Banning Kids from Restaurants
The owner of McDain’s Restaurant and Golf Center in Monroeville, Pa (outside of Pittsburgh) has decided that kids under the age of 6 are banned from dining at his restaurant. From the WSJ:
It has also sparked strong opinions among those who applaud his decision and those against it. Mr. Vuick said he had received 2,000 emails, running 11-to-1 in favor of his decision.
“I’m doing this on behalf of all the kind, refined people who have emailed me who have had meals ruined,” said Mr. Vuick, a former high-school sociology and psychology teacher. “I’ve decided someone in our society had to dig their heels in on this issue.”
I doubt that this is the beginning of a mass movement to remove children from restaurants. But there is no doubt (to me) that kids don’t learn how to behave in restaurants if they don’t get to go. On the other hand, parents should be sensitive to the fact that a kid who is inconsolable or loudly disruptive is disrupting a whole room of people and those people deserve some consideration too.
What do you think?
Out of the 1,800 people who emailed approval, how many are customers?
…and (mounting my soap box) let me just try to preempt the wignnut morons who will come here to claim that the problem is parental lack of discipline. No it isn’t. The problem is lack of parental invlovement in teaching thier children how to have normal conversations. There is a epidemic of lazy parenting out there that smacking kids is not going to solve.
If you have a DVD player in your car and turn it on for trips across town – you are part of the problem.
I’m all for this! There are certain restaurants that aren’t suitable for children – and not fair to take them to. This isn’t a ban against children. It’s a ban against stupid and rude parents.
The kids are probably the happiest of all that they don’t have to go to McDain’s anymore. The food probably sucks too, if you are six.
it’s all the teacher’s fault. If they werent lazily sailing their catamarans around the world on our taxes and watching the kids at 7pm like they SHOULD, parents would be able to enjoy their lives.
I totally back this guy. This and keeping kids under 16 from the First Class section of an airplane.
Nice to know that some Delaware Liberals think age discrimination is okay.
His restaurant. Kids like McDonalds better anyway.
You’re such a drama queen. 😉 This is common sense. There are some restaurants that aren’t kid friendly – restaurants that intelligent parents go to when they cough up some bucks and hire a sitter.
When our kids were little we took them to Chuckie Cheese, Charcoal Pit, etc. We hired a sitter for nicer, pricier restaurants and if the hostess at these restaurants attempted to sit us near a table with small children we protested and refused the table. Hey, we left our kids at home so we could enjoy a rare adult evening in an adult environment!
A young child isn’t capable of sitting quietly through a three or four course meal and the fault lies with any parent that expects them to do so.
Actually, many of their parents don’t expect them to sit quietly. Instead they let them yell, cry and run around the restaurant effectively turning other diners and staff into their unpaid baby-sitters.
This isn’t about kids being kids – it’s about inconsiderate parents.
Everything pandora said–and they leave a huge mess in their wake, when they leave. You should be learning/teaching how to behave at your own home table–that’s the practice–so when you go out silly jason it’s not OTJ for the rest of the patrons.
But that’s the first step–making kids eat at a real table, a meal. Instead of in front of the TV, the back of the car, or walking down the street.
FWIW
I think that Pandora and Joanne are right. Except you don’t have to go to kid restaurants to get them in the groove. I’ve more than a few friends with kids who took their kids to restaurants that the parents liked. If they couldn’t deal, then the kid was removed from the scene. But it *did* mean that these kids got the clue on how to behave in public pretty quickly. I’ve been at fancy restaurant tables with kids who were delightful dinner companions.
But being a delightful dinner companion starts with old school home training.
Pandora, I don’t think businesses should be allowed to discriminate against children. Where do you stop? How about grocery stores or other retail outlets? What is to stop them from banning kids, too? Is that acceptable? Should restaurants be allowed to ban old people because some move too slowly or ban people in wheel chairs because some get in the way?
Just because some parents and some children can get out of control doesn’t mean that discrimination against whole classes of people is acceptable. After all, that is what civil rights are all about.
Finally, adults should remember that they were once little kids, too, and someone listened to them cry and scream, changed their diapers, and cleaned up their messes.
You are being ridiculous. Let’s let kids sit at a bar and order Shirley Temples!
Finally, adults should remember that they were once kids, too, and someone listened to them cry and scream, changed their diapers, and cleaned up their messes.
Yes, they did, only my parents were smart enough to leave us home when they went to an adult restaurant.
Not everything in life is a slight against civil liberties or a reason for outrage. (You might want to repeat that phrase several times a day.)
This really is about common sense, or rather the lack of common sense by parents who insist on placing their kids in an environment where 95% of the time they will fail.
So, where do you stop and start with discrimination, pandora? That is really the question I am asking, and it isn’t a ridiculous question at all.
Blanket discrimination against people because of their age or the age of the people that they are with is wrong. I am surprised that you don’t agree.
“Blanket discrimination against people because of their age or the age of the people that they are with is wrong. I am surprised that you don’t agree.”
Yes, I agree. We should get rid of laws that set minimum ages for things like drinking, driving and owning firearms. Otherwise, it’s discrimination.
Geezer, I am not talking about discrimination because of public safety concerns or the safety of children (driving, drinking, guns, smoking, etc.). I am talking about discrimination in retail establishments, such as restaurants. That is what this thread is about.
so we should all have to accommodate bad parents and noise sensitive children? Why arent kids allowed at strip clubs? to young ones they are just looking at food.
a1, your line of thinking reminds me of the righties who think that same sex marriage will lead to man on dog weddings. Where does it end? how about we end it at restaurants who cater to a more grown-up clientele being allowed to say “no kids” problem solved.
SB – didn’t you know that A1 is not just a sauce, but he’s a lefteabagger, too.
I think if you got a problem with a kid fussing in a restaurant, you’ve got a problem with reality. Children exist; they are among us. They can be bothersome and delightful. But who can’t, really? I’d rather hear a child cry in a restaurant than listen to a loudmouth bombastic adult. But then I don’t get to manage what individuals get presented to me in society; nor should I. You take what is given and work with or around it. That’s the essence of realism.
Personally, I don’t think if I owned a restaurant that I would ban young kids, for several reasons. Number one, it would be bad for business at the kind of business this fellow has, it said resturant and golf, I am assuming miniture golf, but I may be wrong. But I think this guy has a perfect right to ban these kids, (Even though I would not do it). When I was growing up we did not go out to eat much, but we did have family dinners almost every week night. We were not allowed to mis behave at a resturant. We were not allowed to get up from the table on our own and wander around the resturant. I go into various restuarants these days, and I see parents allowing their kids to wander around the restuarant without them with them. This amazes is me. As far as Anonone’s comments go, his angle is wrong hear. We have always had to take age into consideration when dealing with various activities of kids. Always have had to, Always will have to. There are no race or religious analogies that apply here. It is two different animals. You can’t say that because I don’t let men go into the womens bathroom I am discriminating. So the short answer, is that if this guy owns the resturant outright, I find no problem with him banning young kids, I would just not do it, mainly because it is going to hurt business more than it helps
I don’t see the big deal with this.
