Kids are banned

[KevShmev]

Wow... I'm pretty shocked at the seemingly universal support of this.  First, I see the point and basis behind the decision.  On the flip side, how is this anything other than age descrimination?  And I'm taking this to the extreme here, but I don't see it much different than any other kind of discrimination - sex, sexual orientation, race, religion etc...

Are you also against bars and clubs not letting anyone under 21 in?

[chknptpie]

This punishes parents that can control their,children though.

I don't think it punishes them, it free's them to have a night out without their children if they want it, gives them an excuse to get a baby sitter. If they don't want that, then they go to another restaurant of their liking.

[TheMadgician]

and cant put it much better than this:

I'm perfectly fine with this. If you want to put an age limit on your business, feel free. If people can't control their children, then rules will control the children for them.

This punishes parents that can control their,children though.

Well...

As someone who has actually eaten at McDain's, I agree with the policy.  Even if I was a parent with a 6 or under kid I'd approve of this.  It's not super high end, but it's still a nicer than average establishment, even with the on-site driving range.  The kind of place you'd take your girlfriend/wife for a date, not family dinner.  They got a place for that in Pittsburgh - it's called Eat N' Park.

It doesn't exactly seem like an ideal place for parents to bring their children. Well behaved or no. Also, young children, no matter how well behaved, still go into tantrums at the drop of a hat. So there's still no sure thing.

[yorost]

You've never seen a parent remove their children from a restaurant to calm them down because of a tantrum or crying?

This punishes parents that can control their,children though.

I don't think it punishes them, it free's them to have a night out without their children if they want it, gives them an excuse to get a baby sitter. If they don't want that, then they go to another restaurant of their liking.

It does punish them.  For the lacking of others they are not allowed the choice to go somewhere with their children.  It doesn't matter if they have other options, it is still a restraint on them because of others.

[El Barto]

I'm actually a bit hazy on the legality of it, as well.  Personally, I think a private business should be able to cater to whoever the hell they want, but I'm not sure what the laws are concerning that.  I know that there are places which will only admit men or women, and nobody seems to have a problem with that.  Public facilities are of course a different story, as they should be. 

As we all know, I can't stand kids, so I'm pretty cool with this.  I will be interested to see how it plays out, though.  One concern is that if they're successful, lots of other establishments might follow suit, and I wouldn't really like that.  It'd be up to the market to create specifically family friendly places, and who knows how that'll work out.

Airlines are and should be a different matter.  Yes, kids on planes often suck, but there isn't a viable alternative. 

[Nekov]

What do you mean?

The legality of banning people from going into your business. Can it be done just because the owner feels like it?

[Global Laziness]

Wow... I'm pretty shocked at the seemingly universal support of this.  First, I see the point and basis behind the decision.  On the flip side, how is this anything other than age descrimination?  And I'm taking this to the extreme here, but I don't see it much different than any other kind of discrimination - sex, sexual orientation, race, religion etc...

Are you also against bars and clubs not letting anyone under 21 in?

I'd say that's way different though. Bars and clubs don't let minors in to prevent them from drinking. Their policies are in line with a law that governs at what age an individual can do something (in this case, drink). There is no relatable law in this scenario.

[bosk1]

What do you mean?

The legality of banning people from going into your business. Can it be done just because the owner feels like it?

For the most part, yes, except for banning them because of race or disability (and some other characteristics as well, but it varies state by state).  Protections in employment and housing are more broad and cover a lot more characteristics.  But even in those more broad situations, there really isn't anything in the law that prevents you from banning families that have children (unless certain states have laws I am not aware of that are very different from my state).  It doesn't fit age discrimination, because that only protects people 40 or older, not children.  And it doesn't really fit the "family status" discrimination cases because those mainly concern using family status as a proxy for gender/sex discrimination against women.  So in any case, I don't really see any legal issue with this.

As far as parents not controlling their kids, yeah, maybe that's an issue, but that's not the sense I got.  Sure there are tons of parents out there who let their kids run wild, and I get that.  We're stricter than most, but we teach our kids that when we are at a table, they are to sit reasonably quietly and act like gentlemen and not get up without permission until the meal is over and everyone is to leave.  They can talk to each other (or if we are out with friends or family members, can talk to the other kids), but are to stay in their seats and use "inside voices" rather than yelling).  But they're still kids, and they often have to be reminded more than once per outing.  Sure, there are plenty of parents out there who just ignore the issues and let their kids do whatever.  But most of the ones I see make an effort in their own way to keep things under control, and I rarely see kids just running wild or just screaming out of control.  But I can certainly sympathize with being extremely annoyed when those situations do arise.

