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.
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.
I see.
LordofHats wrote:
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.
True, I suppose your right. Still I felt it had to be said.
As for smokers, Yeah, I have a problem with them at work; we get one thirty minute lunch break, and two 15 minute breaks. Smokers, however, get three Smoke Breaks (that can last anywhere from 5-15 minutes), but Non-Smokers don't get anything....
I could bring this up to management, but since they all smoke......
I've never feared Death or Dying. I've only feared never Trying.
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.
Umm, excuse me troll, but calling me an obnoxious parent who enjoys forcing my kid on other people is out of line. State your opinion, don't attack me personally.
feeder wrote: Frazz's mind is like a wiener dog in a rabbit warren. Dark, twisting tunnels, and full of the certainty that just around the next bend will be the quarry he seeks.
Inquisitor Lord Bane wrote:Umm, excuse me troll, but calling me an obnoxious parent who enjoys forcing my kid on other people is out of line. State your opinion, don't attack me personally.
You're accusing me of trolling for pointing out that saying that you think it's silly for a restaurant to offer an environment with no kids makes it sound like you enjoy forcing your kids on other people? Explain exactly why it's 'silly' for a restaurant to ban kids, if it's not because you think that everyone should be willing to be around your kids when they're at dinner. That's the only reason I've ever seen put forth to back that sort of criticism. It compounds the impression when you seem to think that families with a screaming member should even need to be told to go outside.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/07/14 02:06:02
Inquisitor Lord Bane wrote:Umm, excuse me troll, but calling me an obnoxious parent who enjoys forcing my kid on other people is out of line. State your opinion, don't attack me personally.
You're accusing me of trolling for pointing out that saying that you think it's silly for a restaurant to offer an environment with no kids makes it sound like you enjoy forcing your kids on other people? Explain exactly why it's 'silly' for a restaurant to ban kids, if it's not because you think that everyone should be willing to be around your kids when they're at dinner. That's the only reason I've ever seen put forth to back that sort of criticism. It compounds the impression when you seem to think that families with a screaming member should even need to be told to go outside.
I think its silly that they named their restaraunt McDaines, to tell the truth.
Now, one is Kid Friendly, the other is not.....
I've never feared Death or Dying. I've only feared never Trying.
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.
I think you came off just fine. I think parents get so used to tuning their kids out that sometimes they forget where they are. I've thrown people out of my bar for many reasons, my favorite is to just point at a sign that I have that says "NO DOUCHEBAGGERY". I always give a warning first though. That is my prerogative as the owner. If I think you are bad for business and you give me an excuse I'm gonna kick you out.
I find people have an over inflated sense of entitlement, which leads them to believe that they are always being persecuted or discriminated against anytime someone enlightens them. You're not being persecuted, you're just being a douche, comeback when you are no longer a douche and we will talk, hell I'll buy you a drink.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/07/14 02:15:36
"I don't have principles, and I consider any comment otherwise to be both threatening and insulting" - Dogma
"No, sorry, synonymous does not mean same".-Dogma
"If I say "I will hug you" I am threatening you" -Dogma
I agree with the owners decision, I hate other peoples children. I also hate how so many people with children seem to think that it's perfectly okay for them and their spawn to inconvenience everyone else.
I don't want to be inconvenienced by your children, that's why they're YOUR children. If I wanted to put up with children screaming all the time, I would have my own.
Of course it isn't all children, just the ones who have idiot parents. If your children are annoying other people on buses, planes and in restaurants (I.E. doing anything that isn't sitting quietly) then you're an idiot. Tell your child to shut-up and behave, before they grow up to be one of those annoying douche bags who talks loudly on a mobile phone, while a whole train carriage is united in wishing they would die.
Children should be banned from more places. I think that would encourage parents to feel guilty more often (like smokers do), and wait outside in segregated areas (like smokers do).
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/07/14 08:22:16
my personal opinion is yes, defiantly ban under 6's (maybe abit harsh, under 5's sounds better).
many a time i have went into a whether spoons, and enjoy the reasonable sound level. Only to have a parent with the most spoilt little brat within 20 miles sit two tables away, screaming his head off to high heaven without the parent even batting an eye-lid.
So what happened when the staff told the lady to quieten him down? she told them to feth off. why they didn't call the police for anti-social behaviour i cannot fathom.
But anyway, I fully agree with this. the old saying for children: "be seen, not heard". I was brought up this way and was better off for it.
