742 wrote:For me, at least, what's more important is following the rules...whether I agree with them or not. Everybody doesn't agree with all rules. We can't pick and choose the ones we want to follow.

Sure we can. ask any Catholic.

queencitybuckeye;1574746 wrote:... how does money changing hands change the purpose?

I would guess it's a matter of volume (of which sales is a strong indicator), which would be in direct proportion to the potential public health risk. Let's face it, a consumer has a very different standard/expectation, justifiably so, from buying a cupcake from Costco vs. a little girl at a school bake sale.

gut;1574749 wrote:Let's face it, a consumer has a very different standard/expectation, justifiably so, from buying a cupcake from Costco vs. a little girl at a school bake sale.

Agree. Isn't that the basic distinction that's lost in the matter at hand? This young lady is certainly a hell of a lot closer to the bake sale than Costco or even Auntie Girt's corner bakery.

queencitybuckeye;1574726 wrote:God, you're an idiot. Are you REALLY stupid enough to believe that applying a common sense (to anyone who isn't a moron) solution to a non-problem will cause the decline of civilization?

As an aside, what in your makeup causes this need to categorize people in these discussions with labels (i.e. "conservatives like yourself")? My thoughts are mine. It may be easier for you to pretend that everyone who disagrees with you does so in lockstep with taking points handed down from some radio dipshit or some television network, but if you have any actual interest in truth, you might want to consider talking to people as thinking human beings.

^^This coming from you who called me an idiot in this post and can never seem to post without using pejoratives. You are like a 60+ year old man who discusses politics on a board with people half your age. Can you not do so without calling people names all the time? People can reasonably disagree without calling people idiots, no?

Between you and I, you are the only one consistently replies to me and others with disrespect and personal insults. I only generalized because you have generally opposed that sort of thing in the past from what I gather. A particular thread wherein we were discussing the inspector general investigation of the IRS comes to mind. Do you not generally hold views on most political topics that cohere with more economically conservative points of view? I meant no disrespect by that remark. I too have my own thoughts but would not have my jimmy's rustled if someone were to suggest my views were largely within the subset of contemporary liberalism. I was simply trying to appeal to your convictions against the potential for administrative abuse that you have appeared sympathetic to in the past.

queencitybuckeye;1574751 wrote:Agree. Isn't that the basic distinction that's lost in the matter at hand? This young lady is certainly a hell of a lot closer to the bake sale than Costco or even Auntie Girt's corner bakery.

Agreed, but apparently the law here is not like what I referenced in Michigan. Just a case of another govt drone not exercising a little common sense, but appears to have been acting within the law.

The Michigan statute(?) I think even references the logic of allowing people to test the market before launching a full-scale business that brings significant costs, including those of health/safety compliance.

Anyway, based on this ruling, expect a crackdown on local lemonade stands next summer

queencitybuckeye;1574745 wrote:Actually, we can do that and more importantly, public officials can use sensible judgement in how or whether the rules are enforced (cops do that tens of times every day) without the foundation of society crumbling.

We may be able to pick and choose which rules we want but we are risking authorities picking and choosing which they feel are important enough to enforce. If you pick and choose...better be able to pay the penalty.


Injecting opinion into the equation will most always leave someone upset with regards to what is right and what is wrong. My choice is to do my best to follow the rules. Others may choose as they wish. I wish them luck.

Con_Alma;1574759 wrote: Injecting opinion into the equation will most always leave someone upset with regards to what is right and what is wrong.

Not any more than blindly following the letter of the law in all situations. This very topic makes that fairly clear. To do so (for me at least) implies my agreement that those who make the rules are smarter and/or better informed on the topic than I. I believe there is more evidence that points to this not being true than proof that it is.

My choice is to do my best to follow the rules. Others may choose as they wish. I wish them luck.

My choice is to follow the purpose of the rules as opposed to the letter. The majority of the time, that may well be the same. In those circumstances where it isn't, I'd prefer to err on the side of doing what makes my little corner of the world better.

queencitybuckeye;1574765 wrote:... To do so (for me at least) implies my agreement that those who make the rules are smarter and/or better informed on the topic than I. I believe there is more evidence that points to this not being true than proof that it is.

...

....not necessarily smarter or better in my mind but they certainly have the ability to enact penalties that I am choosing to not realize.

Con_Alma;1574768 wrote:....not necessarily smarter or better in my mind but they certainly have the ability to enact penalties that I am choosing to not realize.

