PDA

View Full Version : No babies allowed? What's your thoughts>



garhkal
01-19-2014, 06:41 PM
So. With the recent issue in Chicago about the 8 month old at Alinea, a fine dining (meaning pricy as heck!) restaurant disrupting all the other patrons dinners, is bringing up the chatter about making no baby zones, or having restaurants go babyless (since there are enough "Family restaurants for those who want to bring their kids to)..

So what is everyone's thoughts on this?

Okie
01-19-2014, 06:46 PM
It's a free country. Entrepreneurs should be allowed to allow and prohibit whomever they so choose from patronizing their establishment. If you think it's a valid business model and/or your convictions run that deeply, knock yourself out. If you don't want "my kind" (whatever that may be), then I sure as hell don't see why I need to pay you for that attitude.

BENDER56
01-19-2014, 07:12 PM
It's a free country. Entrepreneurs should be allowed to allow and prohibit whomever they so choose from patronizing their establishment. If you think it's a valid business model and/or your convictions run that deeply, knock yourself out. If you don't want "my kind" (whatever that may be), then I sure as hell don't see why I need to pay you for that attitude.

1. I agree.

2. However, a few years ago Rand Paul found himself answering accusations of racism because of this issue. His view is that a private business owner should have the right to serve/not serve anyone without having to justify his decision. This, rightly so, raised the specter of a return to whites-only establishments should this become policy. So I agree with some misgivings.

3. Regarding this specific issue; I don't think kids should be in upscale locales until they can reliably behave properly. FYI, I'm not a big fan of kids in general. I'm so glad mine are adults now.

4. We had a thread about this sometime in 2013. It began with a post about a restaurant (here in FL, I think) that refused to allow children.

Chief_KO
01-19-2014, 08:05 PM
It is sad that a restaurant would chose to do this.
It is more sad that parents would take a baby to such a place. They probably made reservations a year or more ago...
If your child starts acting up/crying (whether 8 months or 8 years of age), time to excuse yourself and take child outside. If can't be resolved (more than likely it won't), get your dinner in a to-go box.
Same thing for church, concert, what ever...(except for the to-go box...haven't seen a take out communion, yet)

TJMAC77SP
01-19-2014, 08:22 PM
It is sad that a restaurant would chose to do this.
It is more sad that parents would take a baby to such a place. They probably made reservations a year or more ago...
If your child starts acting up/crying (whether 8 months or 8 years of age), time to excuse yourself and take child outside. If can't be resolved (more than likely it won't), get your dinner in a to-go box.
Same thing for church, concert, what ever...(except for the to-go box...haven't seen a take out communion, yet)


Spot on !! This (bolded) is where the selfishness of some parents become apparent. Neither of my boys was always an angel and could raise a ruckus from time to time, even in public. Never lasted more than 5 seconds without either me or their mother taking them out of whatever public venue we happened to be in.

Chief_KO
01-19-2014, 08:33 PM
It's pathetic that each public event or movie starts with the "silence your phone" message and that many businesses (and doctor's offices) have signs saying not to use your phone.

Just WTF is so important??
Having heard half of hundreds of cell phone conversations, I know the answer: NOTHING!!

garhkal
01-19-2014, 08:38 PM
It's pathetic that each public event or movie starts with the "silence your phone" message and that many businesses (and doctor's offices) have signs saying not to use your phone.


What's even worse, is there never seems to be any retribution by the facility against those who ignore that message..

sandsjames
01-19-2014, 09:24 PM
Restaurants, and every other business, should be able to limit customers, if they are willing to lose customers. No difference than "No shoes, no shirt, no service". That pretty much keeps have of southerners out of most stores/restaurants.

