Pennsylvania Restaurant Bans Children Under 6

reply to post by Salamandy

To the people who agree the owner should have a right flat out to ban children, as I do... Do you agree that laws banning smoking in privately owned places is just as ridiculous? I hope so. I dont wanna hear of any Inconsistent Ians out there...

well, banning smoking in public areas (altho i loathe the smoke ban), esp. indoor, makes pretty much sense as it's a question of health, it makes sense just as banning a kid that screams or has the potential of screaming in some serious level of dbA.

Finally someone stands up to those little peace stealing terroists. I have kids, but I have always made sure that if they got rowdy in public, to take them from the scene immediately, so as to not ruin anyones day. My kids, my problem. Sadly, women today, don't know how to do that. They think that just because they are women, people will tolerate their kids and that other women will understand...as far as men go...they dont give a crap what you think anyway. Well, here's the real deal, women nor men couldn't care less about your kids and they dont want to hear them kicking nd crying and babbling nonsense while trying to have some time in a restaurant from their own kids. This restaurant is alright. take your loud, beligerant whinners somewhere else, they are not cute. They are crude noise-makers and don't belong in fine restaurants. Leave them with a baby sitter or if you cant afford it, stay home with a movie and mac-n-cheese.

Too many people in here hate children..

It's not the child's fault they're acting out of control. Stupid parents who lack in parenting skills should be forced to take corrective classes with their children. I know people who pretty much let their kids do whatever.. Either way the kids shouldn't be banned since the blame really begins with parenting..

Originally posted by libertytoall
Too many people in here hate children..

It's not the child's fault they're acting out of control. Stupid parents who lack in parenting skills should be forced to take corrective classes with their children. I know people who pretty much let their kids do whatever.. Either way the kids shouldn't be banned since the blame really begins with parenting..

Regardless, of whether it's the parents fault or not...in the end the result is the same, noise polution. It may not be the kids fault, but if the parents can't handle their kids, the restaurant should ban the parents, but because you can't do that, you do the next best thing, ban the problem and the parents will follow. It is the parents fault....but society who wants to have a quiet dinner in a nice restaurant shouldn't have to pay for the mistakes of a parent who doesn't know how to control their hellion. To all of these parents who let their kids get away with everything because they wanted to be the "cool" parent, or bought their kids love by getting them everything they wanted despite the disrespect of the child, ...The parent who felt that it was "uncomfortable" to admonish their kids for doing wrong or showing disrespect and just hoped that one day "things would just work themselves out" Here is a wake up call...YOU DROPPED THE BALL! As a result of your parental neglect regarding your child's behavior...they have become spoiled hellions and time shows no mercy for this problem just woring itself out...it only gets worse. For the sanity of everyone else, take YOUR problem that you ENABLED to be a problem by neglecting to be a more stern parent....and just go.

Originally posted by Salamandy
To the people who agree the owner should have a right flat out to ban children, as I do...

Do you agree that laws banning smoking in privately owned places is just as ridiculous?

I hope so. I dont wanna hear of any Inconsistent Ians out there...

Yes I do agree with you, I do not believe government has a right to tell a business owner who he or she can or can't accept into their establishment unless they are actually causing their customers harm or injury.

reply to post by The Old American


Exactly, in fact the age discrimination really only applies to 40+ in terms of employment.

CHILDREN ARE NOT A PROTECTED MINORITY CLASS IN TERMS OF DISCRIMINATION AND THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT.

Every privately owned business has the right to refuse service to anybody for any reason, except for violations of the civil rights act, which does not apply to this situation.

reply to post by NuroSlam


I'd rather have the kids and tell the parents to stay out. It's easy to take a child aside and tell him to be quiet. I do not understand parents who can not keep their kids under control. My Daddy would have taken me outside and blistered my rear end.

Keep the kids ... bar the parents!

Originally posted by NellahB
reply to post by NuroSlam

 

I'd rather have the kids and tell the parents to stay out. It's easy to take a child aside and tell him to be quiet. I do not understand parents who can not keep their kids under control. My Daddy would have taken me outside and blistered my rear end.

Keep the kids ... bar the parents!