Agree with this, but what I absolutely don't want is for all thought to stop at the legislature or the governor's desk. I don't want non-thinking drones to blindly enforce policy, I want them to use their intellect and humanity along with the written rules and apply them on what to be is a more effective basis.

queencitybuckeye;1574770 wrote:Agree with this, but what I absolutely don't want is for all thought to stop at the legislature or the governor's desk. I don't want non-thinking drones to blindly enforce policy, I want them to use their intellect and humanity along with the written rules and apply them on what to be is a more effective basis.

Who does?

Con_Alma;1574771 wrote:Who does?

People who see the word "business" attached to a girl making a few sweets, and acting like not treating her like the Wal-Mart bakery will drive the final nail in the coffin of American greatness?

queencitybuckeye;1574772 wrote:People who see the word "business" attached to a girl making a few sweets, and acting like not treating her like the Wal-Mart bakery will drive the final nail in the coffin of American greatness?

It appears to me those people have an opinion that the young lady was treated reasonably. For more than a year and a half she was not treated like WalMart at all. After an extended period of time there's an implication that she's functioning as a business. Those particular local authorities determined that two years was that number.

It's doesn't seem like the day they heard a girl was selling cupcakes they went and tracked her down to shut her down.

What's deemed as reasonable and levelheadedness is subjective. Their community is functioning differently than your community may or even mine.

I don't look at these these folks as "non-thinking drones blindly enforcing policy".

I find it hilarious that some of those who would normally complain about special treatment are wanting this girl to get special treatment

gut;1574744 wrote:You raise an interesting point - would non-profit soup kitchens be exempt from standards and regulation? A quick search brings up the Michigan Cottage Food Law which allows "non-hazardous" food items not requiring temperature or time control to be prepared at home and sold for retail. "Cakes" is a qualifying item (assuming the frosting isn't something requiring refridgeration). Sales are limited to $20k, however (I guess she makes nowhere near that).

Still don't know about soup kitchens. I assume the exception is mostly carved-out for bake sales/pot-lucks and for farmers selling fresh produce. Otherwise, besides being a waste of time inspections/compliance isn't really practical in those cases.

I know when our fire department does their annual chicken BBQ, which is a fund raiser as a non-pro, we have to follow the regulations. We've even had an inspector stop by. I think there are some exceptions to the regulations based on what we are doing (because it wouldn't be practical), but we are not exempt from following the rules.

You'll love this one, since I've seen mention of difference between selling and giving away. We would always seek donations for cookies to give with the BBQ dinners. Usually it was the fireman's wives that made them. The one year we had the inspector stop, he told us that wasn't allowed because we could not list the ingredients in each package (and some other BS). But, he said the way around it was to offer "free cookies with each meal" instead of offering it as part of the meal.

Hell, even the non-prof church-affiliated pre-school in our town has to follow certain rules about their snacks. The pretty much have to buy prepackaged food so that is has ingredients and nutritional info on it.

queencitybuckeye;1574746 wrote:What difference does it make if it's a "business" for her or a hobby and she was giving the food away? What is the purpose of licenses and inspections and how does money changing hands change the purpose?

Scale, I would imagine.

queencitybuckeye;1574747 wrote:Because it would not work for any number of reasons, starting with the fact that with few exceptions, minors cannot enter into contracts.

You're taking a slippery slope argument and turning it into a vertical cliff on this one.

So is this girl running an illegal business? You really don't think people would find a loophole for this? By allowing this girl to continue, you are creating such a loophole.

queencitybuckeye;1574751 wrote:Agree. Isn't that the basic distinction that's lost in the matter at hand? This young lady is certainly a hell of a lot closer to the bake sale than Costco or even Auntie Girt's corner bakery.

She most certainly is. But where is the line? Is it ok to skirt the regulations because you're just a small operation? I know local ladies that make custom cupcakes, and they DO have to follow all the rules. They are certainly closer to Costco than Wal-mart. Why are you not pissed about that?

LJ;1574786 wrote:I find it hilarious that some of those who would normally complain about special treatment are wanting this girl to get special treatment

I look at it more as an indication the local food/health department is underworked = overstaffed.

WebFire;1574794 wrote:So is this girl running an illegal business? You really don't think people would find a loophole for this? By allowing this girl to continue, you are creating such a loophole.

"Slippery slope" arguments need to become a corollary to Godwin's law.

WebFire;1574794 wrote:So is this girl running an illegal business? You really don't think people would find a loophole for this? By allowing this girl to continue, you are creating such a loophole.

You would hope that those in positions of power use common sense and look at each case individually. If I am driving 36mph where the speed limit is 35mph, I am breaking the rule, but the cop will use common sense and not issue me a ticket.

The whole permit thing isn't even the most absurd issue. That's found in the last sentence of the story.