People go to resorts that are “couples”, or no persons under 18. And we have housing that is 55 and older. I’m not allowed to order off the children’s menu w/o it probably being a big deal for the waitress or management. So why the beef for a private establishment setting some “ground rules”? Their preference for the “over 6” crowd must outweigh and outvalue the perceived loss of revenue. I’m more surprised this made any news.
And how come the “birthday clubs” at Friendly’s and such stop at age 10–how come? And Bob Evans too!!
My bride and I often took our young children to “fancy” restaurants and they behaved like angles. In fact, the worst restaurant crowds are gay men. Talk about unable to control one’s self. Loud, rude, and winey…. at least young children have an excuse.
Dana: “Reality” is that some restaurants are suitable for kids, and some are not. Here’s how you can tell: Some restaurants have children’s menus, and others don’t. If I’m dropping $100 per person on dinner, I don’t want the atmosphere of Romper Room. I doubt that’s the case here — my guess is that there’s a putt-putt course at this driving range. If he wants to get rid of the kids, he ought to close the putt-putt course.
A1: Ah, so you DO believe in discriminating against children, as long as it’s under the rubric of public safety. See, there is a line — we just draw it in different places.
As for what this thread is “about,” once you get involved, any thread is usually about trying to get you to see reason.
I have a special needs child who quite impulsively might get loud or do something odd and unplesant for people paying for their $100 meals–something like grimace oddly or flap his hands. And,oh, just so some of you know, those behaviors have nothing to do with his parenting. Now my child is already past the age of the sanctioned children at the restaurant in question and yet he could behave or not behave like a, say, 4-year old. Should the restaurant owner be allowed to ammend his restriction to include “no special needs children of any age?” Should my wife and I never be allowed to take our child to a good restaurant and give him an excellent meal because his unpredictable hand flapping might cause someone to think that he’s not getting his money’s worth at $100 a plate? Or do we just grow up and realize that when you go to a restaurant, you take your chances because–well, because children are a fact in the world we live in.
My bride and I often took our young children to “fancy” restaurants and they behaved like angles.
Everyone thinks their own baby is the acutest.
In fact, the worst restaurant crowds are gay men.
Without gay men there would BE no restaurants. Well, maybe some, but you wouldn’t want to go to them.
hey pandora–let’s resurrect a niche industry–charm school!! Maybe then the 6 y.o. would be welcomed!!!!
Yes, but how would we get the restaurant owner and his kid-hating patrons to attend the charm school?
Ummmm….put the gays in charge?
Nobody answered the question: where do you stop and start with discrimination?
I believe that discrimination against a class of people because of the behavior of some members of that class is wrong. That is where I start and stop.
Apparently some people start with kids under age 6. Other people start with teenagers (MJ), gay people, black people, Jewish people, people who don’t speak English, people with special needs, whatever. And they all have their own “good” reasons.
People have died in this country for the right not to be discriminated against in public places for who they are, particularly in restaurants. We are still fighting those battles. I am surprised that some people can’t recognize that children are human beings and that civil rights laws should apply to them, too. Furthermore, parents of young children should have the civil right not to be discriminated in a public dining place against simply for wanting to have a meal with their children.
My parents took us out to “nice” restaurants and family restaurants. In both cases, we were told to be on our best behavior. If we acted up, we were sent out to sit in the car until the rest of the family was finished with dinner. And then when we got home, we got a potch offen tuchas.
The problem is parents today are afraid to discipline their kids because they think that they’ll have child protective services called on them.
I agree with Pandora, there are restaurants where parents should be smart enough not to bring their kids. My partner and I had dinner a while ago at The Blue Moon down here in RB. Some people decided to bring their 5 year old kid with them. The Moon doesn’t have a children’s menu and this little brat threw a tantrum because he didn’t like any of the choices on the menu. Yeah, it spoiled a nice night for everyone (well that and the drunk queens driving the Bentley who thought they owned everything in sight, but that’s another story).
I hear you MJ–but back then, going out to eat was such a treat, you wouldn’t misbehave because you didn’t want to miss anything!!! Like cubed jello!!! or baked Alaska!…..and melba toast individually wrapped in the bread basket!!!
No MJ, fear of the authorities is NOT the reason I don’t strike my children or leave them unattended in a car.
Your comment reminds me of when my gay priest tried to give me advice about my marriage.
Dana: Nobody is talking about grimacing and hand-flapping, and I would think most people are sophisticated enough to know when they’re dealing with a special-needs child. That said, are you really planning on bringing said child to Le Bec-Fin? Would YOU even go to Le Bec-Fin?
MJ: My kids always behaved in restaurants, but I didn’t take them to fancy restaurants to start, and I wouldn’t waste the experience on a 6-year-old anyway. I always told them that if they acted up, we (not them, all of us) would leave, and one day I followed through on the threat — told the kitchen to make the order to go. The kids were mortified at the scene this caused, and never acted up in a restaurant again.
A1 asks, “Nobody answered the question: where do you stop and start with discrimination?”
In this particular restaurant, with 6-year-olds. Or is that just a bullshit rhetorical question?
“Other people start with teenagers (MJ), gay people, black people, Jewish people, people who don’t speak English, people with special needs, whatever.”
Yes, children are just like gays, blacks and Jews, who can all be counted upon to grow out of those conditions.
“And they all have their own “good” reasons.”
Really? I’d like to hear what those good reasons are for any of the other groups you named.
The fact is that children are not allowed to do thousands of things adults do. To pretend otherwise is, um, how best to put this — really stupid.
“Nobody answered the question: where do you stop and start with discrimination? ”
um… i answered the question. It is ok so ban kids from private establishments. I also asked YOU if children should be allowed in strip clubs and you DIDNT answer that.
g’day.
I get what you’re saying. Herman Cain suggesting that private communities be allowed to ban mosques is horrible. He should be convicted of treason for saying that (get the joke? free speech? you mad at me for making a joke about that?)
but THIS is a different situation.
This is NOT a civil rights issue. It’s a civility issue.
A1 wants to take his brats to the Green Room [and the Fairways].
no, it is an american right to be as much of a jackass as you want all the time. You are also a nazi if you dont approve of and appreciate rude little children
Geezer, I don’t know the restaurant you are speaking of, but I’d love to take my son and myself to Buddhakan in Philly. I think he would love the atmosphere, particularly the giant golden Buddha. But there would be no guarantee how he would behave.
Banning people under 18 years old from certain adult activities that are not intrinsically appropriate or safe for them (smoking, drinking, strip clubs, driving, gambling, amusement park rides, etc.) is legally accepted as appropriate.
Eating in a public restaurant with their parents or adult guardians is not inappropriate or an unsafe act for children under 6.
Geezer, people who discriminate do so for what they feel are their own “good” reasons, just like this restaurant owner or anybody else who discriminates against whole classes of people. I didn’t say they were good, just that those who practice discrimination think that their reasons are “good” and justified. Ask MJ why he thinks banning all people under 16 years-old from first-class seats on airplane would be good.
And if you’re going to start with 6 year-olds in restaurants, where are you going to stop? Why not just make laws that kids under 6 are not allowed in public buildings lest they possibly have a temper-tantrum and ruin some adult’s day? It is the exact same rationale carried to the extreme.
Hey, Manifold, my kids aren’t brats and I’ll can take them any place in the world, and they’ll behave just fine.
pandora wrote, “This is NOT a civil rights issue. It’s a civility issue.”
