Others complained the ads could be offensive to the poor and homeless who can't afford to buy sweet treats.

Seriously? The smell of cookies offends the poor? I am speechless at the thinking here. Wouldn't all ads offend (this word choice, ugh!) the poor who can't afford the products? Shouldn't we then ban eating outside, in case a homeless person smelled some food he/she couldn't afford? What about offending the lactose intolerant with the word MILK?

seriously.

I keep saying that someday we'll have our vocal cords clipped at birth. Anything anyone says offends someone. And I mean no disrespect to the homeless. The thoughts of people being homeless just wreck my day. But good grief, Charlie Brown. I liked your milk/lactose intolerant comment. How true, how true.

Nice clip, nice point. At restaurants I've felt uncomfortable, by just being there; with them walking by or loitering here in Manhatten, New York. Though I think what's lost in translation is that the homeless don't have food, period. Not food they can't afford. The reasons they're pulling it are absurd. Maybe we should ban all food smells. But, really the issue here should be just to eliminate hunger. No reason for hunger in this country. Maybe, a tax on cookies......

You know what I thought? The first thing that went through my head was that the lawyers had a slow day and took this case, realized they couldn't win it on any other platform, so ended up exploiting the homeless, the one group that probably was NOT consulted. The way it was thrown in was almost like, "And in case our other arguments for having them removed don't work, oh, yeah, yeah, I know...the homeless people. We'll use them as a means to our end."

That wouldn't surprise me.

So they are offended by the bus stop smelling like cookies instead of urine and stale liquor?

I'll second that, n2. even on the buses.

It's a matter of equality....cookie smells should be allowed as long as they don't cover the urine and stale liquor smells.