It may just be me, but I believe in the policy of inclusion, not exclusion. Welcome all, then ask those who deserve to leave to do so.According to the restaurant owner, it was the constant complaining by his customers about misbehaving children that made him consider the ban on children under 6. If I’m the owner and the complaining is becoming more and more frequent, then sometimes you have to make a decision such as he made.
Flip your theory, if parents know that a certain establishment is not family friendly, why don’t they find a different restaurant? Why should other customers bear the burden of having to be speak to parents that can’t discipline their children properly in a restaurant setting, or to the management?
I think there is equal blame. The parents are to blame for allowing their children to ‘run wild’, but the business manager is to blame for not maintaining the proper environment for the establishment. If they are afraid to talk to the parents or ask them to leave, perhaps they shouldn’t be manager…Some kids will act like wild animals because their parents allow it. And just try having a “more strict policy” about it and see the grief you have to take from those same parents. It’s probably a lot easier for a business owner to ban children under 6 entirely than to deal with those parents. So blame the parents, not the business owners.
If the parents are drunk, then it should be child endangerment (depending on the age of the child), or at the very least negligence. But again, you should expect children at an amusement park, and though that doesn’t excuse what you or your family had to deal with, your example is about kids behaving poorly at a place for kids. And I know you have other serious examples which display inappropriate behavior, but what is the percentage of problem children versus the amount of children you are around (directly or indirectly) every time you are out?I don’t want to spend my evening talking to parents who let their children rifle through other people’s purses. Besides, they were drunk. Come to think of it, so were “hat kid’s” parents. Maybe there should be a law against parenting under the influence. As far as changing where I go, the vast majority of these incidents occured at a place where kids don’t usually go or when it was past most kids bed time. (Actually, that may be why they were acting that way in the first place.) You can’t guarentee that there won’t be horrible parents anywhere you go. (Unless, of course, you go to a place where kids are banned.)
Actually, for the most part, I don’t have a problem with kids. I actually like kids. People pay me to teach their kids, so I spend alot of time around them. I’m pretty adept at making kids act like people, so I sort of expect other people to do the same. Even so, I tend to have a higher tolerance for noise than most others.
I’m only pointing out that I have, in fact, been troubled by other people’s kids in public to the extent that I have left the establishment. I can totally see a market for kid-free business. I would totally shop a kid-free grocery store! I’m certainly not saying that children should be banned from public like cigarettes. I’m saying that if a business owner wants to market his business to those who don’t want to deal with the inconvenience of other people’s progeny, what’s wrong with that?
So what then? We should ban all children from museum’s because one set of kids at one museum acted out of line and security had to be notified? Or should we let them run wild without any rules? I think the correct action was taken - notify an employee of the museum and let them handle it according to their company policy.Can you explain to me why I should spend even one moment of my precious recreational time at the impossible task of correcting other people’s parenting skills? Frankly, I think it highly unlikely that any of them will rise to the occasion. I think it’s more likely they will get mad and start a fight. I suppose if such a situation arose, I would also speak to the security officer, however, the result would probably be that the family would get thrown out and ma would go home and complain about how horrible the museum is to people with children. I certainly doubt that if she didn’t think it was wrong for her kids to climb on a museum exhibit in the first place, the security guard would ever be able to persuade her otherwise.
Wrong - they have to be incorporated, obtain a business license, etc, and that causes them to follow certain regulations imposed by the local/state/federal government. Private or not, they still have rules to follow.A private buisness should be allowed to do what they wish. If they don’t want to sell to children/gays/Catholics/Yankee fans who cares? No one is forcing you to purchase what they have. Move on to another place.
If the restaurant in question isn’t child friendly, then they should have the common sense not to frequent said restaurant. Just because a place may not have a ban on infants and children, doesn’t mean that parents shouldn’t think twice about taking their children to certain businesses and restaurants. Find a “nice” restaurant that is child friendly, its that simple. This restaurant owner in this situation had one too many complaints from his customers about children, he finally did something about the situation that some find very popular. Like I said, the area that this restaurant is located is a mecca for every restaurant franchise. There is no shortage of “nice” restaurants that families can take their business to. IMO, its nice to have an option of a place were its a little more adult oriented. And he’s not banning all children, just those under 6. I knew what my child could and couldn’t handle, and we just didn’t go out that much when she was that age and younger. We had common sense not to go to certain places, some parents will never get it and have to have it spelled out for them with a restaurant implementing a ban.It may just be me, but I believe in the policy of inclusion, not exclusion. Welcome all, then ask those who deserve to leave to do so.
Think about parents with a newborn baby who want to have a nice dinner together. The child is too young for a sitter and needs to be breast-fed. Other than sleeping, the child is awake to nurse, and the mother takes him/her into the bathroom to do so. Should they not be allowed at nice restaurants because of an infant?
I said they SHOULD-not they ARE.Wrong - they have to be incorporated, obtain a business license, etc, and that causes them to follow certain regulations imposed by the local/state/federal government. Private or not, they still have rules to follow.
I agree that they should be able to as well. I do agree that restaurants should be able to deny access to children, or ask parents with unruly children to leave – especially when they get complaints from other patrons. There are plenty of places to bring children, where they are allowed and actually encouraged to make noise and have fun. Why would anyone want to bring children to a quiet restaurant when there’s Chucky Cheese (or however you spell it) and McDonald’s with its play areas?A private buisness should be allowed to do what they wish. If they don’t want to sell to children/gays/Catholics/Yankee fans who cares? No one is forcing you to purchase what they have. Move on to another place.
