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.

I was just about to make a comment about discrimination and how it is unfair to families with young children, but I thought about it a little bit longer, and I think the real issue is whether the parents of said loud children are using proper discretion. It's one thing to take your children to Chuck-E-Cheese or set up a birthday party at McDonald's, Dairy Queen, Pizza Hut, or any other casual restaurant which bills itself as family friendly, but something else altogether to take a young child to a sit-down restaurant which may not explicitly say it caters to adults but is obvious from the theme, layout, and decor that it is an establishment for mature people. If the restaurant has fancy dinner settings or a bar, it's probably a good idea to live the little kiddies at home.

My issue isn't so much the family with the young children screaming at the top of their lungs. My issue is seeing a group of teenagers coming into a restaurant who suddenly feel the need to converse every other word with an expletive. That's just really aggravating to me and shows such immaturity and lack of class.

Should babies be banned from airplanes?

Fly and cry: Babies divide air travelers

You're stuck in a cramped metal tube with hundreds of strangers for hours, when it invariably happens: A baby starts screaming and the passengers' collective blood pressure seems to rise along with the decibel level.

The issue of crying babies and unruly children on flights is a passionate one for air travelers.

Many say they're exasperated by parents who seem to do little to quiet or control their offspring, while others counter that fliers should be more patient and understanding.

The comment section of a CNN.com story about a smelly passenger being kicked off a flight soon diverted to a heated discussion about children.

"Babies should be banned from planes, movie theatres, restaurants, and any other public place for that matter. The rest of the world doesn't think your kid is as cute as you do," wrote one poster.

"How do you expect families to visit relatives overseas without flying?" countered another. "The onboard entertainment is so good these days and headphones are cheap enough that a crying baby could be blocked out."

Some posters suggested that airlines should seat families with children in one section of the plane or offer flights for adults only.

YouTube even has a selection of videos of passengers reacting to crying babies, from the annoyed to the humorous.

Experts weigh in

The fact is that if you fly on commercial airlines, you will encounter babies and kids, some of whom will make their presence felt -- especially on a long flight.

"For babies, because they don't know how to talk yet, crying is their only way of communicating, and crying can mean a number of things: I'm hungry, I need to be changed, I'm bored, I'm cold, I'm hot," said Dr. Jennifer Shu, a pediatrician in Atlanta, Georgia, and a CNN.com Living Well expert.

There is also the issue of ear pain when pressure changes in the cabin at the beginning and the end of a flight. Babies aren't more prone to it, Shu said, unless they have an ear infection. But while adults and kids can chew gum or swallow to make ears pop, babies will respond by crying if they feel uncomfortable.

Parents should remember that when they take their children on a trip, it's their responsibility to make sure the kids' behavior doesn't adversely affect other people, said Dr. Susan Bartell, a psychologist specializing in parenting issues and author of "The Top 50 Questions Kids Ask."

There's 2 issues at play here;

1. COMMON SENSE

2. FREE ENTERPRISE

People SHOULD have common sense enough to know when and where they can take their small children. I have dined out more than enough times with my 3 kids, but I pick and choose the venue carefully. NO, I would NEVER take a 4 year old to a fancy dining establishment. It's not appropriate. If you want to have a great meal at a great restaurant but have kids GET A BABYSITTER like the REST of us! And if you can't then stay your ass at home or find the nearest Friendly's.

Then there's the simple fact that as an owner of a restaurant I would not want the government telling me what kind of place I should run. If I want to run a dimly-lit, velvet-lined romantic venue with not a kid in sight, I should be able to. If I want to open a bubble-gum castleland joint that serves pink food in candy-coated dinnerware for girls only, I should be able to. To force me to make my establishment kid-friendly is one step away from forcing a burger joint to serve Halal meat.

If "over 6 only" is discrimination...then the posted rules in the McDonalds playground that prohibit kids over the age of 10 is as well.

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.

That's when you go to the manager and get your money back.

uPtoWnNY said:

paintedlady said:

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

That's when you go to the manager and get your money back.

oooh good idea!

uPtoWnNY said:

paintedlady said:

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

That's when you go to the manager and get your money back.

Thank you! Get that chedda back.

alexnvrmnd777 said:

uPtoWnNY said:

That's when you go to the manager and get your money back.

Thank you! Get that chedda back.

