JustErin said:

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.

actually....there was no discussion about responding and or ignoring bad behavior...

JustErin said:

Shorty said:

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]

ok well...that is like the extreme minority.

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.

Okay, yeah, you're right that joint is definitely not what I'd call upscale not even for a golf clubhouse. Here's the place where I went for NYE and had the experience with the screaming kid. I also had my bday in this private room last year. This is upscale to me.

http://www.baileysprimepl...m%204.html

http://www.baileysprimepl...m%202.html

http://www.baileysprimepl...h/bar.html

SCNDLS said:

Should babies be banned from airplanes?



Yes, yes, yes!!! I have been saying for years there should be "kid-free" flights or airlines. I'm in total agreement with the restaurant owner as well. Dining next to a screaming brat is not fun but at least the meal is over in an hour or so. During a flight you are trapped with no escape from them. I actually think all of Manhattan should be a child free zone (there are four other boroughs for them), but I supposed that's a bit unrealisitc.

I am going to visit my family in a few months and told my mother that I would only go out to dinner with my brother, s-i-l, 8-year old niece, and 7-year old nephew if the kids could behave themselves (and I wasn't going to the Olive Garden). I am going to be aggravated enough just being in Iowa that I am not trying to put up with my bratty niece & nephew running around while I am trying to dine.

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.

I dont know about Canada, but most establishments in the states have signs that say "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone"...

I dont think its discriminating, and I have kids... I dont want to go out somewhere on a date night with my hubby to get away from kids to be alone and have grown up time only to have to listen to someone elses kids act the fool...

I LOVE my kids but if I wanna go out with them, I take them to kid friendly places, when I wanna want grown up time, i prefer places that wouldnt allow children under 6...

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.

I will go OFF on a kid for that Have done it on an airplane... that just irks me so bad!

tinaz 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.

I dont know about Canada, but most establishments in the states have signs that say "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone"...

I dont think its discriminating, and I have kids... I dont want to go out somewhere on a date night with my hubby to get away from kids to be alone and have grown up time only to have to listen to someone elses kids act the fool...

I LOVE my kids but if I wanna go out with them, I take them to kid friendly places, when I wanna want grown up time, i prefer places that wouldnt allow children under 6...

So when they refuse to serve black families, they are well within their right to do so and everyone will be cool with that....because you know...it's not discrimination.

Support it or not...I really don't care what this guy does or who supports his decision...but at least call it what it really is....discrimination. Specific discrimination that you're ok with.

Machaela said:

JerseyKRS said:

I don't see anything wrong with a private business owner doing this with his business. Not everyone likes children. Some people choose to not have them cause they don't like them. Having a place to eat without kids crying and being brats is fine by me.

I'm not saying everywhere should be like that. Just that there should be alternatives that do offer it.

Exactly

I love kids ...

BUT I also LOVE times/places without them as well

^ kudos to the restaurant owner for being responsive to complaints

JustErin said:

tinaz said:

I dont know about Canada, but most establishments in the states have signs that say "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone"...

I dont think its discriminating, and I have kids... I dont want to go out somewhere on a date night with my hubby to get away from kids to be alone and have grown up time only to have to listen to someone elses kids act the fool...

I LOVE my kids but if I wanna go out with them, I take them to kid friendly places, when I wanna want grown up time, i prefer places that wouldnt allow children under 6...

So when they refuse to serve black families, they are well within their right to do so and everyone will be cool with that....because you know...it's not discrimination.

Support it or not...I really don't care what this guy does or who supports his decision...but at least call it what it really is....discrimination. Specific discrimination that you're ok with.

Why does it have to go that far?

It's not "discrimination" as much as it is a restriction.

Do you then agree with allowing 10 year olds into titty bars?

Do you then agree with allowing teenagers into Gymborees?

Do you then agree with allowing men into ladies lockerooms?

There are all sorts of restrictions that don't necessarily equal RACE discrimination.

Apples and oranges Erin, apples & oranges.

PurpleJedi said:

JustErin said:

So when they refuse to serve black families, they are well within their right to do so and everyone will be cool with that....because you know...it's not discrimination.

Support it or not...I really don't care what this guy does or who supports his decision...but at least call it what it really is....discrimination. Specific discrimination that you're ok with.