It really has everything to do with the direction and clientele the owner wants. From the looks of the website its prob some upper class old fogy place to eat, which even at 44 I prefer. Much like the one here in Phoenix.

Of course the problem isn't the children, the problem is the self-entitled pricks thinking they're king and queen of the world. Get over yourselves. "I want to eat in peace" - learn to cook at home.

How many people going out to eat just do it to show off their families? You know; "primate socializing", "I'm better than you", "my kids are well behaved and allowed to eat here", "My kids are better than yours".

You guys are just completely lost. Enjoy the consumerism. I'll be making money off you in a few years, please don't change your attitude.

Originally posted by NellahB
reply to post by NuroSlam

 

I'd rather have the kids and tell the parents to stay out. It's easy to take a child aside and tell him to be quiet. I do not understand parents who can not keep their kids under control. My Daddy would have taken me outside and blistered my rear end....

You would be arrested for child abuse on the spot, if you "blistered their rear end" when your child throws a fit in public.

Check out what a real HELL RAISER looks like in today's world:

Originally posted by NuroSlam
I'm sure that there will be an outcry about being unfair, that business's should be open to any and everyone that this is unacceptable for a private business owner, who may have worked his whole life to open his restaurant wants to have a nice peaceful atmosphere for his paying customers.

McDain's Restaurant of Monroeville, PA has had it with noisy kids. In an email sent to customers, owner Mike Vuick wrote, "Beginning July 16, 2011, McDain's Restaurant will no longer admit children under six years of age. 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."

www.huffingtonpost.com...

I actually think that is a great idea. I do have 3 kids but they have never given me problems. The answer to their problems lies in the selfish parent. My kids last day of school, I always treat the kids to Friendly's Ice cream Sundays, sort of like an end of the year treat. It is the only time I go to Friendly's because their food sucks, but their Sundays are awesome! One lady and some people she was with sat right down behind us with a cranky child. Upon over hearing her, because she was wicked loud, the child was cranky because he wanted a nap.

My question is why go to a restaurant with a cranky child who needs to be at home for a nap? I think it is irresponsible on the parent for not taking a rain check with friends and say my kid is tired can we do this another time. Trust me I have done this many times and they all understood, no one wants to be in a restaurant with a screaming child. Then not only that but she was highly annoying, she kept saying, "he needs a nap, he is just tired" and so on. If she knew what the problem was why not fix the problem? This is the logic i do not understand by most parents.

Originally posted by nunya13
While I think what he is doing is just fine, i can understand the counter-arguments and it would most likely involve a slippery slope. What's next? Restaurant owners banning homosexuals? Women? Fat people? Just playing Devil's advocate here.

I don't think those counter arguments have a leg to stand on. Because while I'm sure most will agree that the above individuals have their fair share of...shall we say "annoying" members, they are in full control of their faculties, and thus have the option of either behaving or being thrown out.

Babies have no such self control. Even the most adept parent cannot predict when his/her child will begin to throw a fit and make everyone around miserable. As such, I think disallowing children in one's own restaurant has practical applications. It's basically the same as disallowing homosexual males wearing leather thongs and sporting whips, or whatever you want to make of your other examples. Those kinds of things are a detriment to an eating environment, and they drive away your customers. The difference though, is that the questionable homosexual male knows he is being obnoxious and the baby does not and will not change to please anyone.

I for one would not want to sit behind a couple who has a screaming baby with them. I'd either go take-out or find somewhere else.

Originally posted by Faery34majick

Originally posted by NuroSlam
I'm sure that there will be an outcry about being unfair, that business's should be open to any and everyone that this is unacceptable for a private business owner, who may have worked his whole life to open his restaurant wants to have a nice peaceful atmosphere for his paying customers.

McDain's Restaurant of Monroeville, PA has had it with noisy kids. In an email sent to customers, owner Mike Vuick wrote, "Beginning July 16, 2011, McDain's Restaurant will no longer admit children under six years of age. 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."

www.huffingtonpost.com...

I actually think that is a great idea. I do have 3 kids but they have never given me problems. The answer to their problems lies in the selfish parent. My kids last day of school, I always treat the kids to Friendly's Ice cream Sundays, sort of like an end of the year treat. It is the only time I go to Friendly's because their food sucks, but their Sundays are awesome! One lady and some people she was with sat right down behind us with a cranky child. Upon over hearing her, because she was wicked loud, the child was cranky because he wanted a nap.

