Pennsylvania Restaurant Bans Children Under 6

Originally posted by Adyta

My analogy's have been ridiculous? At least I type in a way that gets my point across in a way that easy to read and understand... Look at your post on page 3. THAT is ridiculous.

YES. you were the one that said "So I guess you would have no problem if the owner sat down next to you and started masturbating? After all, it is HIS private property, he can "do what he wants"

do you honestly not see how ridiculous THAT was? you seem like an intelligent individual, so i refuse to believe that you don't see how silly that idea was...

Originally posted by Adyta
Well here comes the swarm of "white name no avatar"s, with their brilliant arguments of "You're retarded / wrong / dumb!111!1".

I think that could possibly be construed as ..... discrimination?

I don't imagine you'd have an easier time accepting the following: Parents who cannot/will not control their children are no longer welcome, with said children, at this establishment.

Point remains the same. Unruly children are no one's responsibility other than the parent/guardian. If you can't accept responsibility, that's on you.

reply to post by AnIntellectualRedneck


It is a privately owned business they can allow whoever they want, or don't want. Age Discrimination enter the playing field well a person is applying for a job not eating at a restaurant. Any private business has the right to refuse service to anyone.

Originally posted by Adyta
Jesus, people support this crap? You aren't the only people on Earth. If you want to eat "in peace" cook a meal at home.

"I'd rather eat in peace" "I don't wanna eat with kids running around"

If you don't agree with the programming, change the channel. If you don't agree with the magazine, don't read it. If you want to eat somewhere with your 6 year-old, I guess you'll have to eat somewhere else, huh?

How is this different than "We don't them thar negros in OUR restaurants!" or "NO JEWS" outside of restaurants in Nazi Germany?

Because it's a rational decision made by a business person that wants to cater to adults? Did you not read the article? Property rights have no meaning to you people.

If I went to a restaurant and someone pointed at my kid and said "We don't serve those people here" I'd punch them square in the face.

That would work out well for you, I'm sure. Oh wait, no it wouldn't because you'd be in jail. What a great example for your kids to follow.

If someone is being disrespectful or are disturbing other customers, tell them they have to leave. I guess blatant discrimination only works when people want it.

edit on 7/11/2011 by Adyta because: (no reason given)

Or spare someone the headache in the first place of complaining by doing what this business owner did.

/TOA

As more and more parents become afraid to control or discipline their children, this kind of "discrimination" is going to be more common. Business owners see complaints come in from their customers that children are being loud, and no one is doing anything about it. So what choice do business owners have? they have to go along with what they perceive as the larger group of clients, or whatever other criteria they want to use to evaluate their business.

Am i a kid hater? no, not particularly, but I do get annoyed when i am trying to eat and there is a child screaming in my ear. Is this applicable to all children? no. but once again, a business owner has to look at his bottom line, and if he feels (right or wrong as it may be) that refusing service to families with small children is the way to go, then that is his right.

Any argument about what is next, gays blacks, jews etc... is just taking this and blowing it out of proportion. This is about enjoying dinner, in an atmosphere without children. Besides are you all that naive to believe that not a single establishment exists that does discriminate against a race, or a creed, or a whatever? i know i have been in some.

The point is this: the customer has the right to chose who they give their business to, just like a business owner has the right to chose who to do business with.

If parents want to stop this kind of "discrimination" parents must learn to discipline their children.

Originally posted by Shadys321
I would actually prefer an atmosphere like that.

It's his restaurant he can do as he likes. The customer is not always right.

I agree. To know that you will not be accosted by a small child who wipes snot on your sleeve just to say hello as his parents watch endearingly as if it is the cutest thing in the world and you should be glad their child "likes you" so much because "he usually doesn't just run up to people like that" would be a welcome and much needed relief. Can a man eat in peace? I can get this at home from my sisters kids. What ever extra I have to pay for it, I will.

I've been arguing this on FB LOL

I think it's great!

I don't see it as unfair, it's a private business. He has every right to ban kids.

I can't stand when I go out to eat and it's ruined by screaming kids. I love kids but I don't want to hear them while trying to have dinner. Parents today do not parent their kids in public like they use to. When your kid is screaming or running around please for the love of god take that kid outside or pop their butt! They won't die! I've had kids step all over me, throw peanuts at me and spill drinks on me and all could have been avoided if the parents put their damn phones down and parented their kids!

In the last 10yrs I've noticed this lack of parenting. It seems they just want to hand them a cell or hand held game to watch them!

I actually give this guy credit for going through with it knowing the backlash he would get. It's his business and if kids were affecting his business he has every right to correct that. From what I saw on the news this is like a golf club restaurant and in that case I really don't blame him. People go to golf resort restaurants to relax not be around kids,

There are restaurants that cater specifically towards young children, so I can't see any problem with this owner doing the reverse of that.

While I don't know whether these restaurants that are aimed at children actually restrict admission to unrelated adults, I can't imagine that these businesses would be overly keen on random grown-ups patronising an eaterie that was marketed and themed towards young children...

Personally speaking, I would certainly welcome a restaurant which barred children. The last thing you want when enjoying a meal is for some obstreperous little brat to ruin it by incessantly screaming and squawking away in the presence of its unconcerned, burger-guzzling parent.

In the UK, quite a few restaurants have a policy saying no children after 7pm.....its called compromise

Something I completely agree with as well...why should families be discriminated against, but on the other hand, should you have to put up with young screaming kids when you eat?

