Isn't their voter base voting with the wallet by using these convenient delivery services? When I signed up for democracy, I never signed away the right to let someone deliver me groceries for an agreed upon fee.
Imagine being a single mom that works a lot and struggles to do grocery shopping. Imagine having a crying child with an ear infection and wanting to have someone deliver some medicine quickly so you can get to bed. But no, that's not allowed because it bothers the delicate sensibilities of some busy body who has nothing better to do than to but in to the lives of other people.
Your example is a hand-wavy hypothetical about how allowing some service impacts others by second and third order effects by what could be there instead.
Do you see the difference?
And where you said "It's none of your business what 10% of people are doing. I don't know how it degrades quality of life" you were also explicitly hand-waving away the costs that these businesses impose on those not directly involved in the transactions.
So yes, in my post I was at least considering these costs. In your post, you were choosing to wave them away as inconsequential. I certainly do see the difference.
You see this situation all the time in municipal government. They'll slap in speed bumps or stop signs whatever to satisfy several dozen people complaining about traffic on a particular street only to find afterwards that double the number are now complaining about having to listen to every motorcycle, heavy truck, and civic with an obnoxious exhaust accelerate back up to speed after each stop.
Not to say that this is good or bad, but the monetary transaction does not factor in the externalities, which means that it is ultimately incomplete.