Why does it have to go that far?

It's not "discrimination" as much as it is a restriction.

Do you then agree with allowing 10 year olds into titty bars?

Do you then agree with allowing teenagers into Gymborees?

Do you then agree with allowing men into ladies lockerooms?

There are all sorts of restrictions that don't necessarily equal RACE discrimination.

Apples and oranges Erin, apples & oranges.

The difference is legislation. These are rules that all must follow and it's not up to interpretation. When you start making up your own rules based on personal preferences when it comes to running a business you're discriminating.

If you can't see the difference between say...not allowing older children to play on the same structure as toddlers (safety regulations) and a restaurant owner not allowing a patron of a certain age (that he came up with) well....yeah, ok then.

ugh...again

[Edited 7/13/11 9:37am]

JustErin said:

PurpleJedi said:

Why does it have to go that far?

It's not "discrimination" as much as it is a restriction.

Do you then agree with allowing 10 year olds into titty bars?

Do you then agree with allowing teenagers into Gymborees?

Do you then agree with allowing men into ladies lockerooms?

There are all sorts of restrictions that don't necessarily equal RACE discrimination.

Apples and oranges Erin, apples & oranges.

The difference is legislation. These are rules that all must follow and it's not up to interpretation. When you start making up your own rules based on personal preferences when it comes to running a business you're discriminating.

If you can't see the difference between say...not allowing older children to play on the same structure as toddlers (safety regulations) and a restaurant owner not allowing a patron of a certain age (that he came up with) well....yeah, ok then.

ugh...again

So you're saying that as long as the government sets the standard, then it's OK?

I do see the difference between a playground restriction and a "minimum age for service" restriction...as much as I see the difference between those and a "skin color" restriction.

PurpleJedi said:

JustErin said:

The difference is legislation. These are rules that all must follow and it's not up to interpretation. When you start making up your own rules based on personal preferences when it comes to running a business you're discriminating.

If you can't see the difference between say...not allowing older children to play on the same structure as toddlers (safety regulations) and a restaurant owner not allowing a patron of a certain age (that he came up with) well....yeah, ok then.

ugh...again

So you're saying that as long as the government sets the standard, then it's OK?

I do see the difference between a playground restriction and a "minimum age for service" restriction...as much as I see the difference between those and a "skin color" restriction.

You don't see it because you're not understanding that personal interpretation of a restriction right can lead to discrimination whereas an enforced law does not - you have penalties to pay if you do not adhere to it.

JustErin said:

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.

Are they really that good?

jone70 said:

SCNDLS said:

Should babies be banned from airplanes?



Yes, yes, yes!!! I have been saying for years there should be "kid-free" flights or airlines. I'm in total agreement with the restaurant owner as well. Dining next to a screaming brat is not fun but at least the meal is over in an hour or so. During a flight you are trapped with no escape from them. I actually think all of Manhattan should be a child free zone (there are four other boroughs for them), but I supposed that's a bit unrealisitc.

I am going to visit my family in a few months and told my mother that I would only go out to dinner with my brother, s-i-l, 8-year old niece, and 7-year old nephew if the kids could behave themselves (and I wasn't going to the Olive Garden). I am going to be aggravated enough just being in Iowa that I am not trying to put up with my bratty niece & nephew running around while I am trying to dine.

JustErin said:

PurpleJedi said:

So you're saying that as long as the government sets the standard, then it's OK?

I do see the difference between a playground restriction and a "minimum age for service" restriction...as much as I see the difference between those and a "skin color" restriction.

You don't see it because you're not understanding that personal interpretation of a restriction right can lead to discrimination whereas an enforced law does not - you have penalties to pay if you do not adhere to it.

(I have read your posts now!)

It's also an enforced law that restaurant owners can serve whom they want to.

Not every enforced law is totally logical, correct and taking care of everyone concerned equally. Laws are usually about the greater good, which is discriminating against some people, of course.

I think I should have been allowed to drink alcohol before my 18th birthday, because I had more sense of responsibility than most of the people of the same age around me, thought about my actions more thoroughly, could consume more alcohol without being/feeling/behaving drunk and basically never got wasted. So the law was quite discriminating, but I had to obey and understood why I had to.

