Unsanctioned Lemonade Stall!

Article here...

Except this entrepreneur was a 7-year-old named Julie Murphy. Her business was a lemonade stand at the Last Thursday monthly art fair. The government regulation she violated? Failing to get a $120 temporary restaurant license.

Turns out that kids' lemonade stands - those constants of summertime - are supposed to get a permit in Oregon, particularly at big events that happen to be patrolled regularly by county health inspectors.

After 20 minutes, a "lady with a clipboard" came over and asked for their license. When Fife explained they didn't have one, the woman told them they would need to leave or possibly face a $500 fine.

I'm moving to a state that isn't fascist about little girls selling lemonade for fifty cents a cup. A little girl has to pay $120 just to get a temporary restaurant license for a lemonade stand. I hate when people interpret the law literally. The authorities justify themselves by "Our role is to protect the public." From what? A little girl who wants to sell lemonade? Then again, she might be a TERRORIST!

Well, while this sort of thing isn't the norm, if Oregon has a ruling, Oregon needs to follow it. Basically, this isn't a "Child selling lemonade in front yard cited" story, it's a "Child selling lemonade at public event was cited". They weren't charged, it was more of a "Strong suggestion" to leave. I've worked food during public events, the event needs to make enough money back that it makes a profit for whatever cause it is, or at least pay for itself. So, this sort of regulation keeps third-parties from selling food and drinks at a cheaper cost, preventing the event from funding itself. I agree it wasn't the nicest thing to do, a "Excuse me, but we'd really appreciate if you didn't sell lemonade during this event." would have been better, it got the point across. Of course, they can't just say they don't want kids selling lemonade, so they have a regulation to whip out for when it's applicable. You'll notice "are supposed to... at big events", it's just the sort of ruling that's used as backing when needed, but not normally enforced. And nobody sells lemonade for .50 anymore, it was probably a dollar, which would undercut the normal price of drinks at an event by .50. So, every two cups sold, they event loses a dollar. Dollars add up, and if they didn't use this sort of logic on everyone, soon there'd be all sorts of people (probably not kids) trying to sell merchandise, so they have to crack down across the board. That's my take on it anyways, we don't know the whole story, of course.

So liek, to provide a more reasonable response then Aj

THIS IS WHAT HAPPENED IN A NUTSHELL

Yeah, you have a point. The whole thing was probably completely blown out of the water on a slow news day.

AjwX wrote:Well, while this sort of thing isn't the norm, if Oregon has a ruling, Oregon needs to follow it. Basically, this isn't a "Child selling lemonade in front yard cited" story, it's a "Child selling lemonade at public event was cited". They weren't charged, it was more of a "Strong suggestion" to leave. I've worked food during public events, the event needs to make enough money back that it makes a profit for whatever cause it is, or at least pay for itself. So, this sort of regulation keeps third-parties from selling food and drinks at a cheaper cost, preventing the event from funding itself. I agree it wasn't the nicest thing to do, a "Excuse me, but we'd really appreciate if you didn't sell lemonade during this event." would have been better, it got the point across. Of course, they can't just say they don't want kids selling lemonade, so they have a regulation to whip out for when it's applicable. You'll notice "are supposed to... at big events", it's just the sort of ruling that's used as backing when needed, but not normally enforced. And nobody sells lemonade for .50 anymore, it was probably a dollar, which would undercut the normal price of drinks at an event by .50. So, every two cups sold, they event loses a dollar. Dollars add up, and if they didn't use this sort of logic on everyone, soon there'd be all sorts of people (probably not kids) trying to sell merchandise, so they have to crack down across the board. That's my take on it anyways, we don't know the whole story, of course.

I can see your point, but that seems more like a government scandal than actually enforcing the law. It's taking money away from people, sure, but that's unfair considering we live in a free market economy. You're allowed to compete with others. However, the whole "$120 license" clause was just a way to kick her out, really. They legally have jurisdiction, but I don't think this should be interpreted so literally. It's basically the kind of excuse cops use to arrest someone and look like they're doing their job. Like with personal possession of marijuana. Nothing is being enforced, really. It's just downright bullying just on the very edge of the law that the state of Oregon is legally empowered to enforce. I'm sure if any girl tried to sell cups of lemonade for fifty cents a pop, anyone would rush to try and shut that down. After all, that would take money away from their three-dollar lemonades. =\

Just the kind of country the United States is becoming. It's no longer a matter of who is the best at economic competition; it's about who can bend the law impromptu and still legally get away with it. Not that it hasn't failed. Perhaps someone here remembers the Enron scandal? Or AIG, which is surprisingly still in service?

