Is a ban on children discrimination? Liberal hypocricy?

[pnewton]

Agains you’re drawing false equivalencies (its called a “strawman argument”) the behavior of mentally handicapped people isn’t intefering with the ability of other people to enjoy the experience that those other people are paying for.

It is only a strawman if it is there is no analogy. Saying it is a strawman does not make it so. Just like children can act up, the mentally handicapped can too. Now if I changed it to wheelchairs, that would be your strawman. Likewise there are many people that no more want to be exposed to breastfeeding than you do to unruly children. We must use the same standards for others as we do ourselves.

 

[Allegra]

I forgot to mention the time I was at Red Robin and I saw a kid go up to the person in the Robin suit and punch them full-on in the crotch, then run away laughing hysterically. Granted, this is a family restaurant, but I don’t think Red expected that!

 

[Mumbles140]

emphasis added.

This is not the same as “I’ve been told by relatives in Western Iowa that they have trouble finding good seafood”

Note I did not state that I had a hard time getting lobster. I complained about going to a restaurant to eat lobster which is more of an adult type meal and being bothered by kids.

You assumed my problem was finding a place to eat lobster.

I live in Des Moines Iowa and at one time we were rated as the city to have the most restaurants per capita in the USA. We recently were voted as one of the best places to live.

Whether or not you think you have misconceptions about the midwest, the way the you write gives you away.

Actually, writing ‘having a hard time’ meant your distractions with children. My point was that the place you go for good seafood has kids who take away from the atmosphere you hope for, and from relatives know it isn’t easy to find good seafood in that area, meaning one of the possible choices to eat was made ‘less special’ by distraction.

I’m not sure why you think I have this dislike for the midwest, especially since I made one comment about seafood. To me, it sounds like you have a bias against the Eastern seaboard and assume all people there think the midwest is a bunch of ghost towns with more cows than people. As I said, my in-laws are from the midwest (and all of their extended family still lives there), my brother and his family live there now, and I have no reason to dislike it. But off of one comment, you assumed I must have thought you were toothless, beltless, unsophisticated masses.

Really, I was just trying to sympathize your situation about misbehaving children at Red Lobster.

 

[BillP]

I bet they’re doing it because it’s going to get them some more money. People will probably be happy to pay several bucks more per childless meal. I don’t understand why you have a problem with breast-feeding though.

Its a personal thing, like I say, pciking one’s nose or teeth. Or trimming one’s nails in public. Not disgusting, or revolting or anything that needs to be “banned”, certainly not as disgusting as dealing the result of breastfeeding in public.

I was in a Starbucks once, reading the paper. There was a group of mom’s with babies across the room. One of the mom’s got up from her group. walked over by me and started changing a poopy diaper. I caught a whiff, looked up and asked if she could do that somewhere else (it was really putting me off of my coffee and scone). Her reply: “I’m sorry, I don’t want to gross out my friends”… go figure.

 

[BillP]

It is only a strawman if it is there is no analogy. Saying it is a strawman does not make it so. Just like children can act up, the mentally handicapped can too. Now if I changed it to wheelchairs, that would be your strawman. Likewise there are many people that no more want to be exposed to breastfeeding than you do to unruly children. We must use the same standards for others as we do ourselves.

No it is a strawman because you’re drawing a false equivalency. Mentally handicapped people simply don’t misbehave in public with anything like the frequency of children. Evidence of this can be found in the fact that there is no movement afoot to ban them from restaurants.

The difference between boisterous, misbehaving children and breastfeeding in public is that breastfeeding can be ignored and therefore only negatively impacts one’s experience if one lets it. These children can’t be ignored. Ask the guy who went into that B&N to buy that copy of FA!

And, just to head you off, its true that not ALL kids misbehave. But then again, not ALL 9 year olds are incapable of driving, but we still prohibit ALL of them from holding driver’s licenses…

 

[Mumbles140]

BTW the point of my original comment on this thread was that I like to have the experience of a nice dinner with my loving husband during which we can flirt, engage in conversation and enjoy the ambiance of the selected establishment. The irritation when that is disrupted is not based on the food that I order, lobster, foie gras, or plate of ribs. The irritation is taking the time and energy to plan a night out without the children only to surrounded by other peoples children. Thus the comment about tripping over the six year old on the way to the powder room.