Wise man say "if they don't take their hits, you can keep shooting them. if they still dont take their hits, they must not feel pain. ergo, they are a zombie and live rounds are authorised
Holy feth thats crazy I dont like kids much but to glass someone over a crying babyis just nuts.
Surprisingly enough, this is generally the kind of reaction you get (albeit not to bottling extent) when asking parents of rowdy kids to be quiet. they just cant comprehend how little Jimmy could possibly be causing disruption, oblivious to the 150Db generator a foot away from their ear.
Wise man say "if they don't take their hits, you can keep shooting them. if they still dont take their hits, they must not feel pain. ergo, they are a zombie and live rounds are authorised
FITZZ wrote: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.
Personally I have no children, but it is more than likely that I will eventually spawn my own nerdlings (well, the gf would want them to be normal humans, but I'm gonna try and sow the seeds of geekery before she even has a chance to introduce them to normality ), but I will guarantee that my kids will sit and behave while at restaurants.
But there is nothing more enraging than when you are out for a nice meal and there are kids screaming, braying and (LITERALLY in several cases witnessed by myself) running around the restaurant, generally getting in the way of the staff (causing disaster and spillage and confusion), knocking things over and generally disturbing other diners.
I am enraged by the fact that these kids are allowed to run amok in a place where people eat and generally want to relax (well I don't know anyone who ever feels the need to go to a restaurant and get stressed out ) and I am also concerned that their feckless parents allow them to run amok in a place where there is a serious risk of injury, considering that it's a crowded room full of people carry very large and heavy trays piled with ceramics, glassware, cutlery and piles of oven-hot food!
If your kids wan't to run around, take them outside to designated play areas (nearly every major-chain restaurant has one). If they are inside the eating area, they should behave appropriately. My parents used to let me take a book/comic/gameboy when we went for a meal out, instead of running around the restaurant pissing everyone off, I was able to entertain myself and not cause disruption to the other diners
Does anyone have a ladder I can borrow? this horse is pretty high!
And that is why you hear people yelling FOR THE EMPEROR rather than FOR LOGICAL AND QUANTIFIABLE BASED DECISIONS FOR THE BETTERMENT OF THE MAJORITY!
Phototoxin wrote:Kids go in , they waste tonnes of money on marnus calgar and his landraider, the slaneshi-like GW revel at this lust and short term profit margin pleasure. Meanwhile father time and cunning lord tzeentch whisper 'our games are better AND cheaper' and then players leave for mantic and warmahordes.
daveNYC wrote:The Craftworld guys, who are such stick-in-the-muds that they manage to make the Ultramarines look like an Ibiza nightclub that spiked its Red Bull with LSD.
I am seriously annoyed by people who feel like the world is obligated to put up with their children. You sign away convenience and ease in order to pass along your genes; no one else agreed to put up with them. I was stationed over in Germany for a few years, and there were only about 4-5 showings of movies at the post Theater a day - no less that 3 screaming babies at the 1030 pm showing of Underworld 2.
BearersOfSalvation wrote:
You're accusing me of trolling for pointing out that saying that you think it's silly for a restaurant to offer an environment with no kids makes it sound like you enjoy forcing your kids on other people? Explain exactly why it's 'silly' for a restaurant to ban kids, if it's not because you think that everyone should be willing to be around your kids when they're at dinner. That's the only reason I've ever seen put forth to back that sort of criticism. It compounds the impression when you seem to think that families with a screaming member should even need to be told to go outside.
There are numerous possible reasons to believe a child ban is silly. The obvious reason being that its unfair given that not all children scream all the time. The less obvious reasons include that having the opportunity to sequester one's children, voluntarily or otherwise, may be considered a superior choice in terms of business given a particular type of establishment; an Applebees with a no kids policy is going to be a very short-lived Applebees. Then there's criticism of your position regarding your own intent to impose a certain set of standards on social conduct in semi-public spaces while taking a self-righteous tack. In other words, so what if someone wants to impose their screaming children on you? Why do you get to impose your love of the absence of screaming children on them?
In short, you need to use your head and consider why something might not be a good diea, rather than simply limiting yourself to only the things you've heard, particularly if you're going to jump to conclusion and behave in an accusatory fashion.
All that said, child bans are common things in many different restaurants either in accordance with a particular period of time (casual business places tend to ban children during lunch, for example), or in accordance with a particular image (Tavern on the Green bans children, last I heard). This makes sense, as the aim of these establishments is not consistent with a family-friendly atmosphere.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Leigen_Zero wrote:
But there is nothing more enraging than when you are out for a nice meal and there are kids screaming, braying and (LITERALLY in several cases witnessed by myself) running around the restaurant, generally getting in the way of the staff (causing disaster and spillage and confusion), knocking things over and generally disturbing other diners.