Kinsenka wrote:
Just the kind of country the United States is becoming. It's no longer a matter of who is the best at economic competition; it's about who can bend the law impromptu and still legally get away with it. Not that it hasn't failed. Perhaps someone here remembers the Enron scandal? Or AIG, which is surprisingly still in service?

I think that's a little extreme. While any system has a chance of someone abusing it, this sorta thing happens all the time. Sad fact is, if they don't kick the little girl out, they can't kick someone else out who might actually be disruptive. Using a law is just a way whoever asked them to leave (probably at the behest of the event under the "no exceptions" mentality) has to have a way to cover their own ass. This isn't the 70's, thanks to PC and the like we're required to have superflous(spelled that wrong x.x). It's like how if a cop pulls a suspicious driver over, they'll always have a "well, you forgot to signal back there". Alot of the times (not all, of course, the cop might just be a dick) there's some grounds for the suspicion, but it's not enough to warrant a pull over by itself. I've been pulled over at 11 o'clock in a nice neighborhood before, because the cop was worried I might "be lost" and while I wasn't, I thought it was a smart move on the part of the police officer, as I could have been up to trouble, driving at 5mph down a dark street.

AjwX wrote:I think that's a little extreme. While any system has a chance of someone abusing it, this sorta thing happens all the time. Sad fact is, if they don't kick the little girl out, they can't kick someone else out who might actually be disruptive. Using a law is just a way whoever asked them to leave (probably at the behest of the event under the "no exceptions" mentality) has to have a way to cover their own ass. This isn't the 70's, thanks to PC and the like we're required to have superflous(spelled that wrong x.x). It's like how if a cop pulls a suspicious driver over, they'll always have a "well, you forgot to signal back there". Alot of the times (not all, of course, the cop might just be a dick) there's some grounds for the suspicion, but it's not enough to warrant a pull over by itself. I've been pulled over at 11 o'clock in a nice neighborhood before, because the cop was worried I might "be lost" and while I wasn't, I thought it was a smart move on the part of the police officer, as I could have been up to trouble, driving at 5mph down a dark street.

You shouldn't take everything I say seriously. I am a conspiracy theorist, but I don't believe 9/11 was a government crime. I do know, however, that Obama is a traitor to the United States. And I think the Roswell conspiracy was real.

Political correctness can shove itself, though. That girl wasn't of legal age, so could she really be prosecuted? It would probably be her parents who would be sued instead of the girl. God, I sound like a tool. Of course the girl wouldn't be the one prosecuted. The parents would be because they were condoning this delinquency of a minor. I just can't believe the extent some people go to. It's just so sick.

Kinsenka wrote:
Political correctness can shove itself, though. That girl wasn't of legal age, so could she really be prosecuted? It would probably be her parents who would be sued instead of the girl. God, I sound like a tool. Of course the girl wouldn't be the one prosecuted. The parents would be because they were condoning this delinquency of a minor. I just can't believe the extent some people go to. It's just so sick.

I'm just being the devil's advocate, really it's such a situational thing who knows what's going on. At least it's not as bad as some other things that happen. Either way, little kid's lemonade never tastes good, nothing was lost.

AjwX wrote:I'm just being the devil's advocate, really it's such a situational thing who knows what's going on. At least it's not as bad as some other things that happen. Either way, little kid's lemonade never tastes good, nothing was lost.

It would be funny if that woman with the clipboard had some lemonade. I wonder what it tasted like anyway... Her mommy was there, after all.

We seem to have such colorful discussions.

Kinsenka wrote:
It would be funny if that woman with the clipboard had some lemonade.

Best if she either A. bought lemonade from the girl then kicked her out or B. Kicked her out, asked for lemonade right after.

AjwX wrote:

Kinsenka wrote:
It would be funny if that woman with the clipboard had some lemonade.

Best if she either A. bought lemonade from the girl then kicked her out or B. Kicked her out, asked for lemonade right after.

I wouldn't sell her my lemonade if she chose B. I would have told her to drink horse urine.

Kinsenka wrote:

I wouldn't sell her my lemonade if she chose B. I would have told her to drink horse urine.

I would've given it to her, but I have a strange sense of humor. By that point, I'd just go "Sure why not" and make another buck

AjwX wrote:

Kinsenka wrote:

I wouldn't sell her my lemonade if she chose B. I would have told her to drink horse urine.

I would've given it to her, but I have a strange sense of humor. By that point, I'd just go "Sure why not" and make another buck

Aren't you just a total entrepreneur? >_>

That girl must be crushed, though. Still, she should something more useful than sell lemonade. Like drug cartels.






Just kidding.