just1lousydime said:

If you can't keep your children quiet, they shouldn't be there.

There are quiet children under 6 (I was one of them, voluntarily AND by force) just like there are loud adults.

If noise is the problem, there should be a volume limit. Just because a child is in public doesn't mean that they'll act up.

I wonder if some of the parents complaining about this rule have loud children. I'm sure there are other places to eat.

Volume limit? What on earth would that limit be, and how would it be determined? I'm all for this under-6 ban.

Like SCNDLS said, everywhere ain't for everybody, and there are PLENTY of alternate establishments around, so it's not like the families with kids under 6 would have nowhere to go. Nobody like a loud, whining kid, and at least if an adult gets that way at the bar, they can be properly dealt with (which, by the sound of things, doesn't happen as often as loud children).

SUPRMAN said:

Movies are what really bother me.

I go to an R rated movie after 9 pm and I still have to put up with crying children and infants?!!!

That's why I only patronise adult theatres.

[Edited 7/12/11 18:02pm]

The real problem is that most parents get so desensitized that they take juniors antics as everyday normal behaviour. N thats not just in restaurants, thats everywhere.

[Edited 7/12/11 18:04pm]

alexnvrmnd777 said:

just1lousydime said:

If you can't keep your children quiet, they shouldn't be there.

There are quiet children under 6 (I was one of them, voluntarily AND by force) just like there are loud adults.

If noise is the problem, there should be a volume limit. Just because a child is in public doesn't mean that they'll act up.

I wonder if some of the parents complaining about this rule have loud children. I'm sure there are other places to eat.

Volume limit? What on earth would that limit be, and how would it be determined? I'm all for this under-6 ban.

Like SCNDLS said, everywhere ain't for everybody, and there are PLENTY of alternate establishments around, so it's not like the families with kids under 6 would have nowhere to go. Nobody like a loud, whining kid, and at least if an adult gets that way at the bar, they can be properly dealt with (which, by the sound of things, doesn't happen as often as loud children).

And other adults getting boisterous and loud while having a good time at a BAR ain't the same as some kid wailing while you trynna enjoy your meal and your company.

SCNDLS said:

alexnvrmnd777 said:

Volume limit? What on earth would that limit be, and how would it be determined? I'm all for this under-6 ban.

Like SCNDLS said, everywhere ain't for everybody, and there are PLENTY of alternate establishments around, so it's not like the families with kids under 6 would have nowhere to go. Nobody like a loud, whining kid, and at least if an adult gets that way at the bar, they can be properly dealt with (which, by the sound of things, doesn't happen as often as loud children).

And other adults getting boisterous and loud while having a good time at a BAR ain't the same as some kid wailing while you trynna enjoy your meal and your company.

Right!

lazycrockett said:

The real problem is that most parents get so desensitized that they take juniors antics as everyday normal behaviour.

Of course that's the problem....it's asshole adults that create shithead kids.

Timmy84 said:

SCNDLS said:

And other adults getting boisterous and loud while having a good time at a BAR ain't the same as some kid wailing while you trynna enjoy your meal and your company.

Right!

Shooot! I've met more people at a bar cuz they were showing out being loud than I can remember. That's part of the fun.

JustErin said:

JerseyKRS said:

because of the ones that are a pain in the ass to others, most of them are probably six and under.

The problem isn't that they don't want pains in the asses at their establishments. I mean, no one wants that - I get that 100%. It's that they want to discriminate against a whole group. Could you imagine them trying to get support for a ban on mentally disabled people? We all know that they can also be very disruptive as well. Actually, we all know that "pains in the asses" can be any age.

My point is, it's messed to fight against discrimination of some but then think it's ok when it descriminates others.

Either leave it as a case by case kick out for disruptive behaviour situation or if you really don't want kids there, make it an adults only establishment.

And there is no way that this situation is comparable to Chuck-E-Cheese. They may cater to kids but they don't flat out BAN anyone.

Are you advocating that if they are an eating establisment they should allow all ages?

Btw, we all are guilty of discrimination, it's a matter of preferences.

SCNDLS said:

Timmy84 said:

Right!

Shooot! I've met more people at a bar cuz they were showing out being loud than I can remember. That's part of the fun.

True.

JustErin said:

SUPRMAN said:

Yes it's discriminatory but what's the alternative?

All children are not taught manners, respect or how to conduct themselves civilly in public.

But I am supposed to tolerate someone else's ignorant, no home training children's conduct at an upscale restaurant?