There may be some children under 6 who behave better than many adults, but the owner of this restaurant still thinks it's more efficient to ban under 6 kids than to ban under 18 kids. Personally, I think so too.

And no, this is very different to making up your own rules about skin colour or sexuality. This is about potential noise and annoying behaviour and therefor losing customers. And I don't think it's wrong to want to serve people who don't want to be disrupted; it's a choice the owner/customer has to make.

Dave1992 said:

JustErin said:

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

Are they really that good?

Naw, not really.

Shorty said:

jone70 said:

Yes, yes, yes!!! I have been saying for years there should be "kid-free" flights or airlines. I'm in total agreement with the restaurant owner as well. Dining next to a screaming brat is not fun but at least the meal is over in an hour or so. During a flight you are trapped with no escape from them. I actually think all of Manhattan should be a child free zone (there are four other boroughs for them), but I supposed that's a bit unrealisitc.

I am going to visit my family in a few months and told my mother that I would only go out to dinner with my brother, s-i-l, 8-year old niece, and 7-year old nephew if the kids could behave themselves (and I wasn't going to the Olive Garden). I am going to be aggravated enough just being in Iowa that I am not trying to put up with my bratty niece & nephew running around while I am trying to dine.

I'm sure your brothers kids are thrilled to see you too. if I was your brother I'd say you're in luck cause we don't want to have dinner with you anyway. geesh! I understand some situations where you don't want to hear a strangers baby cry but ...YOUR own damn nieces and nephews? it's family be happy you have some.

I think the above poster was rather talking about going out to eat and, no matter how much I love my family, I would not want to go out with a crying child, annoying all the people around me, because I wouldn't like anyone else doing the same. If you have a child that is not able to sit down and be quiet for a while then live with it and do go out until they have learned how to do so!

And everyone gets annoyed by children screaming and crying, even if they are your own. You just tolerate and live with it, because you made the decision to do so.

Dave1992 said:

JustErin said:

You don't see it because you're not understanding that personal interpretation of a restriction right can lead to discrimination whereas an enforced law does not - you have penalties to pay if you do not adhere to it.

(I have read your posts now!)

It's also an enforced law that restaurant owners can serve whom they want to.

Not every enforced law is totally logical, correct and taking care of everyone concerned equally. Laws are usually about the greater good, which is discriminating against some people, of course.

I think I should have been allowed to drink alcohol before my 18th birthday, because I had more sense of responsibility than most of the people of the same age around me, thought about my actions more thoroughly, could consume more alcohol without being/feeling/behaving drunk and basically never got wasted. So the law was quite discriminating, but I had to obey and understood why I had to.

There may be some children under 6 who behave better than many adults, but the owner of this restaurant still thinks it's more efficient to ban under 6 kids than to ban under 18 kids. Personally, I think so too.

And no, this is very different to making up your own rules about skin colour or sexuality. This is about potential noise and annoying behaviour and therefor losing customers. And I don't think it's wrong to want to serve people who don't want to be disrupted; it's a choice the owner/customer has to make.

Potential noise and annoying behaviour can and does come from anyone (regardless of age, or race, or sex or sexual orientation or disability). Banning any other group other than children of a certain age for potentially being annoying would create outrage. They wouldn`t dare do that...they treat it as case by case...which I agree to and think should apply to all patrons, including young children.

There are adults only establishments and there are not. Banning kids from adult establishments is not done because they might be annoying. Rules are there to protect children...and everyone.

I don`t pick and choose which group should be discriminated against and which shouldn`t on the grounds that they might be annoying and I don`t believe it`s fair that anyone does. You can`t (or at least shouldn`t) have it both ways.

My stupid keyboard keeps going back to french...I`m tired of correcting it. Gah.

Seems well within the right of the owners to do that. I rather not have to listen to any kids make noise or run around. I hope the are allowed to keep doing that.

JustErin said:

tinaz said:

I dont know about Canada, but most establishments in the states have signs that say "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone"...

I dont think its discriminating, and I have kids... I dont want to go out somewhere on a date night with my hubby to get away from kids to be alone and have grown up time only to have to listen to someone elses kids act the fool...

I LOVE my kids but if I wanna go out with them, I take them to kid friendly places, when I wanna want grown up time, i prefer places that wouldnt allow children under 6...

