WebFire;1574788 wrote: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.

Al Bundy;1574805 wrote: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.

WebFire;1574817 wrote:So that's my question. How fast do we let them drive before giving a ticket?

queencitybuckeye;1574802 wrote:"Slippery slope" arguments need to become a corollary to Godwin's law.

LJ;1574818 wrote:I believe the official explanation for not getting a ticket for going 36 in a 35 is due to margin of error on speedometers. Something like 10%

WebFire;1574817 wrote:So that's my question. How fast do we let them drive before giving a ticket?

queencitybuckeye;1574822 wrote:We let the professional on the scene make that call based on his experience, training, and judgement based on the purpose of the law, which is a safe flow of traffic.

WebFire;1574820 wrote:It's not slippery slope. It's about upholding laws and regulations. After all, she got 2 years without any government intervention. I am just asking where is the line? There has to be one somewhere.

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

WebFire;1574824 wrote:Sounds like that happened in the cupcake case. So what's the gripe again?

queencitybuckeye;1574829 wrote:That either no judgement was used, or that it was used badly. Do you believe that requiring a child to set up a separate kitchen from their family kitchen to allow her to sell baked goods to friends and family (only) serves a significant public good?

HitsRus;1574827 wrote:Usually these kind of regulations apply to places of public accomodation. Nothing in this article suggests this was anything more than a kid's "lemonade stand." The article states that she 'sells to mostly family and friends'. The questiion here is about overzealous application of the rules by government and common sense enforcement. should high school 'bake sale' fundraisers be illegal?

C'mon! there's enough pencil necks that real businesses have to deal with....give the kid a break.

HitsRus;1574827 wrote:Usually these kind of regulations apply to places of public accomodation. Nothing in this article suggests this was anything more than a kid's "lemonade stand." The article states that she 'sells to mostly family and friends'. The questiion here is about overzealous application of the rules by government and common sense enforcement. should high school 'bake sale' fundraisers be illegal?

C'mon! there's enough pencil necks that real businesses have to deal with....give the kid a break.

WebFire;1574834 wrote:If it were the lemonade stand scenario, then I agree with most everyone here. But I didn't take it that way. Seemed they were presenting it as on ongoing business for 2 years now. That is why I feel the way I do.