Do you really think children deserve equal treatment? So why make the ban 18 and under?

There should be no bans if you favor equal treatment and feel its discriminatory.

Why do adults with children subject others to their infant children?

Of course you're not suppose to tolerate someone elses' bad behaviour...but that's no different that you trying to eat and some adult asshole disrupts you.

I don't believe that making up your own rules to discriminate against one group is appropriate. There are laws for adult establishments and laws for those that are not. Stick to those laws and don't start making your own.

What they hell does that last question even mean? Parents should not let their infant children be seen by others in public at all?

Please.

Kids can be annoying as all fuck...I totally agree. But not all of them. I don't understand why this can't be a case by case situation...just like with any other group.

The restaurant is not making their own law. As a private establishment they do have the right under the law to choose whom they wish to serve.

The last question does not mean that parents should not let their infant children be seen in public, but there should be some consideration of the public that child is being placed among.

Does anyone in a theatre enjoy a screaming three year old running up and down the aisle?

A case by case situation is too unwieldly and leads to poor public relations. How do you draw the line? What if one is escorted out but another allowed to remain?

Is the number of complaining patrons what does it?

Suddenly we've switched to a "bar" situation? Kids aren't in bars period.

I thought this was about upscale restaurants and being disruptive there. Most people don't want to go eat a nice place and have obnoxious people hootin' and hollerin'.

Listen, I don't want to eat somewhere nice with loud shit going on, period. Just like I wouldn't bring a baby into that situation to possibly disrupt others. I just don't understand selective discrimination.

ZombieKitten said:

I definitely think there should be restaurants that are adults only. It should be a USP. If you don't like it, fuck off!

SUPRMAN said:

JustErin said:

Of course you're not suppose to tolerate someone elses' bad behaviour...but that's no different that you trying to eat and some adult asshole disrupts you.

I don't believe that making up your own rules to discriminate against one group is appropriate. There are laws for adult establishments and laws for those that are not. Stick to those laws and don't start making your own.

What they hell does that last question even mean? Parents should not let their infant children be seen by others in public at all?

Please.

Kids can be annoying as all fuck...I totally agree. But not all of them. I don't understand why this can't be a case by case situation...just like with any other group.

The restaurant is not making their own law. As a private establishment they do have the right under the law to choose whom they wish to serve.

The last question does not mean that parents should not let their infant children be seen in public, but there should be some consideration of the public that child is being placed among.

Does anyone in a theatre enjoy a screaming three year old running up and down the aisle?

A case by case situation is too unwieldly and leads to poor public relations. How do you draw the line? What if one is escorted out but another allowed to remain?

Is the number of complaining patrons what does it?

So as a private establishment they have the "right" to ban gay patrons? How about non-white customers? You'd support those bans as well?

Why do you keep asking if people enjoy obnoxious kids? Of course they don't!

How do you draw the line? I'm pretty sure you can come up with something that would work....just as I'm sure they do when it comes to unruly adults.

JustErin said:

Suddenly we've switched to a "bar" situation? Kids aren't in bars period.

I thought this was about upscale restaurants and being disruptive there. Most people don't want to go eat a nice place and have obnoxious people hootin' and hollerin'.

Listen, I don't want to eat somewhere nice with loud shit going on, period. Just like I wouldn't bring a baby into that situation to possibly disrupt others. I just don't understand selective discrimination.

Even in a restaurant though, adults have more environmental awareness than children.

Adults in an upscale restaurant usually don't carry on like they're at a bar, they leave the restaurant and go to a bar.

If I've getting loud at a restaurant, someone I'm with or the body language of other patrons can cue me into that and I can adjust accordingly. Do you think children moderate themselves? No, parents do that- or not.

You don't selectively discriminate? Of course you do. It may not be conscious discrimination against people but my guess is you do. We all do.

JustErin said:

Suddenly we've switched to a "bar" situation? Kids aren't in bars period.

I thought this was about upscale restaurants and being disruptive there. Most people don't want to go eat a nice place and have obnoxious people hootin' and hollerin'.

Listen, I don't want to eat somewhere nice with loud shit going on, period. Just like I wouldn't bring a baby into that situation to possibly disrupt others. I just don't understand selective discrimination.

No, but there are bars in practically every restaurant now, so that's what I think people are referring to.

