The comment as I understand it, appeared within the boundaries of a Lancaster Bee story concerning Lancaster's enforcement of "Pause" policies, and as such, do not seem to have been taken out of context.
(I note parenthetically that the Lancaster Bee, to the best of my knowledge, has not corrected a misquote, or otherwise presented with clarification, the "intended" comment within Mr. Ruffino's suggested original, accurate context.)
At this point, I am willing to hold that the comment was a sloppy, if not reckless, application of a metaphor suggesting a prohibition on the purchase of essential and basic human needs, and were not "intended" at to be taken at face value.
That is why some sought clarification.
As I previously posted:
Perhaps words that would have highlighted the urgent need for food and bread, to the exclusion of truly non-essential purchases such as lottery tickets, would have resulted in a supportive public understanding of his comments?A clumsy attempt at a cute metaphor would be a venial sin; forgiveness quite understandable.