As others have mentioned, the problem isn't the crying baby. The problem is that parents are not willing to take care of the issue.

imnohero
01-19-2014, 09:42 PM
This comes up 2 or 3 times a year. Makes the media rounds and the businesses are none the worse for it (if not better off from the free publicity).

technomage1
01-20-2014, 12:31 AM
The place in question starts at $210 per person. Not something really suitable for babies or small children. I know if I'd paid that much for a quiet evening out I'd be ticked to have it spoiled by a crying baby. There are just some places where it's not appropriate to bring children. I can't believe the number of parents who bring kids to bars, for example, then get huffy about the language in there. Hello - it's a bar. Your snookums doesn't belong in there until they're 21. You being them in, you accept the atmosphere as it is.

Poor parenting is also a problem. Why on earth do parents think it's ok to let junior scream and subject everyone else to the noise? All we should be hearing is a rapidly diminishing wail towards the exit. And I expect that at "family" restaurants too, such as Ruby Tuesday.

It's gotten so I'd pay more for a childfree evening out and I'm willing to bet the patrons of the expensive restaurant thought that's what they were getting.

TJMAC77SP
01-20-2014, 02:36 PM
The place in question starts at $210 per person. Not something really suitable for babies or small children. I know if I'd paid that much for a quiet evening out I'd be ticked to have it spoiled by a crying baby. There are just some places where it's not appropriate to bring children. I can't believe the number of parents who bring kids to bars, for example, then get huffy about the language in there. Hello - it's a bar. Your snookums doesn't belong in there until they're 21. You being them in, you accept the atmosphere as it is.

...................



I would agree with you except in places that are restaurants with bars. We used to have a poster here who posted a story about an incident in such a place. Aside from the bullshit factor of the story (it involved a run in with an off-duty cop over language) the point was that if I were a patron of the restaurant seated within earshot of the bar patron (and for some alcohol fueled patrons that could mean within the same zip code) I wouldn't want my children (or a date/spouse) hearing f-bomb laced conversations (or worse).

Juggs
01-20-2014, 04:09 PM
We take our kids into the bathroom and deal with it. Bring them back to the table. My kids are generally well behaved but when they do start to act like fools we fix it fast. It's called parenting. People don't want to do it these days.

BENDER56
01-20-2014, 05:22 PM
What's even worse, is there never seems to be any retribution by the facility against those who ignore that message..

Here in Florida, we just take matters into our own hands:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/01/15/man-charged-in-florida-movie-theater-shooting-over-texting-had-praiseworthy/

sandsjames
01-20-2014, 07:00 PM
I would agree with you except in places that are restaurants with bars. We used to have a poster here who posted a story about an incident in such a place. Aside from the bullshit factor of the story (it involved a run in with an off-duty cop over language) the point was that if I were a patron of the restaurant seated within earshot of the bar patron (and for some alcohol fueled patrons that could mean within the same zip code) I wouldn't want my children (or a date/spouse) hearing f-bomb laced conversations (or worse).

Yeah, but he did kick the guys ass...let him know who was in charge. I miss him. I really do. I may have even partially believed the guy until I saw his photo on his blog.

garhkal
01-20-2014, 10:25 PM
Here in Florida, we just take matters into our own hands:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/01/15/man-charged-in-florida-movie-theater-shooting-over-texting-had-praiseworthy/

To me that is taking it far too far. Though it does make me wonder, why Cinema's cant install cell phone jammers in the auditorums that turn on just as the film is starting, then turn off when the credits start rolling.

imported_WINTHORP1
01-21-2014, 01:42 AM
Most people don't know the full story behind this thread. The restaurant in question is about $200-$300 per person that is non-refundable. You have to pay for your dinner at the time of your reservation. If you can't make it for what ever reason, too bad, that's what non-refundable means. In this case, the babysitter canceled at the last minute and the parents were unable to find a sitter at the last minute. So instead of just throwing out close to $600 dollars, they brought the child. Now I don't normally agree with bringing children to a really fancy restaurant like this, since most people go for a date night, but I can see not wanting to waste all that money.

garhkal
01-21-2014, 06:10 AM
True, i would not want to waist close to 600 bucks. BUT then again i wouldn't pay 200+ bucks for food!.. Heck i balk at going to a 40buck or greater steak place to eat.