I can trip over my kids and their things at my own house. I can be interrupted in a sentence 3 times by my own daughter and then she gets a lecture about manners.

So where can I go without being called a bigot or accused of filthy discrimination against ohhh wait for it…children? There are times when I do go to Chucky Cheese, and I expect children to be there. I expect children to be at an amusement park or a carnival area at the fair. I want to know the places I can go where I can expect to be surrounded by other adults who are not drunk singing karoake.

Well then back to your original point, I first off have always thought Red Lobster was a family establishment. I focused on that because you discussed the pleasure of having lobster. I feel like Red Lobster would not break up noisy groups, where as a restaurant serving foie gras likely would. We may disagree on the ambiance, but I don’t think of Red Lobster as more ‘romantic and adult’ than ‘family-friendly’.

Now, if you have those nicer restaurants, and the ability to get high-quality food fitting a special occasion (even if that special occasion is just a night away from the kids), why wouldn’t you opt for one of those instead of a place where you no longer have the desire to get ‘fancied up’ and have a nice night with your husband? I would hope there is somewhere that had a nicer, quieter atmosphere still in your price range.

Honestly, I think most national chains would pride themselves on being family friendly, and one would likely expect better atmosphere at a smaller, local business.

 

[Allegra]

Its a personal thing, like I say, pciking one’s nose or teeth. Or trimming one’s nails in public. Not disgusting, or revolting or anything that needs to be “banned”, certainly not as disgusting as dealing the result of breastfeeding in public.

I was in a Starbucks once, reading the paper. There was a group of mom’s with babies across the room. One of the mom’s got up from her group. walked over by me and started changing a poopy diaper. I caught a whiff, looked up and asked if she could do that somewhere else (it was really putting me off of my coffee and scone). Her reply: “I’m sorry, I don’t want to gross out my friends”… go figure.

Ewww! It’s called a bathroom!

 

[pnewton]

No it is a strawman because you’re drawing a false equivalency. Mentally handicapped people simply don’t misbehave in public with anything like the frequency of children. Evidence of this can be found in the fact that there is no movement afoot to ban them from restaurants.

The difference between boisterous, misbehaving children and breastfeeding in public is that breastfeeding can be ignored and therefore only negatively impacts one’s experience if one lets it.

No, I will just disagree with your logic. I find the first to be circular still and the second one hold the answer to dealing with children.

 

[Mumbles140]

There is a huge difference between keeping minorities, who are behaving in exactly the same appropriate way as other patrons out of a restaurant and keeping noisy, boisterous undisciplined children out of a restaurant.

If today’s parents would instil some discipline into their children this wouldn’t be an issue. Its really too bad that the minority who have well-behaved children are penalized along with the rest, but that’s life.

Then frequent businesses that permit children. I’ll frequent the others and we’ll both be happy.

I agree, but don’t make a blanket statement against all children. I would love to see more restaurants asking boisterous people (whether children, drunk, or not) to leave. But what about well-behaved kids? Why prevent them from going to nicer restaurants where they can learn/practice their good manners? If you keep them in ball pits at restaurants growing up, that is what they will expect.

Do you honestly believe the majority of children are misbehaved, and that it is a minority who aren’t? And again, is there a difference between a 6 and a 7 year old? Most of the anecdotal evidence hasn’t been against crying babies, but kids 5-8, which means half of the problem children would still be at the restaurant…

 

[larsenl1]

Actually, writing ‘having a hard time’ meant your distractions with children. My point was that the place you go for good seafood has kids who take away from the atmosphere you hope for, and from relatives know it isn’t easy to find good seafood in that area, meaning one of the possible choices to eat was made ‘less special’ by distraction.