So when they refuse to serve black families, they are well within their right to do so and everyone will be cool with that....because you know...it's not discrimination.

Support it or not...I really don't care what this guy does or who supports his decision...but at least call it what it really is....discrimination. Specific discrimination that you're ok with.

race is a protected class age is not (except in employment and then it is only over 40)

discrimination sure... but it seems to be legal discrimination.

[Edited 7/13/11 10:45am]

Dave1992 said:

Shorty said:

I'm sure your brothers kids are thrilled to see you too. if I was your brother I'd say you're in luck cause we don't want to have dinner with you anyway. geesh! I understand some situations where you don't want to hear a strangers baby cry but ...YOUR own damn nieces and nephews? it's family be happy you have some.

I think the above poster was rather talking about going out to eat and, no matter how much I love my family, I would not want to go out with a crying child, annoying all the people around me, because I wouldn't like anyone else doing the same. If you have a child that is not able to sit down and be quiet for a while then live with it and do go out until they have learned how to do so!

And everyone gets annoyed by children screaming and crying, even if they are your own. You just tolerate and live with it, because you made the decision to do so.

Thank you. Everytime I've tried to speak/interact with my niece she has been a brat. I call it like I see it - relative or not. Maybe if her parents and grandparents (my mother, esp) would expect her to behave instead of doing whatever she wants she wouldn't be like that. Just because my brother choses to tolerate it doesn't mean I have to. There are reasons I live far away in New York and have no children. I don't understand why most people with children seem to expect everyone to like kids; I don't expect everyone to like the same things as I do.

Dave1992 said:

Shorty said:

I'm sure your brothers kids are thrilled to see you too. if I was your brother I'd say you're in luck cause we don't want to have dinner with you anyway. geesh! I understand some situations where you don't want to hear a strangers baby cry but ...YOUR own damn nieces and nephews? it's family be happy you have some.

I think the above poster was rather talking about going out to eat and, no matter how much I love my family, I would not want to go out with a crying child, annoying all the people around me, because I wouldn't like anyone else doing the same. If you have a child that is not able to sit down and be quiet for a while then live with it and do go out until they have learned how to do so!

And everyone gets annoyed by children screaming and crying, even if they are your own. You just tolerate and live with it, because you made the decision to do so.

yes, I know, that's what I meant too. They are 8 and 7....I'm pretty damn sure they won't be screaming and crying.

i do not see how the price of the food or its location has anything to do with it. If it is a burger joint between a park and a elementary school it should be able to limit to some extent who they serve.

Unless there is some state or local law/making kids under 6 a protected class then they should be allowed to ban them.

and the "special needs" kid thing is just plain dumb. They are not being banned for having Autism or what have you they are being banned for being under 6.

[Edited 7/13/11 10:58am]

Shorty said:

Dave1992 said:

I think the above poster was rather talking about going out to eat and, no matter how much I love my family, I would not want to go out with a crying child, annoying all the people around me, because I wouldn't like anyone else doing the same. If you have a child that is not able to sit down and be quiet for a while then live with it and do go out until they have learned how to do so!

And everyone gets annoyed by children screaming and crying, even if they are your own. You just tolerate and live with it, because you made the decision to do so.

yes, I know, that's what I meant too. They are 8 and 7....I'm pretty damn sure they won't be screaming and crying.

More likely it would be that they won't sit still, not like the food and want to leave the table early so they can run around, or talk loudly and demand constant attention so that any other type of (adult) discussion will be rendered impossible, and finishing the meal will be rushed and unenjoyable. Of course, they could always start a fight with one another, which would lead to screaming and crying. This is based on what they do at my mother's house when they come there for a meal and is bratty behavior, imo.

Btw, my s.o. has a niece whom I have know since she was 8. I have never once heard her cry, scream, or do any of the things I described my niece & nephew as doing. She is not a brat, she is very sweet and well-behaved. She is expected to behave properly and that is what she does. The same cannot be said of my niece & nephew.

.

[Edited 7/13/11 11:06am]

JustErin said:

Dave1992 said:

(I have read your posts now!)

It's also an enforced law that restaurant owners can serve whom they want to.

Not every enforced law is totally logical, correct and taking care of everyone concerned equally. Laws are usually about the greater good, which is discriminating against some people, of course.

