Kids fined $500 for running lemonade stand outside U.S. Open

page: 1
3

log in

join

posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 02:56 PM
link   

The first rule of public relations: When you take on little kids in the battle for public sympathy, you will always, always lose. Our scene: Bethesda, Maryland. Just outside the gates of Congressional Country Club, the site of this year's U.S. Open, some kids were selling lemonade to patrons with the intention of donating the profits to children's charities. Wholesome! Precious! Could anything be more American than that? Turns out there is something more American than that: government bureaucracy. Montgomery County inspectors repeatedly warned the children (and their parents) that they were violating a ban on vendors within county limits, and when the tots didn't shut down their operation, the government shut it down for them, slapping their parents with a $500 fine. Here's the local news report:


sports.yahoo.com... lf/blog/devil_ball_golf/post/Kids-fined-500-for-running-lemonade-stand-outsi?urn=golf-wp2767

here the video link




posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 03:03 PM
link   
Disgusting, truly disgusting.

that is all there is to say to such a stupid thing.



posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 03:18 PM
link   
reply to post by David291
 


I totally agree! I Myself was just recently fined for having a yard sale without a permit in ca!....when is it going to be enough! let me tell you it didn't take it sitting down that is for sure! im going to court over it! I refuse to pay it!



posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 03:49 PM
link   
the parents setup this business there were coolers and coolers of lemon aid like the guy said this wasnt little kids sellin a cup of lemon aid on the corner of there street for a quarter a cup and making 5-10 dollars they were selling it for 2 dollars a cup and probly making thousands and got what they deserved there were warned and warned and it was the parents fined not the kids why dont the parents take a little responsibility and follow the law like everyone else



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 12:16 AM
link   
reply to post by pez1975
 


This kind of reply annoys the s**t out me because the issue here and in hundreds of other cases where this kind of reply is found, is not about what the law states. The issue is about the desirability and appropriateness of such laws. To determine this is, it first necessary to ask “is the law, council by-law etc in the public interest? (As distinct from what the public may be interested in at the time)

Laws are not in the public interest if they serve a narrow, self serving interest, to the exclusion of the majority, or, a law that is contrary to an expression or a manifestation of the nation’s values, customs and social traditions.

This law that makes venders illegal outside a club for the rich and powerful but it certainly does not meet the public interest test. Why; because such trading is against the professed American value of free enterprise and initiative. Moreover; do similar laws apply in other places where people gather in similar circumstances for a similar reasons but is club for all the everyday nobodies? That is the test and the evidence.

We should all also, be mindful that people who make these that’s-the-law-so-you-should-obey-it, type comments and responses, will themselves protest when they are aggrieved by a particular law. People who make these kinds of comments are no less inclined to voice, their displeasure and anger about such a law that aggrieves them, when it suits them. These people are very two faced in the way they approach other peoples issues and the way they expect others to react on their behalf when they themselves are aggrieved by a law.

These kinds of people are the sorts of people who take the view that for so long as a given law does not negatively impact on them they don’t care about the impact on others and do not care wether or not the law is fair or appropriate.
They are the kind of people who take the view that repressive and unfair laws are OK because they only affect the bad guys and not them because they don’t see themselves as the bad guy. But as always with such laws, they never say they are restricted to the bad guys only do they?



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 12:26 AM
link   
Hey! As a public consumer of lemonade, I want to make sure my ice cold drink contains only the finest variety. It must be fresh squeezed, organic and PASTURIZED! That's right! G-d knows what's in those drinks! My bad, really. I should trust my neighbors for being clean. But please, just give these people some warning to close shop before a fine of $500!!! It's not fair.



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 11:15 AM
link   
reply to post by bussoboy
 


The law isn't to restrict people.
It is to protect them.

Simply put, it exists, because "people" demanded a higher standard from food vendors. Food poisoning, etc. What would it hurt for the kids to fill out a free online form, asked a few simple questions...let them print off a disclaimer...teach them a bit about business. . . but....

Say you (joe public) buy a 2$ glass of lemonade and get the runs, or worse and it was spiked, then what?

You (Joe Public) cry that they should have had a vendors permit or some form, try to sue everyone involved.

These laws are the fault of the citizen. Simply following them shouldn't be a huge chore.

edit on 22-6-2011 by Demoncreeper because: yeah





new topics
top topics
 
3

log in

join