Well at least I understand your point now. Yes, the list of possible places to go for a date night with my husband, after making arrangements that my teenager who often behaves like a five year old (because she has mental illness) is looked after by another responsible adult, is short because so many places do not ask unruly families to leave. There seems to be no dollar limit or time limit. $5 plate per person or $50 plate per person. Five p.m. or 9 p.m. Shouldn’t a family with little kids be at home by 9 p.m.? It doesn’t matter if it is Monday night, Thursday night or Saturday night. It doesn’t matter if it is the Art Museum or the Bowling Alley or a Fine Dining Restaurant.

And the thing is, I like kids. I really like kids. I like kids who are mentally handicapped. I have one. And sometimes I need to have grown-up time. And I don’t want to go to a bar, because honestly, just because a kid is 19 or 21, I still don’t like their behavior when they drink. So I don’t want to go to a bar or a casino. I just want to go out to eat with my husband and escape from the chaos at home for awhile. It helps me be a better mom the rest of the week or month or for the next six months as these opportunities are not always easy to schedule.

 

[larsenl1]

Now, if you have those nicer restaurants, and the ability to get high-quality food fitting a special occasion (even if that special occasion is just a night away from the kids), why wouldn’t you opt for one of those instead of a place where you no longer have the desire to get ‘fancied up’ and have a nice night with your husband? I would hope there is somewhere that had a nicer, quieter atmosphere still in your price range.

…one would likely expect better atmosphere at a smaller, local business.

You would be disappointed. Because of the politically correct trend to consider all people equal in any situation, there are few nice quiet places to go when one gets fancied up. That was my point. Red Lobster used to (back in the 80’s) be a place like that but not anymore and so just like you suggest, we don’t go there anymore for those special nights. Nor can we go to many other places even the local restaurants (I listed many) that are nice upscale restaurants.

Tell me a place where it is acceptable to have adults only? The topic of this thread is that is now considered discrimination which is pejorative in current context.

 

[BillP]

But what about well-behaved kids? Why prevent them from going to nicer restaurants where they can learn/practice their good manners? If you keep them in ball pits at restaurants growing up, that is what they will expect.

God forgive my expedience, here, but basically, it ain’t my job to be the subject upon which they "practice “(or not) their good manners”. I do not want to pay for the privilege.

Do you honestly believe the majority of children are misbehaved, and that it is a minority who aren’t? And again, is there a difference between a 6 and a 7 year old? Most of the anecdotal evidence hasn’t been against crying babies, but kids 5-8, which means half of the problem children would still be at the restaurant…

Yeah, I do. But again, I don’t blame the kids. I blame the parents. I wasn’t allowed to behave that way** in public **when I was a child.

Look, ALL kids act up and ALL babies cry. I’m not an idiot or a grinch, I know that. And I don’t blame the parents for the behavior per se.

But when the parent doesn’t have the common courtesy and consideration to remove the baby/child from the environment so that the people paying for access to the environment can enjoy it…then I blame them.

And today I see precious few parents removing the kids from the environment, so ban 'em all, I can eat in peace and maybe the parents will learn to manage their offspring.

My rule, based on what I’ve seen, would be to ban kids under 12, but I wouldn’t be checking birth certificates at the door.

 

[Mumbles140]

As I said, none of these were places “for kids”. One was a restraunt, but it was nearly ten o’clock. None of these took place at an amusement park. I think you may have mixed me up with another poster. I’ve already said that these are rare occurances. I’m not advocating making it illegal to bring children out in public. I’m advocating the right of a business owner to exclude children from his or her establishment. The people who patronized such a place would probably do so, in part, because they wanted to be away from children. Why would anyone want to deliberately force their children on people who don’t want to be around them, when they have other, child friendly options?

Sorry - when you said ‘public attraction’, I mistakenly thought amusement park. Still, public attraction seems like somewhere kids would be. Understandably, 10 pm is very late for younger kids to be out. However, think about the parents who maybe want to go somewhere nicer but can’t afford a babysitter? Why condemn them to Chuck E Cheese? Or maybe they are trying to train their kids proper manners and want to test it at a restaurant?