[El Barto]

Titty bars will often prohibit single women from entering.  Plenty of health clubs are women-only, so they can work out without pervy guys like me ogling them.  Then you've got fraternal organizations which might prohibit people of other religions from joining up.  I don't know if country clubs (strictly private ones) are still allowed to prohibit black people from joining up, but I know that they were.

Again, none of this troubles me as long as they're not taking any money from Uncle Sammy.

[Nekov]

What do you mean?

The legality of banning people from going into your business. Can it be done just because the owner feels like it?

For the most part, yes, except for banning them because of race or disability (and some other characteristics as well, but it varies state by state).

Thanks

[jingle.boy]

Wow... I'm pretty shocked at the seemingly universal support of this.  First, I see the point and basis behind the decision.  On the flip side, how is this anything other than age descrimination?  And I'm taking this to the extreme here, but I don't see it much different than any other kind of discrimination - sex, sexual orientation, race, religion etc...

Are you also against bars and clubs not letting anyone under 21 in?

I'd say that's way different though. Bars and clubs don't let minors in to prevent them from drinking. Their policies are in line with a law that governs at what age an individual can do something (in this case, drink). There is no relatable law in this scenario.

GL ninja'd me.  Was about to say essentially the same thing.  Establishments that primarily serve alcohol are different than restaurants that primarily serve food, and must abide by different laws.  And the answer is yes, I am fine with it.  The legal drinking age in Canada is 18 or 19 depending on the province.  I'm fine with anyone following the law.  Loud/annoying kids isn't against any law I know of.

Recognizing that this isn't illegal, the owner can do whatever he/she desires.  I'm only stating my position, and agree with Bosk that this would put them on my personal ban list.

[yorost]

Money works, I think I'd like a rule that says for every minute you don't control your child you pay 10% of all bills on the tables your child is bothering.  When a child starts acting up you bring a clock over and place it on the table.

Again, none of this troubles me as long as they're not taking any money from Uncle Sammy.

Well, some of them trouble me even though I agree they should have a right to exist.

[El Barto]

For the most part, yes, except for banning them because of race or disability (and some other characteristics as well, but it varies state by state).  Protections in employment and housing are more broad and cover a lot more characteristics.  But even in those more broad situations, there really isn't anything in the law that prevents you from banning families that have children (unless certain states have laws I am not aware of that are very different from my state).  It doesn't fit age discrimination, because that only protects people 40 or older, not children.  And it doesn't really fit the "family status" discrimination cases because those mainly concern using family status as a proxy for gender/sex discrimination against women.  So in any case, I don't really see any legal issue with this.

I guess this was a ninja-edit.

I believe the FHA specifically bans discrimination based on familial status.  The community where I live had a rather colorful history, and the FHA was one of things that ended the party, so to speak ( ). 

But what I'm specifically wondering is if a private business, like a restaurant, can outright say that they won't serve a specific group.  Could I open an establishment that plainly states that freaking Canadians aren't welcome?  It seems like it should strictly be a matter for the market to enforce. 

[lonestar]

Many good points, its given me food for thought, no pun intended.  I just want to add that any adult couple who goes to an Applebees, Chilis, Outback, or other mid-level restaurant expecting a quiet adult atmosphere is just stupid. Kids are kids, no matter how well disciplined.

[Sir GuitarCozmo]

I'm fine with it.  I pretty much don't like kids and hate when I go out somewhere and hear a screaming kid irritating the living shit out of everyone within earshot.  Also, people can say that it's discriminatory, but going out to eat at a restaurant is (as far as I'm concerned) a privilege, not a right.

EDIT: I had the startings of an epic rant going, but decided that (out of respect for the parents here) I'd just leave it at this. 

[lonestar]

No, please, continue.....

[bosk1]

No, please, continue.....

[TheGreatPretender]

I like kids. But too many young people are getting pregnant these days, and frankly, let them be more punished than the kids. I mean, half the reason why these kids are crying so loudly is probably because their parents know very little about discipline, which is probably why they got pregnant in the first place. So let them eat at McDonald's instead.

[Sir GuitarCozmo]

No, please, continue.....

It was pretty much rambling at that point, something along the lines of "yes, I know they have as much right to be there as me, but I didn't twist their arm and make them have a screaming kid", etc, etc.  I hadn't said anything offensive (yet), I really just decided to nip it in the bud before I ranted to the point that something offensive DID come out.

[lordxizor]

I don't think too many parents would be offended if you ripped parents who don't discipline their kids.

[Sir GuitarCozmo]

True, but I'll always see kids as an equal opportunity irritant, regardless of the quality of parenting. I do not have the patience to deal with kids or to want to try.  If there was a place like the one in the OP around here (assuming the food was good), they'd probably start seeing a lot more of my business.

This does seem fairly similar to a rant I DID post back in '09 where a lot of the same things were discussed.