Unfortunately, you can't whip the annoying brat and his folks, so do the next best thing. If the theater management doesn't deal with your complaints, damn right get your money back.

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.

With that line of thinking the Girl Scouts have to admit boys? It's not a ban its a restriction. Just like movies that are for 18 & over that's a restriction. Restrictions are imposed to fit what seems appropriate. Do all restaurants have to carry vegetarian food? No, that's the beauty of choice. Do upscale restaurants have to cater to everyone? No.

Plus, the use of the word Ban is done in an inflammatory way in order to insight the public and get readers and viewers to stay tuned. The word should be restriction not banned.

kewlschool 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.

With that line of thinking the Girl Scouts have to admit boys? It's not a ban its a restriction. Just like movies that are for 18 & over that's a restriction. Restrictions are imposed to fit what seems appropriate. Do all restaurants have to carry vegetarian food? No, that's the beauty of choice. Do upscale restaurants have to cater to everyone? No.

Plus, the use of the word Ban is done in an inflammatory way in order to insight the public and get readers and viewers to stay tuned. The word should be restriction not banned.

so really it's just a serving suggestion

I have no problem with this. But...alot of folx keep referencing "fancy" or "upscaled"....the resturant in question is stated as casual dining. Sounds like a place parents would probably think was ok to take their kids to. I think it's a risky move for the establishment but a risk they should be allowed to take.

Hell, I've never been to a real fancy resturant so I sure as hell wouldn't take my 7 and 4 year old. but things aren't as black and white as some folx are making it sound. Comments like asshole parents have shithead kids (or whatever it was) are riduculous. Kids can be shit heads but it doesn't mean they are all the time and it doesn't mean the parents are assholes. sometimes kids are great most of the time but flip out at the worst possible time. It is at those times where the parent needs to make the right decision to leave the establishment. Luckily I've never had that happen to me. I have taken my kids out to eat at places where I've had to tell them to sit still and or be quiet though.

Some one mentioned a chinese food restaurant. Now to me, that is NOT fancy or upscaled and is a place I've taken my kids to. Other places I've taken them too that might be in question: Texas road house, longhorn steak house, TGI Fridays, as well as some local eateries. all of which my kids did fine in, all be it with many reminders to behave themselves.

Shorty said:

I have no problem with this. But...alot of folx keep referencing "fancy" or "upscaled"....the resturant in question is stated as casual dining. Sounds like a place parents would probably think was ok to take their kids to. I think it's a risky move for the establishment but a risk they should be allowed to take.

Hell, I've never been to a real fancy resturant so I sure as hell wouldn't take my 7 and 4 year old. but things aren't as black and white as some folx are making it sound. Comments like asshole parents have shithead kids (or whatever it was) are riduculous. Kids can be shit heads but it doesn't mean they are all the time and it doesn't mean the parents are assholes. sometimes kids are great most of the time but flip out at the worst possible time. It is at those times where the parent needs to make the right decision to leave the establishment. Luckily I've never had that happen to me. I have taken my kids out to eat at places where I've had to tell them to sit still and or be quiet though.

Some one mentioned a chinese food restaurant. Now to me, that is NOT fancy or upscaled and is a place I've taken my kids to. Other places I've taken them too that might be in question: Texas road house, longhorn steak house, TGI Fridays, as well as some local eateries. all of which my kids did fine in, all be it with many reminders to behave themselves.

In the OP the owner called it Upscale and in my reference to "asshole parents" I was talking about a very specific situation where they most certainly were some selfish, assholes more concerned with having a night out on New Year's Eve than with their kid's well-being or the dining experience of others at a $100/plate restuarant (upscale) = asshole parents in my book

[Edited 7/13/11 7:03am]

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.

I was going to suggest that it should be children over 6, THAT'S when they start to act like little shits. Infants and some toddlers aren't that big o' deal.

Funny thing about this thread... my kids enjoyed dining out at the more upscale restaurants we went to since those restaurants were actually more accomidating than the more casual spots.

They were what I would call upscale... more for grown-ups but the atmosphere was great and my kids loved it.

One place (Cafe' Fleuri) had a complete all you can eat chocolate buffet bar complete with a chocolate fountain.... and a string quartet playing in the background for a wonderful experience!!!! Got my kids to appreciate chocloate covered duck

Scampo, Finale's, Red Lantern, Turner and Fisheries, Addis Adda, Locke Ober are all places that one can dress up to and enjoy a good meal, but my kids love these places... but I am in a town that's loaded with sports bars too...so upscale is a relative term.