All I’m trying to say is that a blanket ban is too much in my opinion. I believe the majority of children will behave (or be disciplined if they don’t) when out at a restaurant that doesn’t encourage wild behavior with ball pits or play areas. And for those that don’t, kindly ask them to leave if their behavior continues.

 

[larsenl1]

So right now at this very minute, my 17 yr old mentally ill daughter is having a hissy fit, crying screaming stomping because we won’t give her back her cell phone so she can have a camera to take pictures when she visits grandma and grandpa. Last night she lost her cell phone and internet and all computer use. She is grounded 21st century style. so wehn she said she needed her phone so she could take pictures, we handed her her digital camera.

And she started acting like a child. I would not subject anyone to this in any public place. So she does not get to go visit grandma and grandpa. Period.

Now maybe tomorrow night, my wedding anniversary, I want to go out and not listen to something like I listened to right now. Suggestions?

 

[Allegra]

I agree, but don’t make a blanket statement against all children. I would love to see more restaurants asking boisterous people (whether children, drunk, or not) to leave. But what about well-behaved kids? Why prevent them from going to nicer restaurants where they can learn/practice their good manners? If you keep them in ball pits at restaurants growing up, that is what they will expect.

Do you honestly believe the majority of children are misbehaved, and that it is a minority who aren’t? And again, is there a difference between a 6 and a 7 year old? Most of the anecdotal evidence hasn’t been against crying babies, but kids 5-8, which means half of the problem children would still be at the restaurant…

I imagine the idea behind six being the cutoff age is that children under six may actually be too young to control themselves in a restaurant, where as older kids can be expected to sit at a table and act right. (Not that they always will, but that they should be able to.) I don’t know that I really agree. I don’t see any reason why a four-year-old or five-year-old can’t sit at the table like a person, but I figure that’s their logic.

 

[Allegra]

Sorry - when you said ‘public attraction’, I mistakenly thought amusement park. Still, public attraction seems like somewhere kids would be. Understandably, 10 pm is very late for younger kids to be out. However, think about the parents who maybe want to go somewhere nicer but can’t afford a babysitter? Why condemn them to Chuck E Cheese? Or maybe they are trying to train their kids proper manners and want to test it at a restaurant?

All I’m trying to say is that a blanket ban is too much in my opinion. I believe the majority of children will behave (or be disciplined if they don’t) when out at a restaurant that doesn’t encourage wild behavior with ball pits or play areas. And for those that don’t, kindly ask them to leave if their behavior continues.

Chuck E Cheese is where a kid can be a kid. That is a good place to take kids and that’s where one can start teaching about table manners. It’s not fair to expect a two-year-old to behave the way older kids can and it isn’t fair to expect other unwilling grownups to assist in the training of your child during their night out. That being said, no one is talking about a blanket ban. There are hundreds of nicer places they can go that happily accept families. McDain’s of Pittsburg isn’t one of them.

 

[Allegra]

Now maybe tomorrow night, my wedding anniversary, I want to go out and not listen to something like I listened to right now. Suggestions?

I heard McDain’s in Pittsburg is nice.

 

[Alix1912]

I forgot to mention the time I was at Red Robin and I saw a kid go up to the person in the Robin suit and punch them full-on in the crotch, then run away laughing hysterically. Granted, this is a family restaurant, but I don’t think Red expected that!

I have HUGE respect for people who wear costumes like that after working for Disney. It is a hard job, my friends who did it had horror stories about how badly kids and adults had treated them. In kids defense…soe of the younger ones didn’t realize that they weren’t big stuffed animals…but what you described above is really not OK.

How about banning breast-feeding moms? That too puts a lot of people off.

I was wondering when the lactivists would jump into the fray. If a resturant banns kid under 6 that would INCLUDE both formula and breastfed kids.

I think that it is fair to say I do not want children excluded from everywhere. But as a consumer I would like to be able to choose when I will be in a restaurant that caters to families with children and when I can have an adult’s only date with my hubby. Sometimes I will take my granddaughter out to eat, sometimes I won’t.

