SUPRMAN said:

JustErin said:

Really? I selectively discriminate?

That mouth is just tooooooo distracting . . . . .

You discriminate against the almighty vadge!!

whistle said:

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

JustErin said:

SUPRMAN said:

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.

I understand you.

I just think what the owner is doing is allowable. I don't see it as illegal, immoral or unethical.

NDRU said:

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

I know, but some people are a bit stupid and won't take a hint

there are also some people out to make a POINT, at the expense of fellow diners.

These are the people that get laws changed and whatnot I suppose "the complainers", the squeaky wheels who get the oil - we need them, but not when we are having a nice romantic night out

JustErin said:

SUPRMAN said:

That mouth is just tooooooo distracting . . . . .

You discriminate against the almighty vadge!!

Yes I do but only because of men.

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.

I'm not sure that the choices an individual makes are the same as businesses (or governments for that matter) instituting policies of discrimination against entire groups of people

SCNDLS said:

ZombieKitten 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.

yes

but really why bother with an age limit my 6 year old is an angel, whilst my 9 year old screams if there is onion in his dinner I refuse to take them even to SUBWAY, it's always such a traumatic experience for everyone.

SUPRMAN said:

JustErin said:

You discriminate against the almighty vadge!!

Yes I do but only because of men.

Actually, so do I. I guess you were right! I do discriminate!

Only because of men too.

NDRU said:

SUPRMAN said:

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.

I'm not sure that the choices an individual makes are the same as businesses (or governments for that matter) instituting policies of discrimination against entire groups of people

They aren't but it's still discrimination.

The word doesn't just apply to groups of people.

ZombieKitten said:

SCNDLS said:

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.

yes

but really why bother with an age limit my 6 year old is an angel, whilst my 9 year old screams if there is onion in his dinner I refuse to take them even to SUBWAY, it's always such a traumatic experience for everyone.

Haha!

ZombieKitten said:

SCNDLS said:

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.

yes

but really why bother with an age limit my 6 year old is an angel, whilst my 9 year old screams if there is onion in his dinner I refuse to take them even to SUBWAY, it's always such a traumatic experience for everyone.

God bless you, sweet woman. people like you make the world a better place.

ZombieKitten said:

SCNDLS said:

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.

yes

but really why bother with an age limit my 6 year old is an angel, whilst my 9 year old screams if there is onion in his dinner I refuse to take them even to SUBWAY, it's always such a traumatic experience for everyone.

Agreed I thought the 7 year old minimum was WAY too low. I'd say at least 12.

SCNDLS said:

ZombieKitten said:

yes

but really why bother with an age limit my 6 year old is an angel, whilst my 9 year old screams if there is onion in his dinner I refuse to take them even to SUBWAY, it's always such a traumatic experience for everyone.

Agreed I thought the 7 year old minimum was WAY too low. I'd say at least 12.

hell, make it 30

JustErin said:

ZombieKitten said:

yes

but really why bother with an age limit my 6 year old is an angel, whilst my 9 year old screams if there is onion in his dinner I refuse to take them even to SUBWAY, it's always such a traumatic experience for everyone.

Haha!

it's a real pain in the ass having a challenging child. He is also tall enough for rides at theme parks, but that does not mean it's a good idea taking him on one, as I have found out the hard way

ZombieKitten said:

SCNDLS said:

Agreed I thought the 7 year old minimum was WAY too low. I'd say at least 12.

hell, make it 30

I personally think kids in strollers should be banned from all amusement parks. Just like they have height limits to ride the rides amusement parks should institute a rule that if you can't walk your lil ass around on your own two feet you can't enter.

SCNDLS said:

ZombieKitten said:

hell, make it 30

I personally think kids in strollers should be banned from all amusement parks. Just like they have height limits to ride the rides amusement parks should institute a rule that if you can't walk your lil ass around on your own two feet you can't enter.

I always laughed at that. Like why take them to amusement parks knowing they can't ride on the rides.

SCNDLS said:

ZombieKitten said:

hell, make it 30

I personally think kids in strollers should be banned from all amusement parks. Just like they have height limits to ride the rides amusement parks should institute a rule that if you can't walk your lil ass around on your own two feet you can't enter.

omg yes!! They should also be banned from ordering cappucinos at cafes

Timmy84 said:

SCNDLS said:

I personally think kids in strollers should be banned from all amusement parks. Just like they have height limits to ride the rides amusement parks should institute a rule that if you can't walk your lil ass around on your own two feet you can't enter.

I always laughed at that. Like why take them to amusement parks knowing they can't ride on the rides.

Worse than that, is constantly having your feet run over by gatdamn strollers, plus they're too young to appreciate a place like DisneyWorld. It's a fucking waste IMO.

SCNDLS said:

Timmy84 said:

I always laughed at that. Like why take them to amusement parks knowing they can't ride on the rides.

Worse than that, is constantly having your feet run over by gatdamn strollers, plus they're too young to appreciate a place like DisneyWorld. It's a fucking waste IMO.

Exactly.

ZombieKitten said:

JustErin said:

Haha!

it's a real pain in the ass having a challenging child. He is also tall enough for rides at theme parks, but that does not mean it's a good idea taking him on one, as I have found out the hard way

Well, to be fair...you have 3. 1 outta 3 isn't so bad.

My son is 5 but can easily pass for an 8 year old, physically and intellectually. But he's still emotionally 5 years old so we don't go to a LOT of places. Not because he will be bad, I'm super lucky that he's a good kid (so far). It's because places like that are boring as all hell for them and I just don't think that's fair.

I don't even take him shopping. How boring is that for a kid?

JustErin said:

ZombieKitten said:

it's a real pain in the ass having a challenging child. He is also tall enough for rides at theme parks, but that does not mean it's a good idea taking him on one, as I have found out the hard way

Well, to be fair...you have 3. 1 outta 3 isn't so bad.