Link

[blackngold29]

I have no issue with this. He has received complaints and done his best to address them. He likely is aware that he will lose business from some people and is fine with that.

Only other thing I could think he would do is have a soundproof section for people with kids; depending how big the place is, that might not be feasible though.

[Dublagent66]

I think kids should be seen, not heard.  Also, there's a time and place for everything.  If parents can't teach their kids a simple concept like that, then they are just as immature as the kids, which is actually true in most cases now days.  The culture we live in now seems to carry a sense of entitlement.  People think they can do anything they want, anywhere they want.  They are confusing rights with privileges.  Well behaved kids are a pleasure to be around and they make me hopeful for future, on the other hand, loud and misbehaved kids I absolutely hate.  Yeah, that a strong word but oh well...

[wkiml]

I don't think too many parents would be offended if you ripped parents who don't discipline their kids.

[jingle.boy]

I don't think too many parents would be offended if you ripped parents who don't discipline their kids.

Ditto

I think kids should be seen, not heard.  Also, there's a time and place for everything.  If parents can't teach their kids a simple concept like that, then they are just as immature as the kids, which is actually true in most many cases now days.  The culture we live in now seems to carry a sense of entitlement.  People think they can do anything they want, anywhere they want.  They are confusing rights with privileges.  Well behaved kids are a pleasure to be around and they make me hopeful for future, on the other hand, loud and misbehaved kids I absolutely hate.  Yeah, that a strong word but oh well...

Fixed for my opinions.  Yes, our culture nowadys does have a sense of entitlement, doing anything we want without any consequences or accountability.  Lots of things contribute to this, but it shouldn't give the right to be disrespectful.

[snowdog]

I have no problem with the restaurant doing this.  It is definitely within their right.  It sounds like a place I wouldn't bring my son to as it is.  He is almost 2 and doesn't like to sit still for too long.  Restaurants are usually OK unless we are there for longer than an hour and this place sounds like a place you'd be for more than an hour.  Once he is older and understands how to behave at a restaurant we'll have no problem taking him along.

Now airlines doing this is just silly.  There is no way they are going to do that.  They are already having financial problems as it is and doing something like this will certainly drive them out of business.  There is no way that the loss of customers would be outweighed by people wanting to fly now that kids won't be on the plane.  I don't know of anyone who doesn't go on a plane simply because of the chance of an annoying kid.  The ability to get somewhere much faster than driving easily outweighs a few hours of screaming kids.

[Sir GuitarCozmo]

When people mention the notion of airlines doing this, I thought it would be more like airlines offering certain flights that are child-free, for those that would prefer to choose a child-free flight, with plenty of other flights that would allow children.

[Global Laziness]

When people mention the notion of airlines doing this, I thought it would be more like airlines offering certain flights that are child-free, for those that would prefer to choose a child-free flight, with plenty of other flights that would allow children.

But of course then some parents with well-behaved children would complain about being lumped in with a bunch of other noisy kids for their flight.

[Sir GuitarCozmo]

Of course they would.  My response to them?  "Too bad."

I think offering a select handful of flights that are kid-free is a great idea.  When you think about how many flights there are in a given day, if each airline had a handful that were kid-free, it still leaves a gazillion flights for all those with kids.

[chrisbDTM]

yep and the other regular flights available will be exactly how they have always been, so they dont even need to think about being left out.


deal with it

[MetalManiac666]

Fantastic idea.  More restaurants should implement it.

[yorost]

Of course they would.  My response to them?  "Too bad."

I think offering a select handful of flights that are kid-free is a great idea.  When you think about how many flights there are in a given day, if each airline had a handful that were kid-free, it still leaves a gazillion flights for all those with kids.

yep and the other regular flights available will be exactly how they have always been, so they dont even need to think about being left out.


deal with it

I don't have a problem with the idea, but I've been on many flights and only once had a kid that was annoying.  If they do that they're going to charge a premium, is that really worth it or would you just buy the normal flight anyways?

Want to avoid kids on flights?  Fly at the extreme parts of the day.  I rarely see kids on those flights.

[hefdaddy42]

I have two kids, and I have no problem with this.

[efxf]

Personally, I don't see a problem with this.  To me, it's similar to some high-end restaurants having a dress code - they wish to maintain a certain atmosphere for their patrons.  I have 2 nieces and a nephew all under the age of 10 and while they're not the most obnoxious kids in the world, they do have their moments.  So whenever we dine out with them we always try to go to "kid-friendly" restaurants.

[TheSilentHam]

I have two well-behaved kids, but I don't have a problem with this at all.  I also would not have a problem with an airline offering kid-free flights.  The fact that no airline is really doing this may speak to whether or not it is really economically viable to do so.  I don't even think that Hooters Airlines had an age limit when they were running scheduled commercial flights.  You would think that if this were viable, Hooters would have done it.