Restaurant bans children?

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Inquisitor Lord Bane**

Its my sons 2nd birthday, so I thought I would throw this out for y'all...

http://shine.yahoo.com/channel/parenting/restaurant-bans-kids-under-6-discrimination-or-smart-move-2509487/

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?

My son is one of the best behaved toddlers I have ever seen, and I wouldn't eat here, nor would anyone I know. Its silly to ban children altogether, though I do agree with the other restaurants decision to ask parents to take screaming kids outside.

**Coolyo294**

I don't agree with this ban, but it's his restaurant and he can do what he wants with it.

**LordofHats**

Oddly, I actual approve of the right to deny service for whatever reason you please. It's his business, let him lose or win it.

Personally, I have a rule: No hat no service

Walk in butt naked if you like, but there'd better be a hat somewhere on you

**Cheesecat**

LordofHats wrote:Oddly, I actual approve of the right to deny service for whatever reason you please. It's his business, let him lose or win it.

Personally, I have a rule: No hat no service Walk in butt naked if you like, but there'd better be a hat somewhere on you

I look sexier without a hat though.

**LordofHats**

Cheesecat wrote:
LordofHats wrote:Oddly, I actual approve of the right to deny service for whatever reason you please. It's his business, let him lose or win it.

Personally, I have a rule: No hat no service Walk in butt naked if you like, but there'd better be a hat somewhere on you

I look sexier without a hat though.

Well then, take your business elsewhere good sir

**Coolyo294**

LordofHats wrote:Oddly, I actual approve of the right to deny service for whatever reason you please. It's his business, let him lose or win it.

Personally, I have a rule: No hat no service Walk in butt naked if you like, but there'd better be a hat somewhere on you

Does it matter what type of hat?

**LordofHats**

coolyo294 wrote:
LordofHats wrote:Oddly, I actual approve of the right to deny service for whatever reason you please. It's his business, let him lose or win it.

Personally, I have a rule: No hat no service Walk in butt naked if you like, but there'd better be a hat somewhere on you
Does it matter what type of hat?

Not really. Any kind of headgear that can cover the head counts really.

**Slarg232**

LordofHats wrote:Oddly, I actual approve of the right to deny service for whatever reason you please. It's his business, let him lose or win it.

Personally, I have a rule: No hat no service Walk in butt naked if you like, but there'd better be a hat somewhere on you

Wouldn't that mean racist bastards who denied black people from being served in their store/restaurant/whatever were in the right back before (and for some time after) the civil war?

**FITZZ**

I have to agree with the owners policy.
I have two children myself, and before they reached an age where they knew how to behave themselves in public, the Missus and I simply either got baby sitters when we wanted to go out to eat...or ordered in.
When my children were old enough to behave, they knew what was expected of them and for the most part did so...but many other patrons children didn't.
I know many people might have " What do you mean my child can't eat here" point of view...but given number of times I've seen parents allowing their children to run wild in restaurants ( and in public in general)...all I can say is if you control your kids this wouldn't be an issue.
As for infants...it's a simple fact...they scream and cry...ask any parent..I didn't force my screaming kids on others ( as much as I could avoid it) and honestly don't want to hear yours while I'm trying to enjoy a meal..

EDIT:...Wow, I sound like a real ass hole...not my intentions, I guess my point is...Parents..control your kids.

**LordofHats**

Slarg232 wrote:
LordofHats wrote:Oddly, I actual approve of the right to deny service for whatever reason you please. It's his business, let him lose or win it.

Personally, I have a rule: No hat no service Walk in butt naked if you like, but there'd better be a hat somewhere on you

Wouldn't that mean racist bastards who denied black people from being served in their store/restaurant/whatever were in the right back before (and for some time after) the civil war?

Never said anything about moral right and wrong. Just that a business owner has the right to deny service imo. If they want to do it for arbitrary reasons let them. Its their loss.

**Ledabot**

This is really off topic....

I think its a perfectly fine move, they're just telling them early that they would have to leave. If you go to an establisment like that you would expect that you can dine in peace, and thats a service that they want to provide.

**chaos0xomega**

FITZZ wrote: I have to agree with the owners policy.
I have two children myself, and before they reached an age where they knew how to behave themselves in public, the Missus and I simply either got baby sitters when we wanted to go out to eat...or ordered in.
When my children were old enough to behave, they knew what was expected of them and for the most part did so...but many other patrons children didn't.
I know many people might have " What do you mean my child can't eat here" point of view...but given number of times I've seen parents allowing their children to run wild in restaurants ( and in public in general)...all I can say is if you control your kids this wouldn't be an issue.
As for infants...it's a simple fact...they scream and cry...ask any parent..I didn't force my screaming kids on others ( as much as I could avoid it) and honestly don't want to hear yours while I'm trying to enjoy a meal..

EDIT:...Wow, I sound like a real ass hole...not my intentions, I guess my point is...Parents..control your kids.