SUPRMAN said:

JustErin said:

The problem isn't that they don't want pains in the asses at their establishments. I mean, no one wants that - I get that 100%. It's that they want to discriminate against a whole group. Could you imagine them trying to get support for a ban on mentally disabled people? We all know that they can also be very disruptive as well. Actually, we all know that "pains in the asses" can be any age.

My point is, it's messed to fight against discrimination of some but then think it's ok when it descriminates others.

Either leave it as a case by case kick out for disruptive behaviour situation or if you really don't want kids there, make it an adults only establishment.

And there is no way that this situation is comparable to Chuck-E-Cheese. They may cater to kids but they don't flat out BAN anyone.

Are you advocating that if they are an eating establisment they should allow all ages?

Btw, we all are guilty of discrimination, it's a matter of preferences.

No, I am saying you either make it adults only or not. I don't think it's appropriate to make up your own ban.

Hell I thought some restaurants were doing this anyway, so this is news because?

SUPRMAN said:

JustErin said:

Suddenly we've switched to a "bar" situation? Kids aren't in bars period.

I thought this was about upscale restaurants and being disruptive there. Most people don't want to go eat a nice place and have obnoxious people hootin' and hollerin'.

Listen, I don't want to eat somewhere nice with loud shit going on, period. Just like I wouldn't bring a baby into that situation to possibly disrupt others. I just don't understand selective discrimination.

Even in a restaurant though, adults have more environmental awareness than children.

Adults in an upscale restaurant usually don't carry on like they're at a bar, they leave the restaurant and go to a bar.

If I've getting loud at a restaurant, someone I'm with or the body language of other patrons can cue me into that and I can adjust accordingly. Do you think children moderate themselves? No, parents do that- or not.

You don't selectively discriminate? Of course you do. It may not be conscious discrimination against people but my guess is you do. We all do.

Really? I selectively discriminate?

Timmy84 said:

Hell I thought some restaurants were doing this anyway, so this is news because?

I don't think a lot of upscale joints publically post age minimums. I don't think I've seen that.

JustErin said:

SUPRMAN said:

The restaurant is not making their own law. As a private establishment they do have the right under the law to choose whom they wish to serve.

The last question does not mean that parents should not let their infant children be seen in public, but there should be some consideration of the public that child is being placed among.

Does anyone in a theatre enjoy a screaming three year old running up and down the aisle?

A case by case situation is too unwieldly and leads to poor public relations. How do you draw the line? What if one is escorted out but another allowed to remain?

Is the number of complaining patrons what does it?

So as a private establishment they have the "right" to ban gay patrons? How about non-white customers? You'd support those bans as well?

Why do you keep asking if people enjoy obnoxious kids? Of course they don't!

How do you draw the line? I'm pretty sure you can come up with something that would work....just as I'm sure they do when it comes to unruly adults.

Unruly adults are arrested. There's an idea . . . . .

Private establishments do have the 'right' to ban gay patrons, or non-white customers or anyone else as long as they do not hold themselves as open to the general public.

The KKK can operate a members only restaurant that only serves Anglo-Saxon whites. I'd have problem with it.

I can't imagine I'd enjoy eating there . . . . .

This restaurant is merely saying we are open to serving the public excluding children six and under. Since children six and under very, very rarely dine in public without adults, it affects adults with children six years and younger.

SCNDLS said:

ZombieKitten said:

I definitely think there should be restaurants that are adults only. It should be a USP. If you don't like it, fuck off!

I don't think there is anything wrong with marketing your restaurant as uniquely adults only, just as marketing your restaurant to families is acceptable, and marketing your resort as gay, or your beach as nude. Why would you go to these things if you don't want to conform? If you are clever in your approach, a ban wouldn't even be necessary. A BAN like all things negative is bad marketing, IMO.

I DO think it's unfair if patrons don't realise that children are discouraged, or it's not clear what the premise of the venue is and then be asked to leave, which is upsetting and humiliating.

I'd prefer parents take the initiative and make this kind of thing unnecessary.

I know there are age limits in some places, but if it's not a bar, strip club, or casino, then opening the doors to discrimination on the basis of "it bothers others" is not going to go down so easy

JustErin said:

SUPRMAN said:

Are you advocating that if they are an eating establisment they should allow all ages?

Btw, we all are guilty of discrimination, it's a matter of preferences.

No, I am saying you either make it adults only or not. I don't think it's appropriate to make up your own ban.

The law allows them to make their own ban and it doesn't have to be simply adults only or everyone.