My question is why go to a restaurant with a cranky child who needs to be at home for a nap? I think it is irresponsible on the parent for not taking a rain check with friends and say my kid is tired can we do this another time. Trust me I have done this many times and they all understood, no one wants to be in a restaurant with a screaming child. Then not only that but she was highly annoying, she kept saying, "he needs a nap, he is just tired" and so on. If she knew what the problem was why not fix the problem? This is the logic i do not understand by most parents.

It's my observation that MANY parents today simply let their kids cry themselves to sleep now. Ignoring why they are crying, for the self satisfaction of knowing that eventually the poor kid is going to tire himself out and sleep anyways, without any help or intervention on their part at all.

You're right, it is a purely selfish parent that would insist on taking a crying kid to a restaurant.

Sorry - but if you have kids and you dump them at daycare all day and then are so busy making dinner, clean house etc, then put kids to sleep, what time do you actually spend with that kid? Who actually raises your kid? If someone else has care of your kids for most of the day, then what was the point of having a kid in the first place? I'm not trying to be negative to people who are stuck in this type of situation, I just don't understand the need to have kids, especially if some stranger spends more time with your kid then you do.

Being a parent (single or otherwise) might be tough but people should take responsibility for their own actions and choices, such as having kids. Kids are a huge responsibility. It is my opinion, that if you aren't willing to take responsibility of / for your kids or aren't willing to teach them that some things aren't suitable in public, them maybe you shouldn't have any?? If you can't train your kids properly they shouldn't be allowed out in public places to make nuisances of themselves.

If you do have kids you should realize that it is a life changing event, which includes life-style changes such as choosing child-friendly eating places instead of fancy restaurants.

If this guy has to ban children under six from his establishment, perhaps you should direct your ire to those irresponsible parents who let their kids run amok and "forcing" the owner to take this type of action? It is like going back to school where everyone is banned from an activity because a few delinquents got out of hand. While such a rule is unfair for parents of well-behaved children, having your dinner ruined by screeching kids is equally unfair.

For those who are going to whine that I dislike children:
1) I have made a decision based on many reason that I do not want any children;
2) my family has taken care of a child for the past 13 years whose mother has basically dumped him at our place and picks him up at night when she remembers that she has a kid, so I have some experience with "raising a child".
3) I don't mind baby sitting or playing with kids so long as I can give them back to mommy/ daddy when the diaper needs changing and it starts getting whiny.
4) I like kids marginally more than adults because you can make kids go away with one well placed frown or glare, which doesn't work with adults.
5) I am not mommy material and admit this and have made every effort not to inflict an unwanted kid on this world.
6) Yes - this might be selfish and cruel and not nice etc etc but then again, aren't you glad I'm not adding my genes to the gene pool?

If you want kids or have kids that is your decision but don't inflict them or their less than stellar behaviour on everyone else who may not think your kids are the centre of the universe (which probably includes everyone that is not a relative or my boyfriend).

I probably offended a lot of people with this post, but it wasn't meant to be offensive. Just my opinion on the matter. I tried really hard to be diplomatic, though I am not sure if I succeeded. I'm just not a people person. I get on well with plants and animals but people are incomprehensible to me.

Originally posted by Unity_99
So far everyone just complies. I don't believe in money, ownership and businesses setting rules. I believe the services may be run by people, but are services to all. And discrimination is discrimination. If that was a black man it would illegal, now its families with children under 6. People who don't have tolerance for others should stay home.

I don't believe in private ownership. In fact the hwole system is slavery and illegal.

And you either strive for heaven on earth or hell.

I don't mind being a minority viewpoint, tired of all the apathy and the very mentality that allows the corruption to rule this planet, demonstrated in so many view points.

edit on 12-7-2011 by Unity_99 because: (no reason given)

We are talking about an establishment in the US. I'm just wondering if anyone on here disagreeing is from outside the US ?? With that being said, The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (en.wikipedia.org...) prohibits these businesses from denying service to anyone based on race, color, religion, or natural origin.
HOWEVER, A restaurant or business can refuse service to anyone who is loud, rowdy, or causing trouble for others.
So yes you are correct, if it was a black man looking for a meal and got booted, that is very much illegal. If it was a black man (or any color man for that matter) that was in there being loud or rowdy (or acting like a bratty kid) you bet he'd be put on his a** and his race has nothing to do with it and by NO MEANS is that illegal.