I guess that you can look at it that way when it isn’t you who is being discriminated against. Saying that discrimination against gays isn’t a civil rights issue been one of the primary arguments used by people to fight against gay rights.
Banning whole classes of people from an activity because you’re afraid that some might not be civil is wrong.
The hate, stereotyping, and name-calling of little children here by certain commentors is really despicable.
Alright, I took my seven year old daughter to the Blue Moon in Rehoboth for my birthday in March. She tasted a braised veal cheek over shitake infused gnocchi and declared it to be the “best thing ever.” This is a girl who would happily lap down chicken Macnugets and consider that food at the time. It is discrimination to exclude children, plain and simple. If you are so poor that you can’t tolerate some wise ass adult or rambunctious child “disturbing” your meal, then maybe you shouldn’t be dining in the “fancy” restaurant you are in.
That said, parents, teach your kids to act appropriately. Simple, really.
… we got a potch offen tuchas.
A who what when where?
Is that something donviti doesn’t approve of?
“A1 wants to take his brats to the Green Room [and the Fairways].”
I have a fond memory of the Green Room as well.
My bride and I were young. In our 20’s perhaps, with a young child. We were invited to dinner at the HDGR for a 50th wedding anniversary of my bride’s grandparents. Good old poppop whipped out a cigarette after the meal and caused quite a stir. I must admit, it was quite amusing to see the mater di scurry around and try to placate the situation as table after table began to light up. Good times, good times.
“potch offen tuchas”
Probably Yiddish for a good old fashioned ass whoopin.
There is a really big difference between a rambunctious child and one who is crying or screaming throughout the meal. Or one who is loudly throwing food or toys and yelling at his or her parents. And you do a disservice to the people who are being pretty clear about a standard of behavior. Just because some parents may not impose one isn’t a good reason for me to have to tolerate said horrific behavior, especially in “fancy” restaurants.
A couple of years back I was in a very nice KC steakhouse with a few colleagues and a client. We went to this restaurant partially because we thought that we could finish a business meeting. Unfortunately for us, the table behind us had two children — one who was crying and was utterly inconsolable (even though his parents kept trying to push food and drink on him and try to reason him out of this crying jag) and the other was his sibling who was working overtime to get some of the attention that his younger sibling was getting. This entailed throwing bread and butter and yelling “Guess what, Mommy!” or “Guess what Daddy!” and proceeding to yell out some tale.
We were’t the only people whose conversation was quite drowned out here. But we finished our drinks and apps, did not order dinner, paid and left to find someplace to have a meal in peace. The dining room staff was clearly disturbed about this — but if your kids are disrupting the room, the problem is *not* the other patrons who planned on a peaceful meal.
A1: How about you bring your heirs to see Harry Shearer and his movie Wednesday night at Theatre N?
Now there’s a reason to ban children from restaurants: so business persons can conduct/finish business meetings. God forbid that a child should interrupt that! After all, one shouldn’t expect business persons to conduct their affairs in their conference rooms and offices and perhaps have a catered meal there. Oh,no, that’s too much to ask! It’s better to ban children from restaurants because the movers and shakers should have dibs on everything.
there’s been a couple who bring their brat to dogfish every thursday night during the winter for a few years. they just let the kid have the run of the place. he runs up and down the walkways, climbs the stairs and the railing for the stairs…quite frankly, i think they had this child too late in life to be able to supervise him properly.
While banning kids under 6 isn’t fair to parents who make sure their children behave I can see the reason a lot of people are for this rule. They support it because they have experienced the bad behavior multiple times and are at a loss as to what to do – since disciplining someone else’s child, or telling a parent to take the child outside until the crying stops is considered completely and totally unacceptable… which would lead to a bigger scene.
So what to do? If the parents won’t handle the situation and customers/staff can’t handle the situation, then what?
And my bet is that the restaurant owner had received multiple complaints and a loss of business due to bad parenting. No one would make this rule for the fun of it.
Perhaps, instead of banning children under six, restaurants could blacklist the offending parents – because this isn’t about the child’s behavior, it’s about the parents’.
And everyone on this thread knows, and has experienced, the parent who won’t control their child. Perhaps they take their children out to restaurants because we have stopped inviting them to our homes. 🙂
” It is the exact same rationale carried to the extreme.”
so dont carry it to the extreme. The establishment in question here is a sports bar. A loud place filled with testosterone. So your exception….. which is odd because things are usually black and white with you . no, i’m not being racist but you like your absolutes…….. holds true here. a loud sports bar with cursing Eagles fans is no place for children.
Oh, the travails of the upper middle class.
“It is the exact same rationale carried to the extreme.”
And yet you cannot posit even an example of a rationale for banning people based on their race or creed.
This is not a logic problem. This is someone’s business and livelihood.
“And if you’re going to start with 6 year-olds in restaurants, where are you going to stop?”
This “slippery slope” argument is as bogus here as it is when used by gun nuts who don’t want to register their weapons because gummint might someday use the list to confiscate their guns.
Geezer, since you don’t think civil rights laws should apply to children, then you must be one of the “kind, refined people” the restaurant owner is trying to please. I am not one of them.
And I am sorry that you can’t understand how prejudiced people promote their bigotry and hate using their own righteous, often religious, reasons that they believe are “good.” You can start with the Christianists’ arguments against GLBT civil rights for starters. They certainly believe that their rationale for their bigotry is “good,” after all, it is the word of their god.
A1, are you ok with banning smoking? because WHERE DOES IT STOP!?!?!?!?!? And yes, kids are a threat to my health. I get exposed to those little germ factories wiping their snotty hands all over everything and screaming and i wanna jump out a window.
you just rationalized bigotry by saying some places are unsuitable for children. kindly return to your anti israel (hehehehe) rants.
Perhaps we could compromise by having restaurants post rules.
1. Children may not leave the table unless they need to use the restroom and are accompanied by an adult. (I once saw a small child run into a waiter carrying a loaded tray which luckily didn’t hit the child when it crashed to the ground.)
2. Parents must remove an inconsolable or disruptive child from the restaurant, and may only reenter once the child calms down.
Seems like common sense to me, but I do see a problem since the worst offenders are the “not my kid” sort.
There is no need for a compromise. Socialistic Ben is all wet. I was raised by parents that believed that there were adult occasions and occasions suitable for children.
If you were a child who was lucky enough to be included in an adult occasion, such as going out to dinner, you were expected to behave as a little adult.
first of all jason, stop watching me shower from the bushes.
second…. we live in a society today where parents (increasingly children of the selfish boomer generation) think their kids should be allowed to express themselves however they want and if anyone else has a problem with it…. it is that person’s fault. These are the same parents who think it is a teacher’s fault when the kid fails a class. It is time these PARENTS be held accountable for raising yet another generation of self absorbed dick-wads.
So the lazy parents lose the right to inflict their kids on other people trying to eat dinner.
“They certainly believe that their rationale for their bigotry is “good,” after all, it is the word of their god.”
Yes, these examples are clearly peas in a pod. While you’re at it, why don’t you challenge the laws of the land that make parents responsible for the actions of their uner-18 children? As it currently stands, children are not full citizens. Don’t you think they deserve the right to vote? After all, the child vote doesn’t pose any danger like drinking, driving, etc. Shouldn’t children have full rights?
