Shorty said:

Cerebus said:

Why? Because you have kids so the world should bend to your whims? Why should you be treated any different than anybody else? Rude is rude, and bad parenting is just as obnoxious as misbehaving children.

no that was my impression of you. wahhhh wahhhh wahhhh! you sound like a tantruming brat yourself.

Again, why? Because I have an opinion different than yours? One that might actually make you think about yourself and how you look to other people? If you want to have a conversation you might try growing up a bit and actually writing something that matters. Your attempts to belittle me because I've made the effort to do so only makes you look exactly like the people I'm describing. Completely clueless as to how their actions affect those around them.

[Edited 7/13/11 15:29pm]

There are age restrictions all over the place..

I am not able to join the Army, Air force or Marines... why... age restriction..

I can not join the police force... why... age restriction...

I cannot shop at the buckle...why... age restriction

I cant live in my Moms neighborhood.. Why... age restriction (this one im actually to young for!)

Its done all the time! Why cant it be done on the reverse?

Cerebus said:

Serious said:

I find the behaviour of many adults intolerable and still have to put up with their bullshit. And adults had way more time in their lives to learn proper behaviour than kids.

So handle it. Get up and say something. Complain to a manager. Call the police. You can't do that in regards to somebodies children. "Oh, its just a child acting like a child" is not the same as "Why is that grown man acting like a child?" The two issues are not the same, so lets not get them confused.

How many times are you in a grocery store, a restaruant, a clothing store, a movie theater, etc etc etc etc where you have to deal with screaming, crying, yelling, running around out of control, obnoxious, tantram throwing children whose parents just continue on with their day, eyes glazed over, like nothing is happening compared to the same thing happening with an adult? I think its pretty safe to say that the two are not comparable on any level. And before you even go there with a, "that never happens to me", well that's great! It DOES happen to me. It happens all the time. No matter where I go in the Bay Area. Its an epidemic of epic proportions and its been getting worse for quite some time. And the absolute worst part is that there is most certainly parents who have posted in this thread who have kids who behave this way and think NOTHING of it. They think its "normal". Well, you know what? Its not! Its aggresively discourteous to those around you who are trying to peacefully go about their day/life.

aGREE

[Edited 7/13/11 16:27pm]

kid-free restaurant

http://prince.org/msg/100/351804

[Edited 7/13/11 16:29pm]

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.

Didn't we have this discussion?

If they do not hold themselves out as serving the general public, I'm okay with them not serving Blacks. But put it on the door.

Golf courses discriminate by being private. They choose who can join and who can play. No one screams at them about it.

Golf courses didn't end their most egregious discriminatory practices until the PGA began refusing to hold events at the courses.

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.

dis·crim·i·na·tion

   [dih-skrim-uh-ney-shuhn] Show IPA

[Edited 7/13/11 17:47pm]

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

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

Legislation disriminates also for safety reasons, cultural reasons etc.

Legislation is not neutral. It generally exists to discriminate against in some manner or discriminate in favor of in other cases.

Businesses are allowed to discriminate.

It seems that if there were a law banning children under six that would be acceptable whereas the owner exercising his rights as an owner is not.

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.

Life isn't fair and we aren't trying to make it so to be honest.

So the restaurant owner can't choose his customers? He just has to take anyone that comes through the door?

So the 'We have the right to refuse service to anyone' signs are basically worthless and meaningless because the restauranteur has no choices other than what to cook?

JustErin said:

PurpleJedi said:

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.

Constitution forbid we eliminate an annoyance or disruption to a meal one is paying for.

Serious said:

PurpleJedi said:

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.

Or what about banning people with disabilities because they might either (depending on their disability) get loud too or not be "nice" to look at. I would NEVER go to a restaurant that bans children. I don't even have children and never wanted any in my life (contrary to the men who I have been with ), but I don't get it why people cannot see that it is natural that children make some noise sometimes, be it in planes or restaurants. What's the big deal about that? Cars make a lot more noise. People sit outside in front of restuarants all the time and cars are passing by. Not even to mention the pollution of the cars. We people from the northern countries really treat children in a way as if they are disturbing our peace and not as if they are our future .

They are both.

It's not the elimination of all sound that is the goal here.

Cars are generally background sounds that you tune out.

Children in a restaurant aren't so easy to tune out.

Unless parents with children are the majority of the restaurants business (obviously they are not), they can eat elsewhere.

But I'm guessing I'd visit the restaurant more frequently and be more behaved while doing so than any six or under.

Cerebus said:

And another thing, fuck all y'alls kids! Everybody who has kids thinks they're perfect, or at the very least that they're not as bad as those "other kids". You're wrong. Anybody who doesn't want kids and find their behavior intolerable if FORCED to put up with their bullshit. There is no argument for this, its a simple fact. Unless you are going to one of the very few adults only establishments (and I'm not talking about bars or strip clubs) you are FORCED, without choice, to deal with obnoxious children.