This. I recognize that in some situations, this is unavoidable (I.E. Air travel), but if it can be helped, you have no reason bringing a small child that will disturb others with their behavior into such an environment. It pisses me off to no end to see infants in a movie theater, where the noise and flashing lights on screen will inevitably trigger a reaction which results in crying and disturbing everyone elses enjoyment. Stay at home and take care of your kid, or get a sitter if you want to go out.

**Ledabot**

Strangely a tread that was designed to sow seeds of hate for this guys (it looks like it anyway) has backfired and has triggered bunch of defencive comments.

How did this happen?

**BearersOfSalvation**

Inquisitor Lord Bane wrote:My son is one of the best behaved toddlers I have ever seen, and I wouldn't eat here, nor would anyone I know. Its silly to ban children altogether, though I do agree with the other restaurants decision to ask parents to take screaming kids outside.

How is it silly exactly? Your post gives me the impression that you're one of those obnoxious parents who simply can't comprehend that other people don't want the sound of screaming children when they go out to a nice dinner, and who enjoys forcing your kid onto people who don't want to be around him. "Ask parents to take screaming kids outside" is complete crap, I don't want to hear the kid screaming in the first place, and the fact that the restaurant would even need to ask, or that you'd think it's reasonable for them to get to the point of asking, highlights exactly why they simply banned children in the first place.

**Ledabot**

I feel sorry for you after that. wow. it even made me flinch - sort of.

I do agree wth him though.

**sebster**

I don't believe for one second that a business has the right to do whatever it wants. If a business opens its doors to the public, it takes on an obligation to not turn someone away for an illegally discriminatory reason.

That said, I have no problem with this. While there are certain discriminatory ways to reject someone, there's plenty of fair and legal reasons as well. You can reject someone for not wearing a nice enough shirt, or crappy shoes, because you get to control the kind of bar or restaraunt you want to have.

If this guys wants to run a quieter, more chilled restaraunt, I can entirely understand not allowing small children. There's plenty of other places for people to eat out with their kids.

**rubiksnoob**

Yeah, that's probably a good idea. Kids are so high in cholesterol.

**Polonius**

It's an unfair blanket policy, like nearly all blanket policies.

But it's hard to really crack down on noisy kids. You have to send staff to deal with the parents, who, if they take the kids out, only lengthen the time spent at table. You're losing revenue because you probably only have two adults, at most one of whom is drinking more than one drink.

So,.. you can spend the most time and labor on groups that have low profits, or you can simply eliminate them entirely.

**SOFDC**

I have no problem with this. If a business owner wants to bar a certain group from his place of business, in my opinion that is his right. That his justification for it doesn't meet with another`s approval is fine, they will voice their displeasure by not funding the business, followed by the business owner realizing he has just made a major "Oops!" or by continuing on as he was before.

Personally, after looking at the place and its menu, I can fully understand the ban. Certainly looks like a place I would take my lady to for a quiet dinner with the very few money/time opportunities we have to do something...and given that, I would not really want to have to deal with people deciding they want to make noise, regardless of age. However it is a lot easier to lean over and go "Hey man. You mind? I really don't want to know about Aunt Nessie`s 17th colon obstruction." than it is to quiet a toddler who is hell-bent on screaming over...whatever happens to be ticking it off at the time. Half the time when it happens, it seems like the parents just sit there expecting them to get tired of it...which compounds the issue.

Additionally, if his experiences are like mine the owner may very well have ran into the same sort of "How -dare- you!" attitude from parents of misbehaving or extremely young children when informing them that the ear piercing shrieking is, perhaps, causing an issue for the 30-40 other paying customers in the area. In that situation it's a whole lot easier and less stressful to hang a sign on the door and call it good.

**Ledabot**

SOFDC wrote:I have no problem with this. If a business owner wants to bar a certain group from his place of business, in my opinion that is his right. That his justification for it doesn't meet with another`s approval is fine, they will voice their displeasure by not funding the business, followed by the business owner realizing he has just made a major "Oops!" or by continuing on as he was before.

Personally, after looking at the place and its menu, I can fully understand the ban. Certainly looks like a place I would take my lady to for a quiet dinner with the very few money/time opportunities we have to do something...and given that, I would not really want to have to deal with people deciding they want to make noise, regardless of age. However it is a lot easier to lean over and go "Hey man. You mind? I really don't want to know about Aunt Nessie`s 17th colon obstruction." than it is to quiet a toddler who is hell-bent on screaming over...whatever happens to be ticking it off at the time. Half the time when it happens, it seems like the parents just sit there expecting them to get tired of it...which compounds the issue.

Additionally, if his experiences are like mine the owner may very well have ran into the same sort of "How -dare- you!" attitude from parents of misbehaving or extremely young children when informing them that the ear piercing shrieking is, perhaps, causing an issue for the 30-40 other paying customers in the area. In that situation it's a whole lot easier and less stressful to hang a sign on the door and call it good.

