Running Out of Sam Adams at the Pig Roast
No question about it, The Sam Adams Alliance does some great work in Chicago, and nationwide in promoting individual liberty. So it was pleasant to see the Feb 8, Tribune give Sam Adams a mention for defending the right to cook pork outdoors.
Yet, yesterday morning, Sam Adams was painted out of the story, to be replaced by a generic “
The Daily Herald twists the story in a different direction, entirely leaving out the ACLU and the Sam Adams Alliance, lending only Filipino “newspaper and television representatives” as interested in the case, chucking out the civil liberties angle, and picking up on the outdoor-cooking-gasp-Catholic-immigrants in the suburbs angle.
We hope to receive a full report from the Sam Adams Alliance on the delicate balance between commercial enterprise and private property rights as applied in this case.
Amazing to think that such a story could still be an issue in this day and age!
What’s next? Possibly a critical report issued by the Women’s Christian Temperance Union or the Pure Prairie League?
Another thought on a similar subject: Should the Tribune be sanctioned for John Kass promoting the preparation of poultry using his celebrated beer can chicken recipe? It is linked to his column on the Tribune’s web site.
The Beer is in the Gound
And the Pig is on Ice . . .
wait a minute.
C’mon guys- full disclosure of the facts, please.
Amante Enad was cooking industrial sized masses of meat in his back yard.
What’s next? Allowing slaughter house operations in residential neighborhoods under the guise of ethnic tradition and individual freedom?
PETA looks silly when they whine about the rights of rats, and libertarian groups look just as silly when they apparently can’t differentiate between government oppression and legitimate regulation for the protection of the rights of others.
If Enad lived next door to me and had five pig roasters going, I’d have had my two garden houses aimed at them.
Hi Bill,
As I mention,
“We hope to receive a full report from the Sam Adams Alliance on the delicate balance between commercial enterprise and private property rights as applied in this case”
The point of the post was to show the different perspectives that the media takes towards such a story.
JBP
Sir Dwyer,
Amante Enad was wrongly fully cited for catering a business conducted out of home and catering a business not permitted as a home occupation.
Before we further debate the issue, lets define our terms, since the village doesn’t provide statuary definitions:
Business – any lawful commercial endeavor to engage in the manufacture, purchase, sale, lease, or exchange of goods and/or services
Home occupation – any use of a dwelling unit or residence for the operation of any business or commercial, mercantile or industrial activity or enterprise
The two citations do not apply to Mr. Enad because he never roasted pigs as a business enterprise. He simply roasted three pigs in his private property and donated them to a church potluck.
If preparing food in your home is a public safety issue then all home-cooked meals are at risk. In addition, if donating food to a church is against the law, then all picnics, potlucks and socials are illegal.
The village is stepping into a nanny role; they shouldn’t be able to regulate how much food you can cook and how much you can donate. This completely violates people’s individual freedom: The right to act as one wants without hindrance or restraint, permitted that there isn’t any harm done to anyone else or society.
It’s silly to see a village police one’s right to roast.
Leave your response!
A Competitive Healthcare Model…From Vet to Pet
Recent Comments
Archives
Recent Posts
Tags
Subscribe
Most Commented
about cdo