Heck, even Legal Seafood is family friendly.... and you can easily pay big bucks at any of these places..

Scampo's pork chops cost 60 bucks a plate... but they were great with my kids and they had the best time. The kids were fascinated by the fancy foods presented to them, but it all depends on the kids and what interests them.

Now places like TGI Friday's, Chili's, Olive Garden.... my kids want OUT! They tell me they rather eat at home.

Shorty said:

Comments like asshole parents have shithead kids (or whatever it was) are riduculous.

Oh really....you know asshole parents that have great kids?

I'd say everyone would strongly agree that parents that allow thier kids to act like total shitheads are indeed assholes.

I have a question, because the first line of the article confuses me. Is it usualy that kids in the U.S. eat for free at many restaurants? That would be quite horrible, because it would be the first step towards the problem that country has with obesity.

How the hell would that be discrimination? It's an offer on the part of the restaurant. If you don't like having young children around you while you eat you can go there and be guaranteed that there won't be any children.

If you have children and you want to bring them to a restaurant, choose another one...?! It's the restaurant's loss if they don't make it easy for you to give them their money.

It's the same with smoking in Europe. There is a general law, but in most cases the owner decides whether 100% of his bar is non-smoking or not. One way you'll have more smokers who enjoy that they have a place where there are free to chat, drink and smoke all at once. In the other case you'll have a bar full of people who are happy they are not surrounded by smoke.

The owner makes the rules; if you don't like it, go somewhere else.

Erin, I have to admit I didn't read all of your posts and arguments, but I understand that you do compare this to cases of (sexual) discrimination etc.

I don't think it's that complicated. If someone thinks that gay people are louder and behave unpleasantly in restaurants it's their right to ban them from going there; it doesn't matter that he's basically wrong in thinking that.

You can't make rules without generalisations. Of course, not all children are loud and behave badly and it is indeed usually the parents' fault, but, speaking from my experience, I am usually disrupted by children rather than fellow grown-ups (older people). The problem is you can't put up a sign saying "STUPID PARENTS WITH STUPID CHILDREN NOT ALLOWED" for obvious reasons. So the owner is ready to take a small loss, losing clients who might have well-behaved children who wouldn't disturb the rest of their customers, in order to guarantee that there will be no children at all.

If someone decides not to have children themselves, would that be discriminating against children too? Not at all, because they simply don't want them for some reasons. It's the same with people going to that restaurant or an owner offering a children-free restaurant.

Dave1992 said:

I have a question, because the first line of the article confuses me. Is it usualy that kids in the U.S. eat for free at many restaurants? That would be quite horrible, because it would be the first step towards the problem that country has with obesity.

No, most patrons pay for their kids, but most places serve "kid's meals" which tend to be smaller in poportion and cheaper in cost. Places that do not serve kid's meals... I just buy one entree and divide it between the younger two. The server provides extra dessert dishes.

How the hell would that be discrimination? It's an offer on the part of the restaurant. If you don't like having young children around you while you eat you can go there and be guaranteed that there won't be any children.

If you have children and you want to bring them to a restaurant, choose another one...?! It's the restaurant's loss if they don't make it easy for you to give them their money. <----

AGREED.

It's the same with smoking in Europe. There is a general law, but in most cases the owner decides whether 100% of his bar is non-smoking or not. One way you'll have more smokers who enjoy that they have a place where there are free to chat, drink and smoke all at once. In the other case you'll have a bar full of people who are happy they are not surrounded by smoke.

The owner makes the rules; if you don't like it, go somewhere else.

I would spend my money elsewhere for sure....

paintedlady said:

Dave1992 said:

I have a question, because the first line of the article confuses me. Is it usualy that kids in the U.S. eat for free at many restaurants? That would be quite horrible, because it would be the first step towards the problem that country has with obesity.

No, most patrons pay for their kids, but most places serve "kid's meals" which tend to be smaller in poportion and cheaper in cost. Places that do not serve kid's meals... I just buy one entree and divide it between the younger two. The server provides extra dessert dishes.

How the hell would that be discrimination? It's an offer on the part of the restaurant. If you don't like having young children around you while you eat you can go there and be guaranteed that there won't be any children.