Exactly, pandora. Rules regarding acceptable behavior are fine, rules that discriminate against whole classes of people because some might behave poorly are not.
Restaurants already have the right to ask disruptive patrons to leave, whether rules are posted or not.
But it is now clear that some people, upon entering a restaurant, scan the room for children and then are hyper-vigilant about any possible sound coming from that child. Upon seeing a child they already assume their meal is ruined whether the child is disruptive or not.
For these patrons, policing the room for children is yet another way of saying “Look at me! I am special! Fear my Platinum Card!”
I double-dog dare you to try and enforce those rules on parents who don’t see their child’s behavior as unacceptable – if they did they would handle it immediately and we wouldn’t be having this discussion. Brace yourself for hearing, “But my darling, Madison, can walk to the restroom by herself,” and “My little angel is just fussy.” Because the problem is NOT the child, and expecting these clueless parents who view their child as the exception to every rule to get a clue is pure fantasy.
Next time you are at a restaurant and a child is acting out try approaching the parents – in the nicest, most respectful way possible – and see what happens. Hint: I’ve done that (when my kids were younger I always had some little toy, book, etc. shoved in my purse and would offer it to the parents of the child) and have watched others do it and the outcome wasn’t pretty.
Geezer, you must be one of those “kind, refined people” who was a perfect child, had perfect children, and was a perfect parent so heaven forbid even the possibility that a less than perfect child with less than perfect parents would interrupt your perfect dining experience, even for a moment.
And we’re not talking about voting, gun ownership, drinking, driving or any of the other red herrings that your trying to use to distract from the basic issue of discrimination against a whole class of people in public eating establishments.
Simply eating in a restaurant does not endanger the child or others. Eating in a restaurant is not breaking the law in this country (anymore).
If you honestly can’t tell the difference by yourself, nothing I can say is going to help you understand.
its a slippery slope a1. if we have rules for how kids should behave, why not stereotype everyone and demand they not act like the worst bigoted example of their people? we should have no rules ever!
Blah blah blah… Life is lived on a slippery slope and somehow we get by.
The slippery slope argument is the last refuge of people who have no argument.
Ah, yes, the “Well MYYY child…” puffery.
Which is incidentally one of the biggest things holding up practical education reform. It seems like every educator or PTA parent has perfect children and can’t conceive that everybody is not the same way.
“Simply eating in a restaurant does not endanger the child or others.”
And simply banning young children from a restaurant does not embolden the other sorts of bigotry you decry. ONce you acknowledge that children don’t have full rights, the rest becomes easy. So do you support letting children vote or not?
Upon seeing a child they already assume their meal is ruined whether the child is disruptive or not.
Actually, when I see a small child at a restaurant I go with the odds that their behavior will be age appropriate. My bet is that a three year old will act like a three year old – as they should.
It is then my choice to decide whether or not to eat at that restaurant. And I’m not waving around my platinum card as a threat, but if you think that the restaurant owner isn’t worried about loss of business you’re kidding yourself. This ban wasn’t put in place on a whim. There was a problem that he/she probably attempted to handle in a variety of ways.
Also, many of these parents are simply being selfish. They are taking children to restaurants the parents want to eat at – because, let’s face it, there are a ton of “family friendly/kid focused” places to eat… which every child 6 and under would choose over The Green Room. So this isn’t about the children.
I actually like it when a child visits us from another table. Instead of frowning and cursing under my breath at their parents, I smile and say Hello and engage him/her in conversation. Honestly, they are usually satisfied by their little excursion and then go back and sit down. They are just tired of being ignored. If the adults at your table ignored you you’d probably get antsy too.
But no, I don’t let my own kids wander around or make excessive noise. We engage them in the dinner conversation so that doesn’t happen. And sometimes we do have to leave, but not often.
That is a red herring, geezer. You know it, and I know it.
I guess that next you’ll be wanting national photo ID cards for kids so restaurants can card children so they either prove that they’re over 6 years old or they don’t get fed. And if they lie about their age they should go to juvenile detention centers and their parents should be fined, right?
Yes, that’s exactly what I want. And that’s exactly what will happen now that one restaurant has taken the first step. Geronimo! Slippery slope, here we come!
Look, chief, you’re the one who took this discussion out of the realm of reality and into the realm of reductio ad absurdum. Don’t blame me for taking YOUR argument to its absurd extreme; that’s been your entire angle of argument.
For the record, I don’t mind children in restaurants at all.
Everybody stop being so uptight and get your inner hippie on. The kids are all right.
People have babies because they LOVE each other. It’s a groovy thing.
“…since you don’t think civil rights laws should apply to children,…”
Should that be the case, I violated my kid’s civil rights on a daily basis. They had no expectation of privacy, no free speech, no protection from search and seizure without a warrant, and could not bear arms (until after their chores were done!). Neither one of them ever made a scene in a restaurant, or anywhere else in public, and they both turned out great.
It’s called parenting.
Pandora has the most rational approach. No bans, just notification and enforcement. A sign that says something like “The parents of unruly children may asked to leave the premises.”, should suffice. The restaurant staff should enforce it based on complaints from other patrons.
I saw this approach at a restaurant in Florida about 4 years ago. The usual kid screaming for attention, parents totally oblivious. I got the impression that they conditioned themselves to block it out. After the first notification by staff was ignored, the family was asked to leave. The staff got a standing ovation from nearly everyone in the place. They didn’t have any (visible) signs, just tried to provide a positive dining experience for the majority of their customers.
It’s called good business.
Mis – you got the gist of the translation.
Plain fact is, restaurants have the right to refuse service to anyone, and in this case, the owner is refusing service to those 6 years-old and younger.
As Pandora said, this is not a civil rights issue, it’s a civility issue.
Now hush up or y’all going to get a potch offen tuchas. 🙂
McDain’s reserves the right to serve refuse to anybody.
MJ wrote: “Plain fact is, restaurants have the right to refuse service to anyone.”
Actually, they don’t. You must have missed the passing of the Civil Rights act.
Ooh, ersatz liberals! Now we’re down to name-calling? You must be even more fucked-up than I thought if you believe I give a shit whether I pass your liberal litmus test.
Actually, they do have the right to refuse service under plenty of conditions.
There are plenty of places with a dress code and can refuse to serve you based upon that.
They can refuse to seat parties bigger than X number of people (I’ve seen this posted).
I’ve seen an owner/chef come out from the kitchen to refuse to cook for a couple who sort of rewrote his recipe.
The Civil Rights Act covers discrimination based on race, creed, color, gender. Not the business preferences of the owner.
Exactly, cassandra_m. They can’t refuse service based on race, creed, color, gender. Which was my point to MJ.
no one here is advocating people be refused service based on race creed gender etc. Go to the Rand Paul blog ot yell at those people. The people here are supporting 40 people’s right to not have their evening ruined by 2 crappy parents and one annoying brat. Might i also make a business suggestion…. open up a place next to McDains that allows all people drive those bigoted Klansmen out of business!
Geezer complaining about name-calling. Too funny.
open up a place next to McDains that allows all people drive those bigoted Klansmen out of business!
Or a birth control clinic.