Stalwart
01-26-2014, 10:05 AM
To me that is taking it far too far. Though it does make me wonder, why Cinema's cant install cell phone jammers in the auditorums that turn on just as the film is starting, then turn off when the credits start rolling.

Probably something along the lines of the first time someone missed an emergency call or text (real emergency/crisis) you would probably see a lawsuit. Granted, I don't have much in my life that even necessitates me to carry a cell phone (I didn't until a couple years ago), but instant access to people via cell or text is a way of life now. That doesn't mean I don't roll my eyes when a phone goes off in a restaurant or movie.

But, at the type of restaurant this is described as ... I would not have taken a child. If I lost my babysitter at the last minute I either scramble to find one or lose my $200-$300 per person, out of respect for the other people's $200-$300 per person.

imported_WILDJOKER5
01-27-2014, 07:54 PM
So. With the recent issue in Chicago about the 8 month old at Alinea, a fine dining (meaning pricy as heck!) restaurant disrupting all the other patrons dinners, is bringing up the chatter about making no baby zones, or having restaurants go babyless (since there are enough "Family restaurants for those who want to bring their kids to)..

So what is everyone's thoughts on this?

Honestly, its perfectly fine. If the overwhelming number of people that dont have kids dont want the restraunt to put restrictions on bringing in babies, then the restaraunt will go out of business. Same can be said for certain dress codes, prices of the food, and yes, every aspect of human existance that sets one person apart from the next. Its a PRIVATE business. The only people they should answer to are those patrons that spend money there to keep it open for what that places brings to the table.

imported_WILDJOKER5
01-27-2014, 07:59 PM
1. I agree.

2. However, a few years ago Rand Paul found himself answering accusations of racism because of this issue. His view is that a private business owner should have the right to serve/not serve anyone without having to justify his decision. This, rightly so, raised the specter of a return to whites-only establishments should this become policy. So I agree with some misgivings.

3. Regarding this specific issue; I don't think kids should be in upscale locales until they can reliably behave properly. FYI, I'm not a big fan of kids in general. I'm so glad mine are adults now.

4. We had a thread about this sometime in 2013. It began with a post about a restaurant (here in FL, I think) that refused to allow children.
But that rule was implemented by the government more often then not. And the government also didnt allow competing businesses to open up next door that allowed everyone. Imagine one sandwich shop opening up that said "Whites (or blacks) only". Next door opens a sandwich shop with the same quality of food and allows everyone inside. Do you really think in this day and age, the "Whites only" shop will stay open for long, or even do the same amount of business as the other?

imported_WILDJOKER5
01-27-2014, 08:08 PM
Most people don't know the full story behind this thread. The restaurant in question is about $200-$300 per person that is non-refundable. You have to pay for your dinner at the time of your reservation. If you can't make it for what ever reason, too bad, that's what non-refundable means. In this case, the babysitter canceled at the last minute and the parents were unable to find a sitter at the last minute. So instead of just throwing out close to $600 dollars, they brought the child. Now I don't normally agree with bringing children to a really fancy restaurant like this, since most people go for a date night, but I can see not wanting to waste all that money.Its the risk of having children. Sorry. I throw away money on my son to do fun things and extra cariculars, but if he acts up in school, you best believe he is not going to have that fun. I am pretty sure thats why my parents waited 6 years before having my brother first, it was so they could enjoy being married before having to sacrifice time for their kids.

Measure Man
01-27-2014, 08:51 PM
I support this type of restaurant disallowing children.