But he is “maintaining the proper environment for the establishment” Its a slightly upscale restaurant,located on a golf course, its not Applebee’s or a similar restaurant. Its motto is “cocktails and fine casual dining”, that should be the first clue to any family that it might not be the place for them to dine.I think there is equal blame. The parents are to blame for allowing their children to ‘run wild’, but the business manager is to blame for not maintaining the proper environment for the establishment. If they are afraid to talk to the parents or ask them to leave, perhaps they shouldn’t be manager…
Well you shouldn’t. Peace of mind should be obtainable to everyone :angel1:I said they SHOULD-not they ARE.
So, how can that be wrong?
And for the record, if it even needs to be said, I don’t support discrimination of any kind.
I’m sorry - I took your statement to mean that because they are private, give them free-reign. And I hope it wasn’t taken that I implied you supported discrimination (other than possibly against children at adult establishments). I was simply trying to point out that being a ‘private business’ does not give one the same rights as a ‘private citizen’, and the distinction is used mainly for publicly traded companies (which have SEC reporting requirements) and those that aren’t - but the ownership structure has nothing to do (nor should it) with what is permissible and what isn’t.I said they SHOULD-not they ARE.
So, how can that be wrong?
And for the record, if it even needs to be said, I don’t support discrimination of any kind.
I know parents who don’t like taking their kids to those environments because they don’t want their kids getting used to running around and being wild at a restaurant.I agree that they should be able to as well. I do agree that restaurants should be able to deny access to children, or ask parents with unruly children to leave – especially when they get complaints from other patrons. There are plenty of places to bring children, where they are allowed and actually encouraged to make noise and have fun. Why would anyone want to bring children to a quiet restaurant when there’s Chucky Cheese (or however you spell it) and McDonald’s with its play areas?
Not sure about you, but my dad took me golfing when I was younger. Seems convenient to have a restaurant right next to the golf course. And it does have the word casual in there. That doesn’t scream to me ‘no kids allowed’. Now, if they carded at the door and banned anyone under 18 or 21, that says to me it is an adult establishment. But if you are willing to let in a 12 year old, why not an 8 year old? And if 8, why not 5?But he is “maintaining the proper environment for the establishment” Its a slightly upscale restaurant,located on a golf course, its not Applebee’s or a similar restaurant. Its motto is “cocktails and fine casual dining”, that should be the first clue to any family that it might not be the place for them to dine.
I’m sorry you and your husband have such a hard time getting lobster - I’m sure there aren’t a ton of seafood places in Iowa. But, in Red Lobster’s defense, I have always thought of it as a family restaurant, especially based on their advertisements.My husband and I used to enjoy going to Red Lobster for a special occasion meal. Lobster, not chicken nuggets or mac and cheese.
About 10 years ago, we stopped enjoying the experience. I don’t know why moms and dads don’t hire babysitters to have an adult night out. Babies are not going to be happy at a restaurant for the 90 minutes you are there. Toddlers really don’t appreciate the expense and rarity of getting to go eat lobster. Even 8 year olds are disruptive to the couples sitting in a booth behind the table for 6 that is accommodating 8 people with 2 highchairs squeezed in.
Now we affectionately call Red Lobster “daycare” and if we go there we know that there will be screaming 3 year olds, a fussy baby, a six year old crawling on the floor. ’
Likewise, I don’t bother to wear a dress, pantyhose, dress shoes and a special purse and my husband does not wear a suit with a silk tie. We go to the restaurant in jeans and tees, with flip flops befitting the unfortunate demise of the atmosphere of a restaurant that once used to be the best place to go for prom, to celebrate an anniversary or new job.
I am a mom. Children are a blessing. But sometimes mom and dad need a night away from the kids and that is kind of ruined if you go to an upscale restaurant with linen tablecloths, nice wine, and you trip over a six year old on the way to the powder room.
Why can’t a restaurant say it is adults only?
My mom’s ex-husband had a huge family. He had 7 kids, and they are grown, married and have their own kids. At last count there were 24 grandkids. We used to take over a few local restaurant regularly when we dined there together. Even if only three of the kids (and their families) got together, we took over literally half the restaurant and we were all really loud. But these were family restaurants and no one complained that we know of. We were always welcome there. In fact, one was fairly large and other people brought their kids there too. So there were a lot of kids running about in the second place.Why don’t we all take a moment and reflect on looking at God through the eyes of a child - such wonder, such innocence, such purity. Even when they misbehave, it isn’t an act of defiance, it is more likely that they don’t know better. Pray that their parents have the care to discipline them, but let’s not place a blanket ban…
Are you a pot calling the kettle black?I’m sorry you and your husband have such a hard time getting lobster - I’m sure there aren’t a ton of seafood places in Iowa.
There is a HUGE difference between an 8 year old and a 12 year old. My daughter just turned 12 a few months ago, and there are definitely places we can go now that I wouldn’t have taken her when she was 8. Same with comparing age 8 to 5. I certainly expect as she grows older and becomes even more mature, that our options will expand even further.Not sure about you, but my dad took me golfing when I was younger. Seems convenient to have a restaurant right next to the golf course. And it does have the word casual in there. That doesn’t scream to me ‘no kids allowed’. Now, if they carded at the door and banned anyone under 18 or 21, that says to me it is an adult establishment. But if you are willing to let in a 12 year old, why not an 8 year old? And if 8, why not 5?
A well-behaved child would only add to the proper environment, not take away from it. Other options exist that don’t force an unnecessary ban. Perhaps designate one side of the restaurant for families with children, or create an age ban after a certain time (730 pm is 18/21 or older only). Either way, I think that it was a step too far without exploring other options.
And, just to throw this out - how many people have been troubled by kids at restaurants, amusement parks, or other places that were aged 7-18? I feel it can be worse having kids older than 6 because they can be more likely to rebel. Was the age of 6 studied and carefully chosen, or was it an arbitrary number to keep out babies and toddlers?