>Sometimes a law is just on its face and unjust in its application. For instance, I have been arrested on a charge of parading without a permit. Now, there is nothing wrong in having an ordinance which requires a permit for a parade. But such an ordinance becomes unjust when it is used to maintain segregation and to deny citizens the First-Amendment privilege of peaceful assembly and protest.

I hope you are able to see the distinction I am trying to point out. In no sense do I advocate evading or defying the law, as would the rabid segregationist. That would lead to anarchy. One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty. I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law.

https://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham....

Did you read the article?

The article states that they needed to pay for insurance to do this, which they didn't do. It's a public park and if they want to turn it into a soup kitchen then they should also have to pay for it.

And this is why some conservatives get angry at liberals for laughing at them for their attachment to the principle of keeping the government out of their affairs.

The park belongs to the community, and these people are choosing to feed homeless people using private funds in this park. The government should have the sense to use discretion when their is a technical violation of the law and consider whether the spirit of the law is being broken. Politicians and public servants are supposed to be a proxy for the will of the people, not dictators who decide what is proper behavior for themselves.

Insurance is an imperialist construct of the patriarchal white capitalists. Not a thing for these ideology champions.

Translation please?