Sorry if the couple loses $600. As mentioned, if you have children and choose to make this kind of reservation; the risk of losing a babysitter is on you. If I had a $600 investment I might've had a backup plan or something.

garhkal
01-27-2014, 09:07 PM
But that rule was implemented by the government more often then not. And the government also didnt allow competing businesses to open up next door that allowed everyone. Imagine one sandwich shop opening up that said "Whites (or blacks) only". Next door opens a sandwich shop with the same quality of food and allows everyone inside. Do you really think in this day and age, the "Whites only" shop will stay open for long, or even do the same amount of business as the other?

Nope. BUT women only establishments are ok, which to me showcases the double standard of it.

Measure Man
01-27-2014, 11:30 PM
But that rule was implemented by the government more often then not. And the government also didnt allow competing businesses to open up next door that allowed everyone. Imagine one sandwich shop opening up that said "Whites (or blacks) only". Next door opens a sandwich shop with the same quality of food and allows everyone inside. Do you really think in this day and age, the "Whites only" shop will stay open for long, or even do the same amount of business as the other?

For the most part no...not "in this day and age." Although, if were it allowed, I think there is a fair chance that some places might do okay...catering to a niche market. Location, location, location.

BENDER56
01-28-2014, 05:12 PM
But that rule was implemented by the government more often then not. And the government also didnt allow competing businesses to open up next door that allowed everyone. Imagine one sandwich shop opening up that said "Whites (or blacks) only". Next door opens a sandwich shop with the same quality of food and allows everyone inside. Do you really think in this day and age, the "Whites only" shop will stay open for long, or even do the same amount of business as the other?

To be fair to Sen. Paul, he never raised the issue of race. He was merely pointing out one of the countless ways The State sticks its nose into everyone's business. It was others who gasped in horror and began throwing gobs of racism at him.

AJBIGJ
01-28-2014, 05:54 PM
To be fair to Sen. Paul, he never raised the issue of race. He was merely pointing out one of the countless ways The State sticks its nose into everyone's business. It was others who gasped in horror and began throwing gobs of racism at him.

Pretty much boils down the controversy, unfortunately we live in a day and age where disagreeing the methodology of the Civil Rights Legislation is roughly equated to opposing civil rights for minorities. It is almost universally believed that culture never progresses without associated Federal legislation.

imnohero
01-28-2014, 06:43 PM
Pretty much boils down the controversy, unfortunately we live in a day and age where disagreeing the methodology of the Civil Rights Legislation is roughly equated to opposing civil rights for minorities. It is almost universally believed that culture never progresses without associated Federal legislation.

Not without reason.

USN - Retired
01-28-2014, 07:25 PM
Not without reason.

So are you saying that culture never progresses without associated Federal legislation?
Are you Joe Bonham? You sure sound like him.

imnohero
01-28-2014, 07:39 PM
So are you saying that culture never progresses without associated Federal legislation?
Are you Joe Bonham? You sure sound like him.

No.

Juggs
01-28-2014, 10:07 PM
If I dropped $600 on reservations and my sitter backs out you better believe I'm bringing my kids.

AJBIGJ
01-28-2014, 11:21 PM
Not without reason.
I agree those who take a very narrow view of history might be led to hold such an opinion, unfortunately the notion is also heavily encouraged by those who benefit from it as well.

imported_WILDJOKER5
01-30-2014, 07:48 PM
For the most part no...not "in this day and age." Although, if were it allowed, I think there is a fair chance that some places might do okay...catering to a niche market. Location, location, location.

True. But the government was the key factor in Jim Crow (dem policy) that kept the south segregated. A "free for all" restaurant wasnt allowed right next to the "whites only" establishments.

imported_WILDJOKER5
01-30-2014, 07:55 PM
I agree those who take a very narrow view of history might be led to hold such an opinion, unfortunately the notion is also heavily encouraged by those who benefit from it as well.

I have to point out that it was the judicial branch of early colonies that started slavery. It was government edict that started Jim Crow. Its legislation that gave us Obamacare. It was Legislation that enacted the income (slavery) tax and the draft. All of these are detrimental to the individuals, not to the businesses.