A1 – you know what I was referring to, so get off your damned high horse. You had no point – you just wanted to flap your gums. You’re talking a lot, but not saying anything.
That was not your point to MJ. You wanted to tell him that a restaurant owner could not refuse service to anyone. Which they certainly can with some very limited restrictions.
But extending my point, children are not included in those restrictions. So it can hardly be discrimination to exclude them from limited venues.
You have lost the argument, and lost it badly. Now all you have is ad hominem attacks.
I really don’t see a need for a categorical ban on children since restaurant personnel can ask parents to leave w/ their disruptive children. So why have a policy that ASSUMES children will be disruptive. Disruptive patrons should be asked to leave, children or adult.
Dana: If everyone used that common-sense approach, we wouldn’t have anything to argue about here. Let’s keep in mind this is ONE SINGLE, SOLITARY RESTAURANT. According to A1, it’s the first step toward tyranny.
“Disruptive patrons should be asked to leave, children or adult.”
True. Good point.
geezer, I really don’t care what you think. 95% of your contribution to any discussion with me is simply name-calling, red herrings, and ad hominem nonsense, anyway.
So, yes, I may be “fucked-up” beyond even your wildest imagination. But I don’t believe in discrimination against an entire class of people in restaurants or other retail outlets solely because of their age, which was the topic of this thread.
I don’t care if you think that is a losing argument.
A1 – go back and play on your own blog and let the adults carry-on an adult conversation. You’re just a noisy little ankle-biter of the blogosphere.
Have you ever considered that the discrimination here is not actually against the children? How many children go to the restaurant alone, with their own money? Have you considered anything but your inviolable principle? Of course not.
You are in no position to declare anything a red herring. That’s your entire diet. And as long as you couch this as your opinion, you don’t lose the argument — I assume you know what your own opinion is. But that’s all it is, your opinion, and you haven’t been able to support it with anything but more of your opinions.
MJ, as a self-proclaimed “adult,” you have stated your support for businesses (at least restaurants and airlines) being allowed to deny services to entire classes of people outside of those protected by the Civil Rights Act. In this case, we’re talking about age discrimination.
I guess that you would then also support the currently legal right of a restaurant owner to put up a “No Gays Allowed” sign on the basis that the sight of gay people potentially expressing physical affection (like holding hands or kissing) would possibly ruin the meals of their straight “kind, refined” customers.
By the way, I am not implying that you support discrimination against gays in the way you do support discrimination against children and teenagers, just trying to clarify that you apparently support the right of businesses to discriminate against any group not covered by the Civil Rights Act.
Fear not, MJ shoos away all of those he does not like or agree with, it’s a big list:)
Big time FAIL, A1. You apparently failed logic in college. And JSG (or whatever name you’re using today), go crawl back under your rock. We were getting along fine without your 2 cents. Say, were you the lounge lizard that showed up last year at Drinking Liberally (TM)?
That was a big time adult response, MJ.
A1, I don’t want to see nor hear your sniveling little brats while I’m spending my hard earned cash. I stay away from “family places” so the least you could do is cage your little monsters.
MJ @3:31 outing attempt. What is the penalty for that? I forgot.
two thoughts:
When I was like 12 my family was turned away from the Painter’s Crossing movie theater just over the line in PA for having a child under 6 in our party for a movie after 7:00. My brother was 5, the movie was a 7:05 showing, he was well-behaved, and it was a children’s movie (I can’t remember what it was, probably Disney). There wasn’t any sign stating the policy. Anybody know if they still do this? Maybe A1 can go up and protest to get this out of his system.
Recently the gentleman and I went to Buffalo Wild Wings to watch the US Men’s team gold cup game and eat delicious chickens. There was also an MMA fight that night. We were informed halfway through dinner by our (embarrassed) server that he’d forgotten that he needed to hold our credit card during the meal. Apparently at BWW MMA fans so frequently dine and dash that now it’s required to ask all customers to provide their cards. No sign was posted. BWW discriminates against MMA fans A1! go get them!
98% of the time the reason kids act out in restaurants is because they are HUNGRY. Get the lead out and bring them their damn FOOD.
“I guess that you would then also support the currently legal right of a restaurant owner to put up a “No Gays Allowed” sign on the basis that the sight of gay people potentially expressing physical affection (like holding hands or kissing) would possibly ruin the meals of their straight “kind, refined” customers.”
This is the reason we’re trying to get a non-discrimination law to cover LGBT people, A1. Or maybe you hadn’t noticed.
Gay rights, like most civil rights, are being won through struggle. I suggest you start a children’s rights movement and, after you’ve spent decades fighting for the right to take children wherever YOU deem they’re acceptable, THEN you can compare your silliness with gay rights.
First, of course, you’ll have to convince people that children deserve such equal rights. As usual, you’ve done a piss-poor job of that so far. Often wrong, never in doubt.
actually – this is what the Civil rights Act or 1964 title VII says posted below
and while there are several versions of the CRA A1 has not chosen to specify which one not be clear as to the federal law.
so lets look at Title VII of CRA of 1964 – public accomodations section (this is the section restruants would fall under, providing they are not dues collecting clubs and solicit patronage from the general public:
“The Division enforces federal statutes prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race, color, sex, disability, religion, familial status and national origin.”
http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/
not a word about age discrimination in restruants in here ANONONE – so ummm MJ is correct- FAIL!
I never claimed what the restaurant owner was doing was illegal – only that it is wrong.
Discrimination against GLBTs by restaurants is also not illegal, either. It is just hypocritical for people like MJ to advocate for discrimination against others while decrying discrimination against people like himself.
I am already a supporter of the Children’s Defense Fund, founded by Marian Wright Edelman, which fights for the rights of children.
http://www.childrensdefense.org
Please consider sending them a donation, if you don’t already support them. As you can see by some of the comments just in this thread, children and children’s rights are not held in very high esteem by many in our society.
A1, it was clear to me all along that you were talking about the morality of the policy and not its legality. I’m confident it was evident to your detractors as well.
so, A1,
by your logic, not allowing those under 18 to drink is discrimination as well, after all, they can drive and vote and kill for the military – why can’t they booze it up??
like Geezer suggested – spend a few decades on that one, then get back to us – oK??
enjoy! 🙂
Aoine,
Please read the previous comments in this thread – drinking, driving, smoking, guns, etc. – all the red herrings have already been addressed.
Children eating is not an unsafe, illegal, or immoral activity and it doesn’t endanger the health or welfare of the child or anybody else.
Please consider sending the Children’s Defense Fund a donation.
http://www.childrensdefense.org
Thank you.
Thanks, Dana – I tried to make that clear.
Really? Now it’s IMMORAL to ban kids from restaurants? You mean, like it’s immoral to condone homosexuality? And of course, like it’s immoral to allow women to have abortions?
Once you stoop to the level of arguing morality, you’re stuck with giving credence to others’ morality as well — or is only your morality valid? Now I see why MJ calls you a Left Tea Bagger or whatever. That’s precisely their argument, and it’s yours as well. Congratulations.
Why don’t you check with the Children’s Defense Fund and see if the folks there agree with your absolutism? How pathetic to try to tie this issue to true crimes against children. You apparently can stoop to levels known only to limbo dancers.
And yes, Dana, I realize A1 is making an emotional rather than rational argument, which is why I am ridiculing his insistence on trying to defend his position logically.