I think I should have been allowed to drink alcohol before my 18th birthday, because I had more sense of responsibility than most of the people of the same age around me, thought about my actions more thoroughly, could consume more alcohol without being/feeling/behaving drunk and basically never got wasted. So the law was quite discriminating, but I had to obey and understood why I had to.

There may be some children under 6 who behave better than many adults, but the owner of this restaurant still thinks it's more efficient to ban under 6 kids than to ban under 18 kids. Personally, I think so too.

And no, this is very different to making up your own rules about skin colour or sexuality. This is about potential noise and annoying behaviour and therefor losing customers. And I don't think it's wrong to want to serve people who don't want to be disrupted; it's a choice the owner/customer has to make.

Potential noise and annoying behaviour can and does come from anyone (regardless of age, or race, or sex or sexual orientation or disability). Banning any other group other than children of a certain age for potentially being annoying would create outrage. They wouldn`t dare do that...they treat it as case by case...which I agree to and think should apply to all patrons, including young children.

There are adults only establishments and there are not. Banning kids from adult establishments is not done because they might be annoying. Rules are there to protect children...and everyone.

I don`t pick and choose which group should be discriminated against and which shouldn`t on the grounds that they might be annoying and I don`t believe it`s fair that anyone does. You can`t (or at least shouldn`t) have it both ways.

My stupid keyboard keeps going back to french...I`m tired of correcting it. Gah.

Potential noise can come from anyone - yes, but most people will tell you that it's mostly children (I guess under the age of ten) who are the most annoying in restaurants. That is why it doesn't create outrage - most people agree on it. It doesn't mean small children are bad, it simply means that a restaurant owner and their customers think that a restaurant without under 6 year olds is more comfortable to some.

And why would you ban any other group other than children because of potential noise? It's mostly children that are annoying.

Yes, grown-ups can make noise too, but, if you really want to go into detail, the noise of a grown up talking loudly is way less disturbing than any child squaling and screaming and running around.

I do get your point, but the problem is that it's completely irrelevant in this case. The owner of the restaurant has a reason, the customers do, most people think it's okay because they understand that it's mostly children who tend to be annoying. Your argument is logical, but not relevant and applicable at all.

OnlyNDaUsa said:

JustErin said:

So when they refuse to serve black families, they are well within their right to do so and everyone will be cool with that....because you know...it's not discrimination.

Support it or not...I really don't care what this guy does or who supports his decision...but at least call it what it really is....discrimination. Specific discrimination that you're ok with.

race is a protected class age is not (except in employment and then it is only over 40)

discrimination sure... but it seems to be legal discrimination.

I think (if I am interpreting her correctly) that Erin's outrage stems from the fact that this so-called "selective discrimination" could theoretically lead to other types. So, for example, (I'm pretending to read your mind Erin, but the Force is not strong with me lately)...if we allow "children under 6" to be banned arbitrarily from a restaurant, what's to say that another shopkeeper can ban Hispanics from his bar because other patrons may be offended at us speaking in Spanish?

If that's the reasoning, then I undestand the reluctance to allow this policy.

HOWEVER, as ONLYNDAUSA just stated....race is legally protected, age is not.

That being the case, if we eliminate age discrimination, then it goes across the board. I can take my 12 year old son to Vegas gambling & drinking with me, or get him a hooker as was the old "rite of passage" in the "old country" for the generations of men in my family before my dad.

Dave1992 said:

JustErin said:

Potential noise and annoying behaviour can and does come from anyone (regardless of age, or race, or sex or sexual orientation or disability). Banning any other group other than children of a certain age for potentially being annoying would create outrage. They wouldn`t dare do that...they treat it as case by case...which I agree to and think should apply to all patrons, including young children.

There are adults only establishments and there are not. Banning kids from adult establishments is not done because they might be annoying. Rules are there to protect children...and everyone.

I don`t pick and choose which group should be discriminated against and which shouldn`t on the grounds that they might be annoying and I don`t believe it`s fair that anyone does. You can`t (or at least shouldn`t) have it both ways.

My stupid keyboard keeps going back to french...I`m tired of correcting it. Gah.