If you have children and you want to bring them to a restaurant, choose another one...?! It's the restaurant's loss if they don't make it easy for you to give them their money. <----

AGREED.

It's the same with smoking in Europe. There is a general law, but in most cases the owner decides whether 100% of his bar is non-smoking or not. One way you'll have more smokers who enjoy that they have a place where there are free to chat, drink and smoke all at once. In the other case you'll have a bar full of people who are happy they are not surrounded by smoke.

The owner makes the rules; if you don't like it, go somewhere else.

I would spend my money elsewhere for sure....

Okay, that's the same as everywhere else, then.

Smart move.

SCNDLS said:

Shorty said:

I have no problem with this. But...alot of folx keep referencing "fancy" or "upscaled"....the resturant in question is stated as casual dining. Sounds like a place parents would probably think was ok to take their kids to. I think it's a risky move for the establishment but a risk they should be allowed to take.

Hell, I've never been to a real fancy resturant so I sure as hell wouldn't take my 7 and 4 year old. but things aren't as black and white as some folx are making it sound. Comments like asshole parents have shithead kids (or whatever it was) are riduculous. Kids can be shit heads but it doesn't mean they are all the time and it doesn't mean the parents are assholes. sometimes kids are great most of the time but flip out at the worst possible time. It is at those times where the parent needs to make the right decision to leave the establishment. Luckily I've never had that happen to me. I have taken my kids out to eat at places where I've had to tell them to sit still and or be quiet though.

Some one mentioned a chinese food restaurant. Now to me, that is NOT fancy or upscaled and is a place I've taken my kids to. Other places I've taken them too that might be in question: Texas road house, longhorn steak house, TGI Fridays, as well as some local eateries. all of which my kids did fine in, all be it with many reminders to behave themselves.

In the OP the owner called it Upscale and in my reference to "asshole parents" I was talking about a very specific situation where they most certainly were some selfish, assholes more concerned with having a night out on New Year's Eve than with their kid's well-being or the dining experience of others at a $100/plate restuarant (upscale) = asshole parents in my book

[Edited 7/13/11 7:03am]

correct...it was stated as casual dining and also upscale casual dining. it appears to be at a golf course...I guess that makes it upscale? going by the picture on the website...it's certainly not fancy or upscale in my book but... and actually I was referring to justerin's comment about asshole parents. Your story of new years eve I completely agree with.

Dave1992 said:

Erin, I have to admit I didn't read all of your posts and arguments.

I would recommend that you read all of my posts then.

JustErin said:

Shorty said:

Comments like asshole parents have shithead kids (or whatever it was) are riduculous.

Oh really....you know asshole parents that have great kids?

I'd say everyone would strongly agree that parents that allow thier kids to act like total shitheads are indeed assholes.

yeah actually...I know a few. Parents are complete assholes but the kids are angels. I think its because they are so used to fending for themselves that they got quite good at it.

besides...you're missing my point.

Dave1992 said:

I have a question, because the first line of the article confuses me. Is it usualy that kids in the U.S. eat for free at many restaurants? That would be quite horrible, because it would be the first step towards the problem that country has with obesity.

How the hell would that be discrimination? It's an offer on the part of the restaurant. If you don't like having young children around you while you eat you can go there and be guaranteed that there won't be any children.

If you have children and you want to bring them to a restaurant, choose another one...?! It's the restaurant's loss if they don't make it easy for you to give them their money.

It's the same with smoking in Europe. There is a general law, but in most cases the owner decides whether 100% of his bar is non-smoking or not. One way you'll have more smokers who enjoy that they have a place where there are free to chat, drink and smoke all at once. In the other case you'll have a bar full of people who are happy they are not surrounded by smoke.

The owner makes the rules; if you don't like it, go somewhere else.

yeah, the kids eat free thing...it's weird cause you'll hear that alot...so I guess, some restaurants do that but I've never personally seen it anywhere.

Shorty said:

JustErin said:

Oh really....you know asshole parents that have great kids?

I'd say everyone would strongly agree that parents that allow thier kids to act like total shitheads are indeed assholes.

yeah actually...I know a few. Parents are complete assholes but the kids are angels. I think its because they are so used to fending for themselves that they got quite good at it.

besides...you're missing my point.

Actually, I think you're not understanding mine...because in this thread we are talking about parents that just let their kids behave like idiots and do nothing to stop it in settings such as a restaurant.