Sorry, both of you, but I, and most people, have a limited appetite for moral outrage. I think I’ll save mine for people who actually deserve it. Because if I have to rank where this restaurant owner’s decision belongs on a moral outrage scale, it doesn’t make the top 1 million.
You’re sure spending a lot of time attacking me over this, geezer. Having fun or just nothing better to do?
As I wrote previously, I don’t believe in discrimination against an entire class of people in restaurants or other retail outlets solely because of their age, which was the topic of this thread.
And I don’t care what you think about me.
And you’re spending alot of time claiming to be attacked. You aren’t being wronged here — you are just plain wrong.
Moral outrage over whether a restaurant (one that isn’t Applebees or Chuck E Cheese or TGIF) will seat kids or will even ask the parents of an unruly kid to leave isn’t worth much. If parents care about having their kids in spaces created for adults they would make sure that their kids are able to navigate that.
Otherwise, there *are* always lots of choices.
cassandra_m, you asked the question in your post, “What do you think?”
I answered that I don’t believe in discrimination against an entire class of people in restaurants or other retail outlets solely because of their age. I am also surprised at how many people think age discrimination in restaurants or other retail businesses is perfectly acceptable.
It is amazing to me how controversial a simple position against discrimination is to so many here.
Amazing.
Let’s try to turn this around…
Let’s suppose that diners in a restaurant were getting grossed out by the elderly people that were coming over from an adjacent nursing home. Several of them had lost a significant number of teeth, passed gas with impunity and were always getting their walkers caught on something and falling.
Would it be acceptable to place a ban on diners over 65 at that restaurant?
As for morality v. legality, discrimination at southern lunch counters was wrong long before it was illegal.
this has been taken WAY too far…. mostly by people who one see instance of a business owner deciding that his SPORTS BAR was “no place for children” as a sign we are becoming Nazi Germany…..
Clearly it is becoming more and more unacceptable to have a complicated point of view that might contradict itself.
A1 said it is ok to keep kids out of strip clubs because it is “bad for them” but, is at the same time yelling at other people for making that same determination with a place with less nudity. Hypocrite? of course not. Humans have complicated opinions that often aren’t totally consistent with themselves. Why do we swat mosquitoes but take praying mantises outside? They are both bugs arent they? Banning kids from loud sports bars is only the same as southern lunch counter Jim Crow if you live in absolute land…. a lot of people nowadays seem to. I recommend coming back to real-land…..
“As for morality v. legality, discrimination at southern lunch counters was wrong long before it was illegal.”
Bingo! That has been A1’s point all along.
As for where this issue rates on the moral outrage Richter scale, why must it be cataclysmic to be worthy of attention? For me its offensiveness is emblematic of the many ways that children get the shaft in the USA. As an emblem, the sense of outrage about the issue carries the weight of that association. It’s just another way that children are not recognized as rights-bearing beings.
I still haven’t heard one person explain why it isn’t more morally incumbent for restaurant personnel to ask unruly patrons to leave a restaurant, adult or children, than it is to exclude an entire group of people categorically. That is, I haven’t heard anything beyond some vague & quaint mumblings about property rights. Historically, marshaling “property rights” is too often the last refuge of a bigot.
I get grossed out by the elderly people at restaurants. FInally, someone who understands me. LG, let’s you and me start some kind of petition.
Dana, Kids have it pretty good in this country…. too good even. American kids are spoiled little brats who feel entitled to EVERYTHING. yes, that is the parents fault, but at some point the adults in this country need to realize that the kids will one day be running the show and we need to ask ourselves “do we realy want ANOTHER batch of loud, narcissistic jerks running the show?”
We’re teaching them that things like being able to do whatever they feel like is more important than being courteous and respectful. That their own imediate wants are the most important thing in the world and should be to everyone around them. This rules says “guess what, sometimes things you dont like will happen” a message that enough parents obviously failed to teach that someone else had to do it.
Kids are not some oppressed minority. Kids are less developed mentally than adults and should not be treated like adults. Let me say that again, because bigots constantly say that about whatever group they are being bigoty against….. but in this case it is true. Kids are less mentally developed than adults and that is why they should have liquor, or sex with 40 year olds, or be sentenced to life in prison at the age of 6. So why are special laws that apply to children ok if it “protects them”? THAT is outrageous. If your argument is that we shouldn’t make special rules for kids than lets get rid of all of them!!!! what’s that? that would be a horrible idea?
Almost 1 in 4 children are living below the poverty line in America, and you think “Kids have it pretty good in this country…too good even.”
Yeah, too good, even.
And the rest of your post, “American kids are spoiled little brats…” is just child-hating.
Nice.
the kids who’s parents are bringing them to a high end sports bar are not lving below the proverty line, turd-face.
This isn’t as though the restaurant owner is exercising or catering to bigotry here. Because an owner of said restaurant (or over 55 community or movie theater owner) can certainly try to create an adult-oriented space where grownups can expect a non-daycare like space. Because that is part of what he or she is trying to sell — a place where you can enjoy yourself in some peace.
An owner who says no kids under 6 in the venue is removing his staff from having to be in the business of managing unruly situations. Asking people to leave on a case by case basis is fairer, but does ask your staff for intervention management that some owners won’t want to impose on that staff. I probably wouldn’t.
That isn’t bigotry and nor is it discrimination, and it is a fair bit of sophistry to try to claim that children in this country should somehow have the same privileges as grownups.
If parents care about having their kids in spaces created for adults they would make sure that their kids are able to navigate that.
This comment has been made in multiple forms by multiple people on this thread and I would suggest that the people who would rush right by a parent’s accountability for their kids in order to stand up for their right to disrupt the entire world around them need to get a clue.
no thanks A!- Ihave never cared for their track record on amount of cents on the dollar going to donation VS admin costs
I prefer to keep my charity local – there are plenty of children right here in DE or the US that need our money
and charity begins at home, so to speak
however, I have no misplaced moral ourage at you’re sending your monies anywhere else.
But, I do insist that you address the fact that the Civil Right Act of 1964 does not address age discrimination, as you brought it up
please provide a link showing where this is addressed in the CRA – otherwise your whole premise to the argument that is is discrimintion in public accomodations and therefore an illegal act is a false one.
thank you
“It is amazing to me how controversial a simple position against discrimination is to so many here.”
It is amazing to me how thick-skulled two self-righteous people here are about children not having — or deserving — full civil rights.
I think there should be a separate entrance at Target for children.
I’m surprised I haven’t seen the old saying,
“children should be seen and not heard in here.”
What were the comments over here when the mall implemented their kid policy? Is that different?
Comment by Geezer on 21 July 2011 at 9:05 am:
“It is amazing to me how controversial a simple position against discrimination is to so many here.”
It is amazing to me how thick-skulled two self-righteous people here are about children not having — or deserving — full civil rights.
Aren’t the parents being impacted too?
can you change your name from geezer to dick? you sure have become a more aggressive, condescending name calling commenter.
OHHHHH wait, you should join DL!
Actually, let me take that back. Dana is not being self-righteous. A1 is.
“can you change your name from geezer to dick?”
I wouldn’t want people to get the two of us confused.
