Phoenix Woman Ordered to Not Give Out Water in 112 Degree Heat Because She Lacked a Permit: Absurd or Appropriate?

How much more specific can I be?

This wasn't about religious freedom.

She got in trouble because her group was giving out water.

You need a permit to vend at events. Her group neglected to acquire one.

People got upset by this because "big government shouldn't be bossing around the little people"

The whole story: her group was giving out water during a special permit requiring event. EVERY other VENDOR followed the law and had to get a vending license. Her group chose not to do this. We have laws saying you need to have a permit. Her group broke the law. Why would you defend someone who flagrantly disrespects sensible laws on the book?

PS. The reason we have these laws is for safety. 1.Popular areas would be flooded with vendors if they could come and go as they please. Limiting the amount of vendors allows for the patrons to actually be able to enjoy the show and for the vendors to have adequate space in which to work.

2. Safety and standards. The reason you feel comfortable about eating at restaraunts and other places is because any food served or product sold has to meet minimum standards. It may not be a perfect system (nothing is perfect) but I would prefer it way over any other because 99.99999% times I eat out, I don't get sick. Try getting that in other countries.

Bonus: This wasn't about religious freedom at all. However, go into a McDonald's and start preaching. See how long that lasts. Because this was a private event, it is afforded the same protections. Just like how Mick Jagger can't just show up to a random church on Sunday and put on a concert, a church group cannot come to an event, annoy the people and then be allowed to sue for their 1st Amendment right. No one is stopping her from exercising her religion, but her group should not be doing it at an event the city is holding without getting their permit first. They were just crashing and sorta hoped they could get attention. Now they want a lawsuit? Since when do we allow criminals who broke into a home to sue the homeowner for kicking them out.? They had no right to be there as a group giving out water because that required a permit. They had no right to be evangelizing because they had no permit. Now if they wanted to attend it as private citizens that is another story.

Inappropriate use of that quote (rant at bottom).

The state was the property owner. That is why they are able to require a permit.

This is just the government and capitalism. In order to serve the people, the government has to create an environment in which it is conducive for people to thrive. Businesses are run by people. They lobbied for an ability to create temporary monopolies to allow them "more equal" access to customers. A permit is just a way for the early birds or smaller businesses to get the worm and not have to worry about some bigger groups being able to force their way to the prime spot because of their size. They protect the environment by preventing too many business from showing up in the same place. They protect the smaller businesses to not be crowded out. They protect the customers themselves so that there is a clear distinction between vending areas (aka places where you are harassed into buying something) and the event itself. They provide a useful order to situations.

Now about your quote.
Do you know those backscatter X-Ray machines are made/designed in India? Do you know the Indian government DENIED their use because they felt they were too intrusive for their citizens?

I cannot believe this. We are supposed to be the freest country in the world and here is an example of another country getting a freedom (right to privacy in an airport) that we are not getting.

I get angry everyday when I think about what happened to our Airlines. I cannot believe the overreaction our government had to 9/11. Why in the WORLD are we going to inconvenience BILLIONS to "protect" against an event that has only happened one time in the history of airplanes? Why not arm pilots? Air Marshalls? Just a potential outcome for flying,perhaps? Better security and instructions for the pilots like orders to do *blank* regardless of the situation. "Wouldn't that make those people more likely to be 'sacrificed'? Is that any worse than sacrificing every person in the entire world who flies through America (including Americans), freedom and right to privacy? How long do the searches have to go on? 1 year, 5 years, 10 years? Well, we are already past that.

I did not fight for my country just so I can be stripped when I go through an airport. In the 90's you could fly with a machete and a portable stove. Now, I can't even bring a water bottle because it might be an explosive? But "Hey, it's okay, just let me through this potential explosive in the garbage can next to your feet, that is cool."

I get frustrated thinking about how many sheep there are out there who just accept this as a way of life.