Shorty said:

SCNDLS said:

In the OP the owner called it Upscale and in my reference to "asshole parents" I was talking about a very specific situation where they most certainly were some selfish, assholes more concerned with having a night out on New Year's Eve than with their kid's well-being or the dining experience of others at a $100/plate restuarant (upscale) = asshole parents in my book

[Edited 7/13/11 7:03am]

correct...it was stated as casual dining and also upscale casual dining. it appears to be at a golf course...I guess that makes it upscale? going by the picture on the website...it's certainly not fancy or upscale in my book but... and actually I was referring to justerin's comment about asshole parents. Your story of new years eve I completely agree with.

You looked it up?

Shorty said:

Dave1992 said:

I have a question, because the first line of the article confuses me. Is it usualy that kids in the U.S. eat for free at many restaurants? That would be quite horrible, because it would be the first step towards the problem that country has with obesity.

How the hell would that be discrimination? It's an offer on the part of the restaurant. If you don't like having young children around you while you eat you can go there and be guaranteed that there won't be any children.

If you have children and you want to bring them to a restaurant, choose another one...?! It's the restaurant's loss if they don't make it easy for you to give them their money.

It's the same with smoking in Europe. There is a general law, but in most cases the owner decides whether 100% of his bar is non-smoking or not. One way you'll have more smokers who enjoy that they have a place where there are free to chat, drink and smoke all at once. In the other case you'll have a bar full of people who are happy they are not surrounded by smoke.

The owner makes the rules; if you don't like it, go somewhere else.

yeah, the kids eat free thing...it's weird cause you'll hear that alot...so I guess, some restaurants do that but I've never personally seen it anywhere.

IHOP let's kids under a certain age eat free as weill as some pizza buffet type places. But no "upscale" place does that. IIRC most really nice restaurants don't even offer kids menu items, which in itself I think would discourage most parents from taking their kids there.

JustErin said:

Shorty said:

yeah actually...I know a few. Parents are complete assholes but the kids are angels. I think its because they are so used to fending for themselves that they got quite good at it.

besides...you're missing my point.

Actually, I think you're not understanding mine...because in this thread we are talking about parents that just let their kids behave like idiots and do nothing to stop it in settings such as a restaurant.

no actually...I'm not. I think it's an exaggeration to make a point. I think people like to think someone is "just letting their kids behave like idiots and do nothing to stop it" but it's just not usually that black and white. IMO they are probably doing their best to control the situation with little success. ....like I said, these kids could be great 99% of the time but this one time at this one restaurant they act a fool, it doesn't mean the kids are idiots or the parents are assholes.

if it were me, it would be time to leave the restaurant, but I can also see that as giving in to a tantrum too and maybe sticking it out is worth a try (depending on the level of noise and other factors)

I just don't like labeling parents and kids that way.

SCNDLS said:

Shorty said:

correct...it was stated as casual dining and also upscale casual dining. it appears to be at a golf course...I guess that makes it upscale? going by the picture on the website...it's certainly not fancy or upscale in my book but... and actually I was referring to justerin's comment about asshole parents. Your story of new years eve I completely agree with.

You looked it up?

it's linked right in the OP. the "upscale casual, and quiet" is a link.

Shorty said:

JustErin said:

Actually, I think you're not understanding mine...because in this thread we are talking about parents that just let their kids behave like idiots and do nothing to stop it in settings such as a restaurant.

no actually...I'm not. I think it's an exaggeration to make a point. I think people like to think someone is "just letting their kids behave like idiots and do nothing to stop it" but it's just not usually that black and white. IMO they are probably doing their best to control the situation with little success. ....like I said, these kids could be great 99% of the time but this one time at this one restaurant they act a fool, it doesn't mean the kids are idiots or the parents are assholes.

if it were me, it would be time to leave the restaurant, but I can also see that as giving in to a tantrum too and maybe sticking it out is worth a try (depending on the level of noise and other factors)

I just don't like labeling parents and kids that way.

As a parent I know the difference between a family trying their best to keep a tantrum under control and those that are ignoring kids acting like idiots.

We are not talking about the parents that actually respond to bad behaviour, we are talking about those that do not.

weird, my first response showed up empty.

[Edited 7/13/11 8:24am]

Shorty said:

SCNDLS said:

You looked it up?

it's linked right in the OP. the "upscale casual, and quiet" is a link.

Oh, I didn't even open it.