A breast-feeding mom who has pumped and provided breastmilk for the sitter to use while she goes out on that precious date with hubby and then has dressed up and used nursing pads inside her nursing bra would not bother me at all. A breast feeding mother who has a fussy baby that is hungry, too hot, too cold, too wet, would bother me just as much as a mother using formula in a bottle.

Do I care if a mother is breast-feeding at a bench in the shopping mall where I expect kids of all ages while her husband goes and shops for her? No I do not.

If an adult in a wheelchair wants to eat at a fine restaurant and is able to be reasonably quiet and won’t jump out of the wheelchair and lay on the floor just to see what is under the table, then by all means they are welcome.

If a child in a wheelchair still has a personality and behavior of a five year old not in a wheelchair, then she would probably still be bossy and even whiny and that would be disruptive to other consumers.

I’m okay with men’s only establishments too, (and I don’t mean strip clubs) because honestly I don’t want to be around guys smoking cigars, farting, and slinging back whiskey while they watch boxing. I would expect them to look at me funny if I came in and ordered a glass of white wine and wanted them to change the channel to Oprah or Dr. Phil. I just do not go to the places here and there that are friendly to testosterone. And I know not all men are like that. Most men are not like that most of the time. But when they do feel the need, I am happy they have a place to go.

I agree totally…there are times and places for everything and everyone, and that’s OK.

 

[Alix1912]

Anyone? Really? Ban Catholics? You’d be o.k. with that? What about African Americans? What about Italian Americans? German Americans? Would you be happy if we started seeing signs in the windows of private companies that said “Catholics need not apply” again? What about age? What if I don’t want to serve senior citizens? That all seems reasonable to you? When you say “private company” do you include companies/people that rent housing–should I be able to deny a place to live to people based on race, religion etc.?

Mark,

I actually WAS a landlord and managed several different types of rental housing before becomeing a SAHM. Fair housing laws started to prevent people from discriminating against minorities, but frankly they have gotten WAY out of control. I had a family with a really unruly kid, who happened to be from a culture where the women were not allowed to discipline male children. This 3 year old terrorized his mother and the people in the apartments around him. He would kick the walls until the pictures in the apartment above would fall off the walls. He would scream for hours on end. It was unreal. Could I evict them, nope protected status time 4 (Religon, Race, Creed, Familial status (aka had kids), I could not even tell them to be quite without running afoul of fair housing. I lost three tenants over them. Then when they left and left the apartment dirty and damaged (go figure holes in the wall) and I charged them for it, they threatened to sue on grounds that we didn’t understand that this type of damage was not considered damage in their culture. Fair housing meant that my maintenance guys could not help the 80 year old tenant carry her groceries, unless they helped all 200 of my tenants with their groceries, as that would discriminate against the 20 year old college kids. You can’t recover damages for an apartment that has to be stripped down to the studdes because it is permiated with the scent of curry, because that is part of Indian culture and telling them it’s damages is discrimination.

Not to mention, Fair housing lawsuits, at least in my state, can be brought by anyone against a landlord, and the land lord bears all the legal costs regardless of the suits finding. This means the landlord pays even if the suit is false. The laws may have had good intent behind them, but they have have basically become an unfair weapon against landlords and nothing more.

There are lots of things that people can and can’t do because of various differences they have. My college campus had African American, Asian, Arabic etc. only clubs, so does my husbands corporation which is a global corporation. Catholics and Lutherans, and many other denominations practice closed communion, and require you to take classes and swear oaths before joining. Dance Clubs and Bars deniy people under 18 or 21 all the time. As for employeement…you have to be qualified to perform the job you are applying for, and if the business subscribes to a certain set of values or beliefs I have no issues with them asking their employees to as well. Gay people can’t work for Catholic Charities. Women can’t be priests…and you would have to be Catholic to have either position. So no matter how fair I think that is or not, I still can’t do either.