I have a 6 and a 2 year old, who are on the whole, generally well behaved. There have been moments, especially when the meal takes AGES to come out...who can blame them for getting bored? Thats when we finish and leave as quick as possible.

What really annoys me is if you are eating out in the evening - past 9pm, and there are young noisy kids who clearly should be in bed...

reply to post by NuroSlam


I'd like to see the parents of these little turd children banned.

Pushing 40+ years ago, you were expected to be seen and not heard...and it was enforced. I was allowed to enter on some conversations or even start some up....I WASNT allowed to sit and scream and be a general litttle bastard.

The problem with the kids is the parents. If you are a weak and permissive parent, the kids will run you over. While I love mine, I also realize they are only well behaved animals waiting to be unleashed. When they are older and know restraint, you can THEN start to be their "friend". Till then, our job is to keep them alive and teach them manners. Period.

I attempted to go to catholic church for awhile with the wife. You couldnt here anything because the damn kids were screaming and the parents refused to discipline their little asses!

I hate weak people.

So, how is this different than discrimination based on race? Children tend to be disturbing to others - ban all children. Blacks tend to be criminals - ban all blacks. I dont see any difference in principle.

There is a cognitive dissonance here. Why not ban disruptive children only? Or why not allow whatever discrimination the private owner wants, even based on race? Otherwise the law is not consistent.

I have 3 kids under six and I agree with this completely. Kids this young can't always be well behaved and a lot of parents won't take them outside (which I do if ours start going nuts). I've taken the kids home when grocery shopping and went back and did it alone before. I don't want to hear other peoples kids pitching fits. Why should they have to hear mine?

reply to post by Maslo


I agree with you. They can ban disruptive behavior by ANYONE. But if they start banning based on age, that leaves the door open to ban based on race, nationality, or income.

I admit, I would love it if kids weren't allowed in nice restaurants, but I don't mind them as long as they're well-behaved. And it is a public access establishment. If they want a private club, that's a different story.

If people want an adult atmosphere, they can go to a bar. And those tend to be pretty noisy as well.

I don't believe in discriminating against children, as if they are a problem in our society. Without them we have no future.

reply to post by nixie_nox


They way they are not disciplined i am worried about our future anyways

Originally posted by Maslo
So, how is this different than discrimination based on race? Children tend to be disturbing to others - ban all children. Blacks tend to be criminals - ban all blacks. I dont see any difference in principle.

There is a cognitive dissonance here. Why not ban disruptive children only? Or why not allow whatever discrimination the private owner wants, even based on race? Otherwise the law is not consistent.

Technically blacks can't afford to eat out, so you don't need to go the extra mile to ban them.
The violent blacks that can are either making their money pushing rocks or "caking", so they like to lay low. KFC is just fine for them.......right??



It's not about stereotypes, it's the known fact that children are unpredictable and can be very rowdy at a certain age. It also boils down to the lack of parenting that is being done nowadays.

reply to post by Phrook


And plenty of people come on here complaining that kids never get out, they are not exposed enough, they don't get enough culture. Yet a restaurant will ban them for making too much noise.
I wonder how many adults are sitting there yapping on cell phones, I wonder how many ringers you hear going off.
Funny how atsers are the first to scream that people are being controlled and oppressed, but because they think that they are entitled to kid free dining, they support a low life.

Adults have options too, expensive restaurants and bars.

AWESOME!!!

Kids are ANNOYING!!!!!

The less that they are seen or heard, THE BETTER!!!!!

Annoying little bast@rds need to be kept at home with the baby-sitter when adults go out to eat.

For the dummies that just MUST take their little brats with them everywhere, is a [color=gold]HINT: People do NOT find your loud, obnoxious, whiny kid to be cute or adorable. LEAVE THEM AT HOME. Dummies.

Originally posted by Maslo
Why not ban disruptive children only? Or why not allow whatever discrimination the private owner wants, even based on race? Otherwise the law is not consistent.

It's more a case of practical legal exemptions, rather than legal inconsistency ( although, I think we have to accept that there will always be inherent inconsistency within laws on a number of issues ).

Children and adults can't be treated equally in everything, because children do not have the necessarily levels of personal responsibility, maturity or the understanding of the entailing consequences of their actions.

There are a number of examples where these legal exemptions work the other way; for example, a privately owned crèche or children's play area is not going to get into any legal trouble for prohibiting entry to non-related adults, based on their age.

To link the prohibiting of children in certain, privately-owned establishments with the potential that people will eventually be excluded on racial grounds, is teetering on the brink of the slippery slope fallacy.

There are numerous examples of age-restricted products, such as alcohol, cigarettes, video games, matches, lighter fluid, solvents etc., and there are absolutely no valid grounds to assume that these products can or will be restricted to people of a particular race or gender.

It all comes down to whether the case for these exemptions can be logically justified, rather than implemented as an act of prejudice.

It can be reasonably argued that young children generally can be noisy, disruptive and not entirely well-versed in adult social graces, so a restaurant should be able to exclude them on these grounds. Excluding people because they are black or white makes no logical sense, because the decision to do so would be based on unfounded prejudice, rather than practical considerations.

Originally posted by pplrnuts
AWESOME!!!

Kids are ANNOYING!!!!!

The less that they are seen or heard, THE BETTER!!!!!

Annoying little bast@rds need to be kept at home with the baby-sitter when adults go out to eat.

For the dummies that just MUST take their little brats with them everywhere, is a [color=gold]HINT: People do NOT find your loud, obnoxious, whiny kid to be cute or adorable. LEAVE THEM AT HOME. Dummies.

I take it from this rant that you dont have kids yourself?