The fact that it is due to Covid restrictions is actually precisely the point.

Ignoring all the controversy about the numbers, there is one fundamental point on which all sides agree: the virus we are talking about is contagious via contact with other people either through airborne droplets and/or aerosols or through contact with mutual surfaces where those aerosols might collect. Can we agree on that?

If so, then the primary strategy for diminishing spread of the virus should be diminishing social settings with high density of gathered people. An equally important part of this strategy is that areas where people come together must be as well ventilated as possible to avoid developing high concentrations of the virus. The amount of virus a person is exposed to makes a difference in the likelihood of becoming ill.

Now I will admit to an assumption, based on the experience of my own life, but I don't think my assumption is particularly "far from center". I go to farmers' markets a lot. In my experience, farmers' markets are usually outside (outdoor air is the definition of the best "ventilation" available to us on the planet), and they usually involve far lower density of people/space than do supermarkets.

With that assumption behind my thinking (the stand photographed with the article is an outside location; if Breitbart is mis-using the photo, that would be a legitimate criticism, but I haven't seen that said), then the idea that moving people from an outdoor low-density shopping environment (relatively low transmission capacity) to a supermarket - an indoor more poorly ventilated and higher person/space density environment (relatively high transmission capacity) - is going to be worse for transmission of Covid.

This fits with the cops ticketing people out walking their dogs in parks far from any other people. There is zero logic to this kind of enforcement if the goal is to prevent transmission of an air/surface-borne respiratory virus.

Why bring fascism and state support of corporate entities into the argument? Well, given that I see no honest rationale to prevent disease spread, and the rules are there, then why? The de-facto effect is to advantage the corporate chains over the individual farmers. I give credit to those running the show that they are arranging things to their advantage. This is advantageous to them, and I credit them with the intelligence to say this advantage is intentional, not accidental.

Edit to add: Incitement to hatred? I have no hatred for any people. If incitement to hatred is incitement to hate the exercise of irrational and soul-crushing government power, then I plead guilty. I do hate the arbitrary use of state power against individuals acting in good faith.