Where do you draw the line. Equal protection is far more important than ensuring 6 year olds access to the free market. Would Starbucks be immune from health i

Where do you draw the line. Equal protection is far more important than ensuring 6 year olds access to the free market. Would Starbucks be immune from health inspections and the other standard obligations of running a food business if they simply put a 5 year old as a figurehead CEO and had the COO run the ship? I'm not trolling. A company is obligated to maximize shareholder value within the law. It's like AAPL and GOOGL's tax maneuvering with the double Irish/Dutch sandwich techniques - unless they are illegal a company can be sued for not doing them. edit: seriously, and how do you define "stand" ... can a 6 year old have a fleet of food trucks? what if they unintentionally (or intentionally, if you actually have spent time with 6 year olds...) adulterate the food and harm people? Can they be tried as adults? This is a silly controversy to whip up indignant people that aren't willing to think the issue through sufficiently. It's below the dignity of this forum, such as it is. edit 2: to explain to downvoter(s) ... part of the obligation of writing laws is to prevent abuse. It's hard, and you have to consider aggressive seekers of loopholes. In a better world, and with better people you'd avoid having any law in the first place and leave it to the discretion of local authorities. But if that's the case, the downside is silly exceptions like this when local authorities judgement is something you disagree with.