+1

**Monster Rain**

The problem is more with the idiot parents than with the kids.

As a father of two I fully support the restaurant in this. People that don't control their kids in public should be sterilized and their children taken away and sent to Cadia for reform.

**Mannahnin**

sebster wrote:I don't believe for one second that a business has the right to do whatever it wants. If a business opens its doors to the public, it takes on an obligation to not turn someone away for an illegally discriminatory reason.

That said, I have no problem with this. While there are certain discriminatory ways to reject someone, there's plenty of fair and legal reasons as well. You can reject someone for not wearing a nice enough shirt, or crappy shoes, because you get to control the kind of bar or restaraunt you want to have.

If this guys wants to run a quieter, more chilled restaraunt, I can entirely understand not allowing small children. There's plenty of other places for people to eat out with their kids.

This.

**Slarg232**

LordofHats wrote:
Slarg232 wrote:
LordofHats wrote:Oddly, I actual approve of the right to deny service for whatever reason you please. It's his business, let him lose or win it.

Personally, I have a rule: No hat no service Walk in butt naked if you like, but there'd better be a hat somewhere on you

Wouldn't that mean racist bastards who denied black people from being served in their store/restaurant/whatever were in the right back before (and for some time after) the civil war?

Never said anything about moral right and wrong. Just that a business owner has the right to deny service imo. If they want to do it for arbitrary reasons let them. Its their loss.

Oh, I didn't mean you specifically, I was just pointing out that that logic is a very slippery slope.

**Ledabot**

Ignorance is not so much a problem as stupidity.

Once can be fixed the other not so easily.

We have a case of genuine stupidity

**Slarg232**

Ledabot wrote:Ignorance is not so much a problem as stupidity.

Once can be fixed the other not so easily.

We have a case of genuine stupidity

Which case is that?

**Cane**

Bold move for a golf driving range restaurant.

On the one hand they're getting a lot of publicity for this. On the other hand they're willing to turn away customers at the door which can spiral against you.

Imo kids are annoying in public places like restaurants and movie theaters but there's a lot of money in families too. Good luck golf driving range restaurant.

**Medium of Death**

rubiksnoob wrote:Yeah, that's probably a good idea. Kids are so high in cholesterol.

Beat me to it.

**Cheesecat**

Mannahnin wrote:
sebster wrote:I don't believe for one second that a business has the right to do whatever it wants. If a business opens its doors to the public, it takes on an obligation to not turn someone away for an illegally discriminatory reason.

That said, I have no problem with this. While there are certain discriminatory ways to reject someone, there's plenty of fair and legal reasons as well. You can reject someone for not wearing a nice enough shirt, or crappy shoes, because you get to control the kind of bar or restaraunt you want to have.

If this guys wants to run a quieter, more chilled restaraunt, I can entirely understand not allowing small children. There's plenty of other places for people to eat out with their kids.

This.

Agreed.

**Ledabot**

Slarg232 wrote:
Ledabot wrote:Ignorance is not so much a problem as stupidity.

Once can be fixed the other not so easily.

We have a case of genuine stupidity

Which case is that?

Who knows. This is the art of 3rd party posting.

**LordofHats**

Slarg232 wrote:
LordofHats wrote:
Slarg232 wrote:
LordofHats wrote:Oddly, I actual approve of the right to deny service for whatever reason you please. It's his business, let him lose or win it.

Personally, I have a rule: No hat no service Walk in butt naked if you like, but there'd better be a hat somewhere on you

Wouldn't that mean racist bastards who denied black people from being served in their store/restaurant/whatever were in the right back before (and for some time after) the civil war?

Never said anything about moral right and wrong. Just that a business owner has the right to deny service imo. If they want to do it for arbitrary reasons let them. Its their loss.

Oh, I didn't mean you specifically, I was just pointing out that that logic is a very slippery slope.

Honestly if someone wants to go that route, I say let them. It's their business. If they want to shrink their consumer market, it's their problem. Perhaps this position however is not a particularly useful one from a social stand point. Segregation and Jim Crowe can cut off an entire segment of a population from commercial pursuits, which is bad for the economy over all. Laws banning such practices thus make sense to me as prudent.

From a standpoint of non-practicality though, I do think that when you own a business you have the right to run it as you please. It's the laws job to ensure that your right to run your business as you want doesn't infringe on the rights of others (that whole balancing the rights of the individual with the rights of the group blah blah). In the case of kids, I don't see a few dinners banning them as being that much of an issue to warrant any real attention from anyone except those who disagree. Meanwhile those who do can go have their nice peaceful meals.

Personally, I've never had much trouble with kids in dining facilities. It's happened a few times and is unpleasant, but I've never had so much of an issue as to warrant a demand that they all stop going out to eat. It's smokers that bug me. The smell drives me crazy, I can't stand it and I can often smell it even in the non-smoking area depending on how close I am. Any establishment that bans smoking gets my preference over a place that does not.