Aoine,
I never wrote that the civil rights act applied to age or that age discrimination, other than in certain employment situation, is illegal. Never.
So, A1, let’s get beyond your moral outrage to how you would address this legally. By all means, expound.
And, given your position on the rights of children, where do you stand on the rights of unborn children?
socialistic ben,
Your whole post at 8:18 was about kid-hating. If you had used the exact same language and slang but written about blacks, gays, or some other minority, you’d probably (and rightfully) be banned from DL.
But, apparently, hateful and mean stereotypes and derogatory names are just fine when it comes to children.
cassandra_m, I agree with you that it isn’t about bigotry, but it is undeniably about discrimination.
It isn’t “sophistry” to simply believe that discrimination against an entire class of people in restaurants or other retail outlets solely because of their age is wrong. That is what I believe.
I never said that “children in this country should somehow have the same privileges as grownups.” I don’t think that anybody did.
But you can keep tossing out red-herrings and I’ll just keep tossing them back.
The funny thing about this is that judged by the menu, the place is a dump. I wouldn’t take anyone there. It reminds me of a place really old people with burnt out taste buds go to stuff down Sysco food and swill miller lite. Probably smells like a VFW. I’ll bet the portions are really big!
“You can keep tossing out red-herrings and I’ll just keep tossing them back.”
It’s not a red herring to ask what you would do about this “problem.” You simply can’t answer it. YOu have nothing to say or add except “I think this is discrimination and it’s wrong.” So noted. But who cares?
geezer, I believe that discrimination against an entire class of people in restaurants or other retail outlets solely because of their age is wrong.
You can agree or disagree, but please understand that I don’t care what you think and I don’t care to discuss it with you anymore.
I’ll have the last word(s) on this topic, as I believe the piercing truth of my comment will shock the innocent and misguided into stunned silence.
->No shoes, No Shirt, No Self-Control, No Service.<-
There.
You're welcome!
I asked what we should do about it. “I don’t care to discuss it with you anymore.”
Now I see why you’re so interested in the rights of children: You are one.
Geezer,
You mean to tell me you can’t figure out from the dozens of responses what A1 would do.
It’s akin to the GOP saying that Obama has no “plan”. When the plan is already in place called Social Security and Medicare.
A1 would do nothing. Isn’t that obvious? He wouldn’t not serve kids under 6 b/c he thinks its wrong.
Is it time for your morning nap yet Pappy? Christ-almighty you are as thick-skulled as the people you call thick skulled.
An owner who says no kids under 6 in the venue is removing his staff from having to be in the business of managing unruly situations.
Yes, I think this is actually the crux of the issue. This is the laziness inherent in blanket rules to exclude people from activities. To some extent, our society accepts this as a given. There are certainly 18 year olds that are perfectly capable of having a beer without being an idiot and there are 40 year olds that can’t. Guess which one is acting within the law…
So I get the legal precedent, but this is pure laziness on the part of the management. They don’t want to offend the one or two families that screwed it up by asking them to leave.
There are many bars that have dress codes posted. I have even seen the odd “no leather” rule. If someone comes in wearing something that breaks the code the management send them packing. Same for someone being rowdy. It’s not a new concept.
I didn’t ask what he would do if he owned the restaurant. I asked him, if this is discrimination on the order of racial and sex-orientation discrimination, what legal remedy does he endorse?
The problem here, DV, is that some of us are arguing logically, and others are arguing emotionally.
“Your whole post at 8:18 was about kid-hating. If you had used the exact same language and slang but written about blacks, gays, or some other minority, you’d probably (and rightfully) be banned from DL”
I dont hate kids. i hate that the PC police says we should treat kids as adults. they are not adults. They lack the brain capacity and rationalization skills (because the human brain develops over roughly 36 years) to function in an adult setting. The difference is im also NOT making those comments about ADULTS from any of the buzz words you mentioned.
Saying “kids behave differently” is not some nasty stereotype used ot oppress, but a scientifically proven fact. It isnt their fault…. they will literally gorw out of it, but it shouldn’t be everyone else’s problem.
You are the one oppressing people who have chosen NOT to bring children to a sports bar (a good choice if ya ask me) by forcing them to change THEIR expectations of their evening because kids are around. You wanna talk about age discrimination? Why cant i shit my pants in public and laugh about it without being asked to leave whatever social setting im in? WHy can i grab at every breast i see and just explain that im hungry? If everyone of all ages is totally equal are you in favor of 56th trimester abortions….. since i assume oyu are pro-choice (which is funny considering your crusade for all kids everywhere) What about the death penalty for todlers who murder someone? They are totally equal to adults arent they?
your point is that we should pass laws that discriminate against groups of people and i agree with you…. in MOST cases. People that are born child molesters are discriminated against because it is illegal to molest children? want to be their champion? You like to pick fights and arguments based on philosophical a basis which is fine, but as i constantly try and explain, the world cannot be boiled down to a black and white comparison. there is mostly gray area… like this one…. that you seem to refuse to accept.
but let me sum up my argument to how you will likely read it ” i hate kids, i like killing and hurting kids, and black people” better?
LG, it isnt a wait-person’s job to be a baby sitter. Calling the lazy for not wanting to do mom and dad’s job is pretty unfair. THey chould have well behaved children of their own. The parents should be managing their kids, no one else.
Where did I say babysitter?
My point is that you boot families that are inconsiderate.
yes the guy calling people names is obviously being the rational one Geezer. Well said…
Go have some prune juice and try not to grope any old ladies on their way to the morning session of bingo
I get what you’re saying, LG, but a dress code is pretty specific and clear cut. What constitutes bad behavior? For me it isn’t a child behaving like a child. Children cry, spill their drinks, speak in a louder, clearer voice/pitch, become antsy from sitting too long. These behaviors aren’t my problem, and, if we’re being honest, they aren’t 99% of the commenters on this thread’s problem.
All of us know and have experienced the behavior (by parents) that has led to this debate – and it isn’t a “kids being kids” scenario.
Asking a drunk/loud-mouth to leave a bar isn’t as easy (or safe) as some make it sound. It’s a big deal that requires patience, a level head and the soothing tone and insight of a good therapist so as not to escalate the situation. Asking parents to take their children and leave a restaurant won’t be a walk in the park. It comes very close to disciplining someones child – a big societal no-no.
I’m not sure how to handle this problem, but I do know that it is a problem.
Try reading the entire comments instead of just the insults, DV. Of course, I understand why you dwell on the insults — it’s all you know. I’ll discuss the benefits of rationality someday, but only after you learn how to use it.
“Dana, Kids have it pretty good in this country.” 1/3 of the nation either lives in poverty or near the poverty of level and most of them are children. Schools are–especially these days–are underfunded, and the education of children is treated as a political football by political parties. We incarcerate children at a very high rate in the USA and we are one of a few nations in the world that try children as adults, perhaps the only one among the industrialized nations. I worked in the child welfare system for probably about 30 years, and I have seen firsthand how shabbily parents and guardians can treat their children and it’s all perfectly legal. I could go on, but I suspect you are getting my point. Just ask yourself when was the last time you heard a politician campaign extensively about the needs and rights of children? Almost never in my experience. That’s what it is like to have no rights or political muscle.
Dana: And it’s why having someone cry out about children’s rights over a restaurant’s policy is an insult to both moral and intellectual intelligence.