Now, as far as the legality of this guys decision, I hope it goes all the way to the supreme court and he wins.

Who is suing him? On what grounds?

You don't have a case merely because your child can't eat at his restaurant.

SUPRMAN 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.

Didn't we have this discussion?

If they do not hold themselves out as serving the general public, I'm okay with them not serving Blacks. But put it on the door.

Golf courses discriminate by being private. They choose who can join and who can play. No one screams at them about it.

Golf courses didn't end their most egregious discriminatory practices until the PGA began refusing to hold events at the courses.

Yeah, we did...but I'm fully convinced that a lot of orgers only read posts that have them quoted.

SUPRMAN said:

JustErin said:

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.

Constitution forbid we eliminate an annoyance or disruption to a meal one is paying for.

Again, no one is saying that you have to put up with a disruptive person while trying to eat or whatever.

JustErin said:

SUPRMAN said:

Constitution forbid we eliminate an annoyance or disruption to a meal one is paying for.

Again, no one is saying that you have to put up with a disruptive person while trying to eat or whatever.

Just disruptive children.

But what is the solution? If the kid is acting up after the meal has arrived?

Do the parents leave?

I don't think it's fair to the child either. At home he wouldn't be sitting at the table for 30-45 minutes waiting on dinner, he'd be playing until it was time to eat.

SUPRMAN 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.

Life isn't fair and we aren't trying to make it so to be honest.

So the restaurant owner can't choose his customers? He just has to take anyone that comes through the door?

So the 'We have the right to refuse service to anyone' signs are basically worthless and meaningless because the restauranteur has no choices other than what to cook?

Unlike you, most orgers making this guys case also feel that he should not have the right to ban others based on race, gender, sexual orientation, etc.....just children.

I totally respect your opinion on this....it's the it's ok for some but not others opinions that I find weird.

SUPRMAN said:

JustErin said:

Again, no one is saying that you have to put up with a disruptive person while trying to eat or whatever.

Just disruptive children.

But what is the solution? If the kid is acting up after the meal has arrived?

Do the parents leave?

I don't think it's fair to the child either. At home he wouldn't be sitting at the table for 30-45 minutes waiting on dinner, he'd be playing until it was time to eat.

Ah no. As it has been said many times earlier, when someone disrupts (regardless of who they are) they are asked to leave. I'm sure you've seen this before. I certainly have.

JustErin said:

SUPRMAN said:

Just disruptive children.

But what is the solution? If the kid is acting up after the meal has arrived?

Do the parents leave?

I don't think it's fair to the child either. At home he wouldn't be sitting at the table for 30-45 minutes waiting on dinner, he'd be playing until it was time to eat.

Ah no. As it has been said many times earlier, when someone disrupts (regardless of who they are) they are asked to leave. I'm sure you've seen this before. I certainly have.

But that level is generally a subjective one. Easier to throw a drunk adult out than a family dining with an unruly child.

SUPRMAN said:

JustErin said:

Again, no one is saying that you have to put up with a disruptive person while trying to eat or whatever.

Just disruptive children.

But what is the solution? If the kid is acting up after the meal has arrived?

Do the parents leave?

I don't think it's fair to the child either. At home he wouldn't be sitting at the table for 30-45 minutes waiting on dinner, he'd be playing until it was time to eat.

you guys need places like this over there,

http://www.zagames.com.au/

I know from my house it's 10 minute drive at the most to 5 or 6 different ones of these (not all this particular chain)

They are like pub bistros, all with a kids play area down one end. Kids stay in there for the whole time and come out only to eat. My kids love it because they have playstation terminals. BEST THING EVER.

It's not a kid's restaurant, it has good food and there is a bar in the middle. We took sextonseven to one mainly cause each kid gets a free meal for each paying adult

ZombieKitten said:

SUPRMAN said:

Just disruptive children.

But what is the solution? If the kid is acting up after the meal has arrived?

Do the parents leave?

I don't think it's fair to the child either. At home he wouldn't be sitting at the table for 30-45 minutes waiting on dinner, he'd be playing until it was time to eat.

you guys need places like this over there,

http://www.zagames.com.au/

I know from my house it's 10 minute drive at the most to 5 or 6 different ones of these (not all this particular chain)

They are like pub bistros, all with a kids play area down one end. Kids stay in there for the whole time and come out only to eat. My kids love it because they have playstation terminals. BEST THING EVER.

It's not a kid's restaurant, it has good food and there is a bar in the middle. We took sextonseven to one mainly cause each kid gets a free meal for each paying adult

Now that'll be cool.

DISCRIMINATION.

I'm going to make a restaurant and ban all white kids and see how that works out.