It's the proprietor's business and as long as it is being operated in a safe manner, who that business person chooses to cater to is their business and their choice.

No one insists that Home Depot also carry groceries because the same people that shop there also eat. Home Depot gets to choose not to carry groceries. If people shopping at Home Depot want groceries, fine and good, just go elsewhere to get them.

ZombieKitten said:

SCNDLS said:

I don't think there is anything wrong with marketing your restaurant as uniquely adults only, just as marketing your restaurant to families is acceptable, and marketing your resort as gay, or your beach as nude. Why would you go to these things if you don't want to conform? If you are clever in your approach, a ban wouldn't even be necessary. A BAN like all things negative is bad marketing, IMO.

I DO think it's unfair if patrons don't realise that children are discouraged, or it's not clear what the premise of the venue is and then be asked to leave, which is upsetting and humiliating.

It seems like this restaurant is making an effort NOT to exclude all children by placing an age minimum, which sounds more accurate to me than a "ban" while still welcoming families with older children. And in this case they've made an effort to notify the public of this rule but i'm sure you'll still have folks show up who didn't know. But eventually word will get around and that should be minimized.

JustErin said:

SUPRMAN said:

Even in a restaurant though, adults have more environmental awareness than children.

Adults in an upscale restaurant usually don't carry on like they're at a bar, they leave the restaurant and go to a bar.

If I've getting loud at a restaurant, someone I'm with or the body language of other patrons can cue me into that and I can adjust accordingly. Do you think children moderate themselves? No, parents do that- or not.

You don't selectively discriminate? Of course you do. It may not be conscious discrimination against people but my guess is you do. We all do.

Really? I selectively discriminate?

Yes.

I don't that you discriminate against people but when you get dressed in the morning it's very discriminatory. You don't put on your entire wardrobe everyday so something doesn't get worn. By choice.

Where you work is discriminatory as you could be working somewhere else, but yet you made a choice to work one place and not others.

What you ate for lunch was discriminatory but I don't see McDonald's suing people for bringing their lunch to work rather than eating at McDonalds.

Discrimination, by definition, doesn't apply to just people.

SUPRMAN said:

JustErin said:

So as a private establishment they have the "right" to ban gay patrons? How about non-white customers? You'd support those bans as well?

Why do you keep asking if people enjoy obnoxious kids? Of course they don't!

How do you draw the line? I'm pretty sure you can come up with something that would work....just as I'm sure they do when it comes to unruly adults.

Unruly adults are arrested. There's an idea . . . . .

Private establishments do have the 'right' to ban gay patrons, or non-white customers or anyone else as long as they do not hold themselves as open to the general public.

The KKK can operate a members only restaurant that only serves Anglo-Saxon whites. I'd have problem with it.

I can't imagine I'd enjoy eating there . . . . .

This restaurant is merely saying we are open to serving the public excluding children six and under. Since children six and under very, very rarely dine in public without adults, it affects adults with children six years and younger.

I understand fully what the restaurant is saying.

I'm merely saying that I don't agree with it and I that don't understand how some people can be upset about one group of people being discriminated against and then be totally fine with another group being discriminated against.

I also am saying that I fully support adult only restaurants but not some personal ban against a specific group that some restaurant owner came up with.

JustErin said:

SUPRMAN said:

Even in a restaurant though, adults have more environmental awareness than children.

Adults in an upscale restaurant usually don't carry on like they're at a bar, they leave the restaurant and go to a bar.

If I've getting loud at a restaurant, someone I'm with or the body language of other patrons can cue me into that and I can adjust accordingly. Do you think children moderate themselves? No, parents do that- or not.

You don't selectively discriminate? Of course you do. It may not be conscious discrimination against people but my guess is you do. We all do.

Really? I selectively discriminate?

That mouth is just tooooooo distracting . . . . .

SUPRMAN said:

JustErin said:

Really? I selectively discriminate?

Yes.

I don't that you discriminate against people but when you get dressed in the morning it's very discriminatory. You don't put on your entire wardrobe everyday so something doesn't get worn. By choice.

Where you work is discriminatory as you could be working somewhere else, but yet you made a choice to work one place and not others.

What you ate for lunch was discriminatory but I don't see McDonald's suing people for bringing their lunch to work rather than eating at McDonalds.

Discrimination, by definition, doesn't apply to just people.

Good lord.

anything that stigmatizes parents and encourages population control is a winner in my book.

whistle said:

anything that stigmatizes parents and encourages population control is a winner in my book.