I will say this–people now seem more tolerant of dogs than children and I find dogs in public for more annoying than children–in general, and when animals are more accepted than children–then something has gone seriously wrong in our society.

Again as a former Landlord…I totally saw this all the time and it drove me crazy too.

As for restaurants not taking children–well we don’t eat there and my children don’t grow up with the habit of eating at those restaurants–which means they most likely won’t grow up to be patrons of those restaurants–at least with my oldest children that has been the case. Makes the policy short sighted.

See that is the beauty of the free market. You can patronize where you want to for whatever reason you want to. There are lots of places I don’t patronize for various reasons and that’s fine.

Be careful when you wish for complete equality. If you spin that out to it’s end point and everyplace and everything has to be completely fair and equal…well that would cause a lot of issues. Example, no more requiring people meet certain requirements to hold a job, so no more male only clergy in some churches, no more requiring a medical degree to be a doctor, no more requiring background checks on teachers. Not to mention no more closed communion, or requiring people to go through RCIA. Catholic wedding planners MUST plan gay couples weddings etc. While we are at this whole “fair and equal” thing, people should not be able to discriminate against certain businesses and organizations, so why not require people to rotate the places they go out to eat so the good and the bad, the american and chinese resturants are treated equally. Hey, if we are going to do it with eateries, why not stores, doctors, and churches as well. Don’t want the bad doctors, or the methodists feeling bad. Really this can get a little silly.

Life comes with some limitations, and I would rather those be dictated by private individuals and companies so the free market can regulate it rather than a government tell me who I can and can’t serve and partonize.

 

[MarkInOregon]

I find this whole discussion some what amusing. Why do we need to ban any class of people because some misbehave? Why can’t we simply ask misbehaving people to leave rather than banning whole classes of people? Is it that hard?

If I am in line and my children are having difficulty making a decision we always offer to let the person in line behind us go ahead–if they know what they want. I wish adults who don’t know what they want would show the same courtesy. I cannot tell you how many mornings I have waited in line at Starbucks only to have the person in front of me get to the counter and not know what they want and spend 5 minutes hemhawing about what pastry and drink they want–like they couldn’t decide during the time they spent waiting in line. Or the person who has to finish their cell phone call before they can order and pay.

I’ve had far more dinners, ball games, etc. ruined by rude and unruly adults than I ever have had ruined by misbehaving children. By adults loudly berating the wait staff, complaining about everything, just generally being loud and obnoxius or spending their whole meal talking too loudly on their cell phone–children have no monopoly on behaving poorly in public–its everywhere in society. Perhaps children are just mirroring the behavior they see displayed in public by adults. How many parents can’t behave themselves at their childrens sporting events and berate the volunteer teenage refs over calls in an 8 year olds soccer game as if its life and death? A child I can excuse but an adult–well there is no excuse–they should know better–the child needs to be taught–they don’t magically wake up one day with polished manners.

When my wife and I go out to a nice restaurant we hardly see children there–probably because of price and portion (i.e. no kids menu) and maybe the hour at which we usually eat. However two, weeks ago we were at a nice restaurant and the table next to us had an infant in a car seat–not a peep from the child the whole time they were there. Now if I go to Red Robin I expect it to be loud, noisy and crowded with families and teenage kids–often on their prom.

I’ve just never seen this as the big issue it appears to be for many. Maybe my idea of a nice restaurant is different–I just don’t see a lot of children at what I consider a “nice” restaurant and I experience many more adults behaving badly than I do children. I can think of lots of adults I’d like to ban from places but very few children.

Most of my children started going to the ballet with us at three–one of the boys at four because I was unsure he would sit quietly when he was three. We have never had an incident or problem with the children. The same cannot be said of some of the adults who attend.

My problem–is the broad brush approach. If the child sits nicely at the dinner table, eats his food whats the issue? That child is preferable to the buffoon making a scene at his table because he thinks his steak isn’t cooked right or he didn’t get the table he wanted.

You want a quiet evening alone–may I suggest staying home–that way no one will bother you. Just kidding.

Peace,
Mark