Timmy84 said:

ZombieKitten said:

you guys need places like this over there,

http://www.zagames.com.au/

I know from my house it's 10 minute drive at the most to 5 or 6 different ones of these (not all this particular chain)

They are like pub bistros, all with a kids play area down one end. Kids stay in there for the whole time and come out only to eat. My kids love it because they have playstation terminals. BEST THING EVER.

It's not a kid's restaurant, it has good food and there is a bar in the middle. We took sextonseven to one mainly cause each kid gets a free meal for each paying adult

Now that'll be cool.

Keeps the families out of regular restaurants because these places are WAY more convenient

smoothcriminal12 said:

DISCRIMINATION.

I'm going to make a restaurant and ban all white kids and see how that works out.

You could only do that as a private club.

That would be illegal if you held yourself out as open to the public.

Under six are not the general public.

A reasonable person would not expect six year olds to frequent the establishment on their own.

SUPRMAN said:

smoothcriminal12 said:

DISCRIMINATION.

I'm going to make a restaurant and ban all white kids and see how that works out.

You could only do that as a private club.

That would be illegal if you held yourself out as open to the public.

Under six are not the general public.

A reasonable person would not expect six year olds to frequent the establishment on their own.

I'm not actually going to do it. I was just saying, what's the difference?

smoothcriminal12 said:

SUPRMAN said:

You could only do that as a private club.

That would be illegal if you held yourself out as open to the public.

Under six are not the general public.

A reasonable person would not expect six year olds to frequent the establishment on their own.

I'm not actually going to do it. I was just saying, what's the difference?

Singling out one segment of children as opposed to all children.

There is no practical purpose for excluding white children while allowing other children.

Eliminating all children however is a different situation.

SUPRMAN said:

smoothcriminal12 said:

I'm not actually going to do it. I was just saying, what's the difference?

Singling out one segment of children as opposed to all children.

There is no practical purpose for excluding white children while allowing other children.

Eliminating all children however is a different situation.

As opposed to the practical purpose for banning noisy children?

smoothcriminal12 said:

SUPRMAN said:

Singling out one segment of children as opposed to all children.

There is no practical purpose for excluding white children while allowing other children.

Eliminating all children however is a different situation.

As opposed to the practical purpose for banning noisy children?

Yup

SUPRMAN said:

smoothcriminal12 said:

As opposed to the practical purpose for banning noisy children?

Yup

Right....

Well I'm gonna continue with my "no whites" restaurant.

SCNDLS said:

At McDain's Restaurant, in Monroeville, Pennsylvania, kids don't eat free. And starting next week, they don't get to eat at all. Mike Vuick, owner of the Pittsburgh area eatery has just announced a ban on children under 6 at his casual dining establishment.

After receiving noise complaints from customers about crying kids at neighboring tables, Vuick decided to institute the policy, which will go into effect July 16.

In an email to customers, Vuick explained: "We feel that McDain's is not a place for young children. Their volume can't be controlled and many, many times, they have disturbed other customers."

The owner of the "upscale, casual and quiet" restaurant explains to WTAE Local News, he's got nothing against kids in general, but their endless screams at public dinner tables are "the height of being impolite and selfish."

Last year, North Carolina's Olde Salty restaurant made a similar decision. Owner Brenda Armes posted a sign that read "Screaming children will not be tolerated", making it clear to parents when their kids scream, they'll be asked to take it outside. Armes said the move has boosted business, and Vuick is confident his ban will benefit McDain's as well.

But not everyone is on board. Some Monroeville locals are offended that they're being singled out for having young kids, and pointing fingers at noisy adults.

"If they're so concerned about noise, what do they plan to do about the loud people at the bar?" asks one local resident.

It's not illegal to ban kids from eating establishments, but some parents consider the move discriminatory, and potentially a violation of rights for certain special needs kids. What do you think: are kid-free restaurants a great idea or flat-out wrong?

i pay taxes for schools,WIC, welfare. breeders are so selfish! the least they can do is keep their brats quite so others can enjoy a movie or a decent meal. i ended up walking out of a resturant without paying because of some screaming brat. the mother just ignored the situation. if you wont teach your children manners then i suppose the state will have to do it. my opinion does not include special needs children.

[Edited 7/13/11 20:20pm]

smoothcriminal12 said:

SUPRMAN said:

Yup

Right....

Well I'm gonna continue with my "no whites" restaurant.

I thought it was no white children?

You can have a "no whites" restaurant.

It just can't be open to the general public.

CNN had a story bout this and the women who posted the sign bout screaming children will not be tolerated stated that her business has boomed in the last year. That people will go out of there way to find her eatery and enjoy their meal. So there are a huge amount of people who want enjoy a nice quiet meal without junior throwing his peas at the window.