Potential noise can come from anyone - yes, but most people will tell you that it's mostly children (I guess under the age of ten) who are the most annoying in restaurants. That is why it doesn't create outrage - most people agree on it. It doesn't mean small children are bad, it simply means that a restaurant owner and their customers think that a restaurant without under 6 year olds is more comfortable to some.

And why would you ban any other group other than children because of potential noise? It's mostly children that are annoying.

Yes, grown-ups can make noise too, but, if you really want to go into detail, the noise of a grown up talking loudly is way less disturbing than any child squaling and screaming and running around.

I do get your point, but the problem is that it's completely irrelevant in this case. The owner of the restaurant has a reason, the customers do, most people think it's okay because they understand that it's mostly children who tend to be annoying. Your argument is logical, but not relevant and applicable at all.

oh Yeah I hate noise at a restaurant. If there are people being too loud I will ask the manager to tell them to tone it down... if that is not success full I will do it myself. That seems to work.

jone70 said:

Dave1992 said:

I think the above poster was rather talking about going out to eat and, no matter how much I love my family, I would not want to go out with a crying child, annoying all the people around me, because I wouldn't like anyone else doing the same. If you have a child that is not able to sit down and be quiet for a while then live with it and do go out until they have learned how to do so!

And everyone gets annoyed by children screaming and crying, even if they are your own. You just tolerate and live with it, because you made the decision to do so.

Thank you. Everytime I've tried to speak/interact with my niece she has been a brat. I call it like I see it - relative or not. Maybe if her parents and grandparents (my mother, esp) would expect her to behave instead of doing whatever she wants she wouldn't be like that. Just because my brother choses to tolerate it doesn't mean I have to. There are reasons I live far away in New York and have no children. I don't understand why most people with children seem to expect everyone to like kids; I don't expect everyone to like the same things as I do.

ok...so how's she a brat? (I see your examples above now) Nope...doesn't mean you have to tolerate it, I'm friends with some folx who's kids are brats...but they are not brats around me because they know they can't get away with that shit around me, but I don't tell the parents they better keep their kids in check around me...I deal with them myself. If they are in MY home, they do not disrespect me. If I am in their home I do just tolerate it unless its something directly involving me. Nobody expects you to like children but to be tolerent of them (not of bad behavior, but of children being well...children) isn't too much to ask from family.

why do you even visit at all?

[Edited 7/13/11 11:06am]

PurpleJedi said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

race is a protected class age is not (except in employment and then it is only over 40)

discrimination sure... but it seems to be legal discrimination.

I think (if I am interpreting her correctly) that Erin's outrage stems from the fact that this so-called "selective discrimination" could theoretically lead to other types. So, for example, (I'm pretending to read your mind Erin, but the Force is not strong with me lately)...if we allow "children under 6" to be banned arbitrarily from a restaurant, what's to say that another shopkeeper can ban Hispanics from his bar because other patrons may be offended at us speaking in Spanish?

If that's the reasoning, then I undestand the reluctance to allow this policy.

HOWEVER, as ONLYNDAUSA just stated....race is legally protected, age is not.

That being the case, if we eliminate age discrimination, then it goes across the board. I can take my 12 year old son to Vegas gambling & drinking with me, or get him a hooker as was the old "rite of passage" in the "old country" for the generations of men in my family before my dad.

1) I`m not outraged

2) I see that you still don`t understand fully. As I said earlier. Age restrictions (like the one you referenced) are in place to protect those they are restricting. Not because they are potentially annoying. This is simply a case of being potentially disruptive.

Dave1992 said:

JustErin said:

Potential noise and annoying behaviour can and does come from anyone (regardless of age, or race, or sex or sexual orientation or disability). Banning any other group other than children of a certain age for potentially being annoying would create outrage. They wouldn`t dare do that...they treat it as case by case...which I agree to and think should apply to all patrons, including young children.

There are adults only establishments and there are not. Banning kids from adult establishments is not done because they might be annoying. Rules are there to protect children...and everyone.

I don`t pick and choose which group should be discriminated against and which shouldn`t on the grounds that they might be annoying and I don`t believe it`s fair that anyone does. You can`t (or at least shouldn`t) have it both ways.

My stupid keyboard keeps going back to french...I`m tired of correcting it. Gah.

It's mostly children that are annoying.

Oh I beg to differ on that one.