Originally posted by Salamandy
reply to post by Ryanp5555

 

Fire alarms and tainting meat with 2nd hand smoke? Gimme a break! Lets all just stay in bed and not get up. We might step on a tack and that could become infected.

The smoking ban is so gay and unamerican and Im an ex smoker (two years strong)

If youre so turned off to smoke, find a bar that bans smoking. Same goes for finding a place that ban kids (if thats your pleasure). There happens to be one in Monroevile PA.

edit on 12-7-2011 by Salamandy because: (no reason given)

edit on 12-7-2011 by Salamandy because: (no reason given)

I never said tainting meat with second hand smoke. I said requiring that places that are open for the benefit of the public to actually look out for the health of the public is not inconsistent with an owner of a place held open for the benefit of the public only limiting access to that place to certain members of the public.

This has nothing to do with being "un-American." Surely, it is American to have states regulate for the public. There is nothing in the Constitution that states that the individual States cannot regulate the heck of their public. The Constitution merely limits federal power, and puts some restraint on what states can regulate. And since 100% of these laws are coming from State bans, than it's fair to call this American.

And I really hope you aren't comparing stepping on a tack to the known realities of second hand smoke. Especially, the effect that second hand smoke can have on little kids or babies. In States that have the bans they have, fortunately, decided that a persons right to live outweighs another persons right to be free to smoke where ever they'd like. Really, when you get down to it, smoking in a public place is down right disrespectful

I love the idea and if this restaurant were near me my gf and I would visit regularly.

I don't eat at a pizza place on a Friday night expecting a quiet peaceful meal. However, when I go to a nice Italian restaurant where I'll be paying $40 - $50 dollars on a dinner for two I expect to have good food and good service in a nice quiet relaxing place. I don't want a table next to me with kids screaming and crying or playing under the table or running around getting in the wait staff's way. This has happened before and an evening out with the gf spoiled by obnoxious kids and clueless parents who act like they are the only ones in the restaurant. Its rude and inconsiderate. Obviously you can't leave it up to the customers to make good decisions or control their kids so just ban them!!!

Can't control your rug rats? Take them to McDonalds or some other crap place where people expect obnoxious kids and self absorbed parents!

edit: They should have made the cut off at 8.

Oh ... and I was a good kid ... never acted up in public

Originally posted by Helmkat
Can they do that at movie theatres too please.

Little kids asking "how come?" pull me out of the movie.

I agree with you. Or even worse, parents taking their tiny little 2 months old baby to a movie and the poor thing starts screeching when the movie starts because it is loud (all the movies are really loud these days) and probably gave the kid a fright or hurt its ears. If the movies these days are so loud that it hurts my ears and I can hear the dialogue better with tissues stuffed in my ears, then it must really have hurt the poor infants ears.

Originally posted by Ryanp5555

Originally posted by Salamandy Really, when you get down to it, smoking in a public place is down right disrespectful

Yea all of these cases come down to disrespect, entitlement, selfishness. Im just not one to regulate those perfectly legal characteristics in a private business environment because in most cases I can just avoid the siutuation entirely. In the small amount of cases where I might be trapped in an elevator with some jerk who lights up a cig - Ill take one for the greater good of freedom. OR the business owner could place a "Do Not Smoke In the Elevator sign up. See how that worked? And no involving legislature (and all the BS and waste that comes along with it.)

Sorry Ryanp5555 and others, I quoted him in a weird way html wise

edit on 13-7-2011 by Salamandy because: (no reason given)

reply to post by Salamandy


That's fine. And obviously you have the right to believe that. The only thing I was trying to get across is that being for the anti-smoking legislation is not inconsistent if you are against the government regulating who a private business can and cannot allow to use their services. That's all I wanted to get across. I by no means think I can sway anyone's opinion on these smoking bans.