I once saw a toddler run full face into a waitress carrying a fully tray of plastic cups full of water. This caused the waitress to fall backwards, and the contents of the tray to come falling down on the toddler; soaking him, and probably giving him a bump or two. Obviously the kid burst into tears, and the parents came to his defense accosting the waitress, who tried to apologize, but also started crying from the abuse. The manager then got involved, and appeased the parents by giving them free food, and firing the waitress on the spot. Up until that point everyone had been laughing at the kid and the parents, but after the manager's stunt 6 of the 10 seated tables (including mine) walked out on their checks.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/07/14 10:10:05
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
dogma wrote:I once saw a toddler run full face into a waitress carrying a fully tray of plastic cups full of water. This caused the waitress to fall backwards, and the contents of the tray to come falling down on the toddler; soaking him, and probably giving him a bump or two. Obviously the kid burst into tears, and the parents came to his defense accosting the waitress, who tried to apologize, but also started crying from the abuse. The manager then got involved, and appeased the parents by giving them free food, and firing the waitress on the spot. Up until that point everyone had been laughing at the kid and the parents, but after the manager's stunt 6 of the 10 seated tables (including mine) walked out on their checks.
And they (and you) were right to. That manager has no business managing staff or dealing with customers. Customer service does not make retail and wait staff the customer's servants. Personally, I don't see a culture in which a patron has the right to complain without just cause until they are given free goods or services as a good one. Unfortunately, that seems to be the way the UK is going, and from the sounds of it, the US too.
DC:80SG+M+B+I+Pw40k97#+D+A++/wWD190R++T(S)DM+
htj wrote:You can always trust a man who quotes himself in his signature.
Australia (Recently ravaged by the Hive Fleet Ginger Overlord)
If noise is the issue, why not make it a ban on noise and disruption rather than an age thing? I know one or two people that act like children in public (myself undoubtedly amonsgt them) and I am shocked, shocked that people seem to think our behaviour is acceptable simply becuase we are a few years older than the well-behaved toddler in the corner.
Smacks wrote:
After the game, pack up all your miniatures, then slap the guy next to you on the ass and say.
I'm shocked to see people think that age discrimination is apparently equivalent to ethnic discrimination. An establishment saying "No Children" doesn't strike me the same as saying "No Chinese". The reason it is an age thing is becuase it is easy to tell an adult to quiet down or call the cops to throw them out, but children aren't reasonable and having the cops toss them out is not very good PR.
There was a place here that was a sit down movie theater where you could order food, drinks (alcoholic), and smoke while watching a first run movie. Every other weekend they would have a kids movie but the rest of the time it was 18+. When the banned smoking and went all ages all the time it was closed down within 6 months.
Considering the number of restaurants that don't have any sort of adults only policy I don't see what the big deal is. Complaining you only have 98 out of 100 restaurants one can take their kids to doesn't seem like a serious issue. Adults occasionally want a (non sleazy) adult atmosphere and I don't think that is to much to ask for.
There was a lot of talk about how they are limiting their customer pool but the last time an establishment did this their business picked up; it is pretty good marketing, actually.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/07/14 11:07:54
Amidst the mists and coldest frosts he thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.
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.
Works for me in a big way. There are plently or restaurants that effectively cater to the harried parent and their offspring. If its profitable for some restaurants where you can't take your demonseed I am down with that. Usually thats done unofficially, just by charging a whole lot of money for food kids don't like.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ledabot wrote: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?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bromsy wrote:I am seriously annoyed by people who feel like the world is obligated to put up with their children. You sign away convenience and ease in order to pass along your genes; no one else agreed to put up with them. I was stationed over in Germany for a few years, and there were only about 4-5 showings of movies at the post Theater a day - no less that 3 screaming babies at the 1030 pm showing of Underworld 2.
Thats a slightly separate but agreed topic.
R movies should be kid free. Its freaks me and the missus out when some mouthbreather brings in a child to one of those things. Now we've let the kids watch some R rated comedies (because, we're you know bad parents) but we'll rent it and can be as loud as we want. PLus with TBone barking at me to give him popcorn and Rodney stealing my pizza and the inevitable merry chase as I chase him around the house with my pizza in his mouth, its loud to begin with.
I'll never forget when some idiot brought his three year old in to see the Mist. Dude! Thatt kid was SCREAMING within minutes. (it is after all a movie with spiders shooting acid at people and such).