Nah I’ll pass. I saw what I needed to see. Just like you saw what you wanted. But, keep thinking you are above it, it’s what you do.
It’s actually not that big of a problem. I doubt that the Green Room is having problems with children every night (or even every week).
And while it’s not easy to get a drunk or a loudmouth out of a bar or restaurant, it is one of the things that you sign up for when you become the manager of a bar. And if you sign up to be a manager at a restaurant that has a “well-behaved children” rule, booting families that violate the rule is part of the job. And since they serve beer to golfers, I’m certain that they have to kick the occasional drunk out already.
A ban on a group based on their age alone (not any sort of legal status) is lazy management. And when the guy says stuff like “I’ve decided someone in our society had to dig their heels in on this issue.” He’s already lost my support.
I’m guessing he’s a tea partier.
Yeah, you’ll pass because you can’t argue anything with anyone. You’re just a wannabe rock star who can’t rock.
Your problem is with wealth disparities (i agree) not with poorly behaved children being allowed to run around. I can say without any pause that yes, there are horrible instances in the county of mistreatment of children…. and women and gays and minorities and mentally handicapped, physically handicapped, dogs, cats, laborers…… it goes on…. but some case require exception to the rule…. even the Dahli Lamma kills mosquitoes (he’s said so)
Im going to do something rare in today’s discourse and say i misspoke when i said kids have it great in this country. (shocking)
Children, because of their not-fully-developed maturity can actually be profiled such that one can assume most of them will ….. ACT LIKE CHILDREN…. Keep in mind that many parents today are jerk-offs who blame teachers for bad grades and assume their kid can do no wrong. The owner of the bar wanted to bypass kids running around, then his (probably underpaid) wait staff getting an ear full for saying something.
One of my jobs is in a boutique store where we have multiple items for sale for $500-$5000+. I would LOVE to just ban kids under 6 because, guess what they always seem to want to play with while I’m busy and mommy is somewhere else? This is just as much about banning bad parents as it is banning kids. Im sure everyone here is a great parent with perfect children, but i assure you, you are not in the majority.
I also wonder if his insurance has gone down because little liabilities will no longer be there.
Clearly restaurants need bouncers to deal with their rowdy six year olds. Somebody like Nelson Muntz.
I’m starting to think nobody on this thread actually cares whether children come to restaurants or not. This thread is just an excuse for some overdue venting and mud-wrestling.
I never said that “children in this country should somehow have the same privileges as grownups.” I don’t think that anybody did.
If you are making an argument that somehow restricting a venue to age 6 or above is discrimination, then you are arguing for kids to have the privileges of older people.
A ban on a group based on their age alone (not any sort of legal status) is lazy management.
Or it is a statement of priorities. Running a restaurant is an already tough business. Taking your employees out of the business of tending to other people’s kid problems certainly prioritizes that work that makes the experience once more focused on grownups. Besides, have you ever seen people being asked to leave a restaurant? That is often its own disruption to the room. Why take on a problem that has little effect to your business?
There are many bars that have dress codes posted. I have even seen the odd “no leather” rule. If someone comes in wearing something that breaks the code the management send them packing. Same for someone being rowdy. It’s not a new concept.
So why not being able to post no one under 6 and send them packing? That is the real equivalence to the dress code posting.
LG: It’s not a problem at all. It’s one restaurant.
I wouldn’t be arguing at all if A1 had said, “My opinion is,” and left it at that. Instead he insulted all who disagreed with him, so fuck him. I respond in kind.
The only way this thread could be better would be if someone figured out how to bring gun control into it.
and Israel
Geezer, I wasn’t referring to you, actually. Pandora said “I’m not sure how to handle this problem, but I do know that it is a problem.”
Children aren’t at all like a dress code, they are, in fact, people. And I stand by my assertion that ejecting a diner that is misbehaving in some way that make life miserable for the rest of the restaurant is preferable to a ban.
I’m not sure if Puck thinks that asking a disruptive family to leave is inappropriate, but I think that he would be alone in that belief.
LG, how do you quantify disruptiveness? What types of behavior gets you ejected….. keep in mind, McDains is a sports bar where people yell and shout. Some of the issues in that particular case were parents complaining the atmosphere wasn’t child friendly. If one family’s kids are “being disruptive” one night by the on duty manager’s standards… but the next night a different family isn’t crossing the different manager’s line, who do you handle it when the first family decides to claim discrimination for other reasons?
You’re just a wannabe rock star who can’t rock.
man, I do wish I was a rock star.
Can you at least follow me on twitter @OutsideTMachine ?
“I’m not sure if Puck thinks that asking a disruptive family to leave is inappropriate”
I do think it can be appropriate, but my threshhold is very high. I don’t think it is appropriate to ask a family to leave just because some yuppie has a passive-aggressive hissy fit.
Most disruptions are over quickly – usually as soon as the food is brought. There is no point nursing a burning resentment and asking the manager to kick someone out after it is over. Order a drink and get over it. Don’t be so uptight. It’s part of life.
Don’t be a prima diner.
No, but one can imagine a family that is abdicating it’s parenting responsibilities at a restaurant. That family should be asked to leave.
And your threshold could actually be nullified if there were a sign that notified you that their threshold was not nearly as high as yours…
Children aren’t at all like a dress code, they are, in fact, people.
You’ll notice that I didn’t claim that children = dress code. I compare them as management conditions for being in that venue. Management telling you how to dress or how old you need to be to be served still amount to conditions you have to live with.
And I stand by my assertion that management of said venue can prioritize the work of the people working in his venue. Banning the little ones means that policing family misbehavior isn’t something he wants to deal with. Nothing wrong with that choice, either.
There will be plenty of time to dine without children when we are in the nursing home.
This is where I’m seeing the problem: threshold. There’s a lot of gray area there.
I’m kinda in line with Puck when it comes to my threshold. I’m fine with kids being kids, but I have seen a lot of cases where disruptions aren’t over quickly. When I start thinking, “Would someone please take that poor child outside and calm them down,” or I find myself watching a small child run around a restaurant wincing at every close call then it’s time to ask the family to leave. But that’s my threshold, bet other diners have a lower or higher one. So who decides?
I feel like I am debating this with the cast of Seinfeld.
I feel like I am debating this with the cast of Seinfeld.
I was thinking Spaceballs or perhaps Blazing Saddles
Not to belabor the point but……I had to address this point:
Aoine,
I never wrote that the civil rights act applied to age or that age discrimination, other than in certain employment situation, is illegal. Never.
@anonone – ummm yes you did – see below
posted by Anonone @
“By the way, I am not implying that you support discrimination against gays in the way you do support discrimination against children and teenagers, just trying to clarify that you apparently support the right of businesses to discriminate against any group not covered by the Civil Rights Act.”
AND
“I am surprised that some people can’t recognize that children are human beings and that civil rights laws should apply to them, too. Furthermore, parents of young children should have the civil right not to be discriminated in a public dining place against simply for wanting to have a meal with their children.”
A violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is an illegal act – that is why, in the text of the Act, a violation is reviewed by the AG of the state and/or the US Attorney an the Federal Department of Justice, Office of Civil Rights.
there is apparently a lot you need to learn about Civil Rights