My son is 5 but can easily pass for an 8 year old, physically and intellectually. But he's still emotionally 5 years old so we don't go to a LOT of places. Not because he will be bad, I'm super lucky that he's a good kid (so far). It's because places like that are boring as all hell for them and I just don't think that's fair.

I don't even take him shopping. How boring is that for a kid?

exactly!!

Sitting still in a restaurant for 30 minutes waiting for food and being quiet is BORING BORING BORING!!!

yeah, the other 2 are good at being sensible, but when the 3 are together it's pointless, I'd spend the whole time telling them to be quiet and sit still. I'd rather get take-out and invite our friends to our place and put the kids in front of the wii to have a dance contest

ZombieKitten said:

JustErin said:

Well, to be fair...you have 3. 1 outta 3 isn't so bad.

My son is 5 but can easily pass for an 8 year old, physically and intellectually. But he's still emotionally 5 years old so we don't go to a LOT of places. Not because he will be bad, I'm super lucky that he's a good kid (so far). It's because places like that are boring as all hell for them and I just don't think that's fair.

I don't even take him shopping. How boring is that for a kid?

exactly!!

Sitting still in a restaurant for 30 minutes waiting for food and being quiet is BORING BORING BORING!!!

yeah, the other 2 are good at being sensible, but when the 3 are together it's pointless, I'd spend the whole time telling them to be quiet and sit still. I'd rather get take-out and invite our friends to our place and put the kids in front of the wii to have a dance contest

This is when a DSi with headphones is my best friend. Works every time.

SUPRMAN said:

paintedlady said:

I always only take my kids to family oriented places where they are free to be themselves. I don't do the fancy joints unless its a special occasion and the kids are TRAINED NOT TO ACT OUT.

See, kids will be kids, so why torture a kid at some fancy place? Wait til they are old enough to eat an entire meal pleasantly.

that being said....

if I were a mom in that area, they would NEVER see my money! I'd rather eat at home than support an ass that didn't service all the needs of its community.

Is anyone in business to service all the needs of the community?

Even government doesn't.

You admit that kids will be kids, so why punish the business for trying to create an enhanced dining experience?

Any restaurant should be in the business to service the needs of the commnuity it is in. The owner should cater towards demographics of its location.

So it would be unfair and plain dumb for an owner of any establishment to make an adult only spot close to a school zone or an area that is heavy with families with young children.

Now to make an upscale spot in a trendy area of town would be ideal... but take that same isea and plant an upscale restaurant in a bad crime ridden neighborhood and what do you get?

So I stand firm on the belief if adults have a choice they will choose a place that the kids would be welcomed.... unless they are like my sister.

businesses are in the business of making money, first and foremost, not servicing the needs of the community. that's just an economic fact.

that's nice when they do, and should be encouraged, but don't mistake that for something they should be doing.

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 the truth. It's why I rarely go to movies anymore - because of the dumbass parents with their brats, and the fucktards who talk during the film. Movie prices in NYC are no joke - why pay to be aggravated? I've seen parents bring babies to the theater - unreal.

JerseyKRS said:

businesses are in the business of making money, first and foremost, not servicing the needs of the community. that's just an economic fact.

that's nice when they do, and should be encouraged, but don't mistake that for something they should be doing.

I disagree.... because you make money by meeting a need... supply and demand. If there is no demand for a specific need (or idea) you are trying to sell then your business fails.... that's actually the first rule of business.

this is why most restaurants FAIL... some owner thinks of what may sell, but people eat... people in the community eat. So why put a cowboy bar in the hood? Why put an upscale joint in a place where familes want to eat? Why put a Chucky Cheese in an upscale trendy area of town?

The restaurant has to service the need of its community first in order to sell food... heck the food doesn't even have to be great for the business to make big $$$... McDonalds is a perfect example of that... or any Chinese food joint in any hood.

JustErin said:

ZombieKitten said:

exactly!!

Sitting still in a restaurant for 30 minutes waiting for food and being quiet is BORING BORING BORING!!!

yeah, the other 2 are good at being sensible, but when the 3 are together it's pointless, I'd spend the whole time telling them to be quiet and sit still. I'd rather get take-out and invite our friends to our place and put the kids in front of the wii to have a dance contest

This is when a DSi with headphones is my best friend. Works every time.

True! We have to make do with 2 iPhones, the kids chose to save up for a Wii last year instead of a DS

uPtoWnNY said:

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 the truth. It's why I rarely go to movies anymore - because of the dumbass parents with their brats, and the fucktards who talk during the film. Movie prices in NYC are no joke - why pay to be aggravated? I've seen parents bring babies to the theater - unreal.

there was a 5 year old in the theatre behind me watching Transformers the other night. The kid was obviously bored during the talking bits and was asking his mum question after question about other unrelated stuff

ZombieKitten said:

uPtoWnNY said:

That's the truth. It's why I rarely go to movies anymore - because of the dumbass parents with their brats, and the fucktards who talk during the film. Movie prices in NYC are no joke - why pay to be aggravated? I've seen parents bring babies to the theater - unreal.

there was a 5 year old in the theatre behind me watching Transformers the other night. The kid was obviously bored during the talking bits and was asking his mum question after question about other unrelated stuff

I don't know what's worse... ^^^^ that or some kid bumping the back of my chair because the kid can not keep still.

paintedlady said:

ZombieKitten said:

there was a 5 year old in the theatre behind me watching Transformers the other night. The kid was obviously bored during the talking bits and was asking his mum question after question about other unrelated stuff

I don't know what's worse... ^^^^ that or some kid bumping the back of my chair because the kid can not keep still.

he was doing that too