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2011/07/14 11:36:42
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
jacoboram126 wrote:I think its really unfair to ban children from a restaurant
Just think of it as banning the restaurant from children.
Please won't someone think of the children!!!
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
I've been thinking a lot about the divide between people with children and those without. Admittedly, it's probably because I'm a point in my life (early 30's professional) where many of my peers have started having kids, so I'm exposed to it more than when I was in school.
Still though, the difference between a childless person and a parent, in terms of lifestyle, is simply staggering. I work with a guy that's my exact age, but with a wife and two kids. He owns a house that had a mold, his oldest has a gluten allergy, and his is leaving her job to stay home. we do the same job, have the same education, same general sense of humor, and even same taste in movies. But my life is close to that of the average tweaker than to his. I can work late or leave early as I see fit. I can take vacations. I can go to lunch every day if I want to, or take the time to pack lunch. In short, my life is full of incredible freedom, while he's lucky to find time to watch some TV.
I think my experience ties into the larger phenomenon in which no class of people is extended more privileges by private society than parents (aside from children themselves). A coupel with a two year old can behave in a way that's nearly sociopathic, but everybody understands "well, they have a kid."
And while it's natural for parents to resent our freedom, I know I'm not the only person without kids that is a little tired of the self rightoeousness and self promotion that some (not all) parents seem to exhibit.
This is nothing like a No-Blacks issue.
Race, sex, and religion are not a choice, but having kids is.
Last year (I think), a hotellier was convicted of kicking a gay couple out of the hotel for being gay.
Where-as there are adult-only or child-free policies in hotels sometimes, and hardly anyone mentions that.
So, if someone who runs a restaurant wants to bar children, or hoddies, or smoking (not an option anymore), it's their choice. The market will tell them whether it was a good choice or not. See Ahtman's cinema comment above for that.
Polonius wrote:I think my experience ties into the larger phenomenon in which no class of people is extended more privileges by private society than parents (aside from children themselves). A coupel with a two year old can behave in a way that's nearly sociopathic, but everybody understands "well, they have a kid."
Wait, what?
I just don't see how this follows from your comments above. In fact, I think that the privilages afforded by private society to single individuals is well in excess of that extended to parents. They command the same pay, despite not having any obligations to raise or support a family. They get the same number of sick days, but will never have sick kids to attend to, so they can afford to "call in sick" once in a while to stay home and relax. Heck, we even create "child-free" zones so they have places where they can avoid kids altogether.
About the only concession demanded of single/childless individuals is that they pay property taxes which benefit schools. However, those taxes are evenly applied to everyone, so I'm not sure it's a particularly offensive discrimination.
Polonius wrote:I think my experience ties into the larger phenomenon in which no class of people is extended more privileges by private society than parents (aside from children themselves). A coupel with a two year old can behave in a way that's nearly sociopathic, but everybody understands "well, they have a kid."
Wait, what?
I just don't see how this follows from your comments above. In fact, I think that the privilages afforded by private society to single individuals is well in excess of that extended to parents. They command the same pay, despite not having any obligations to raise or support a family. They get the same number of sick days, but will never have sick kids to attend to, so they can afford to "call in sick" once in a while to stay home and relax. Heck, we even create "child-free" zones so they have places where they can avoid kids altogether.
About the only concession demanded of single/childless individuals is that they pay property taxes which benefit schools. However, those taxes are evenly applied to everyone, so I'm not sure it's a particularly offensive discrimination.
You have rugrats Biccat?
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Polonius wrote:I think my experience ties into the larger phenomenon in which no class of people is extended more privileges by private society than parents (aside from children themselves). A coupel with a two year old can behave in a way that's nearly sociopathic, but everybody understands "well, they have a kid."
Wait, what?
I just don't see how this follows from your comments above. In fact, I think that the privilages afforded by private society to single individuals is well in excess of that extended to parents. They command the same pay, despite not having any obligations to raise or support a family. They get the same number of sick days, but will never have sick kids to attend to, so they can afford to "call in sick" once in a while to stay home and relax. Heck, we even create "child-free" zones so they have places where they can avoid kids altogether.
About the only concession demanded of single/childless individuals is that they pay property taxes which benefit schools. However, those taxes are evenly applied to everyone, so I'm not sure it's a particularly offensive discrimination.
Walk in butt naked if you like, but there'd better be a hat somewhere on you 
3100+
), but I will guarantee that my kids will sit and behave while at restaurants.
6000 pts - Harlies: 1000 pts - 
4000 pts - 
1000 pts - 
1000 pts