Posted on 04/01/2005 8:59:43 PM PST by jimboster
My guess: the regular schmoes don't like being around the kids because high school-aged kids generally act like fools. Especially the kind that loiters in groups at a place like McDonald's, which they almost surely did since the place is next to the school.
What if, instead of students.....they had christians or republicans cornered off into a corner of a store. Would you and the rest still be calling this kid a "punk?" Me thinks not
I'd eat elsewhere.
Fine, just don;t complain if you get hauled to the pokey for causing a disturbance.
I thought Freepers were supposed to be *pro* property rights?
So true. I do miss the days when petty things like this (and this incident IS petty) were settled "in-house" if you know what I mean.
When police, lawyers and the media get involved, forget it.
I don't think anyone can be made to sit in the back of the bus, so to speak, anymore. This kid has a legitimate gripe, IMHO.
Read the article- there's no mention of the students being forced to sit in the "back of the bus" or crummier section of the McDonalds. It appears they just split it down the middle.
Besides, restaurants designate where people sit everyday. Also, I believe many McDonalds have had age restricted sections for years- the playground area.
I think the spouse is the person that should make the decision in those cases. Marriage having real legal powers that come with it.
--Which wasn't a popular opinion here so I mainly stayed out of those threads;).
"What if, instead of students.....they had christians or republicans cornered off into a corner of a store. Would you and the rest still be calling this kid a "punk?"
I personally still would, if they sued about what someone is doing on their own property. However I think McDonalds as a corporation would have something to say if an owner of one of their stores was segregating based on race, religion or political belief.
The major corporations even in nations where segregation even based on race is tolerated.. still go out of their way to cater to all people. Like in India, its having the free market that is breaking down the caste system.
Anyone who is of age and pays full price should be allowed to sit where ever they want at a McDonalds. The play area is an option, not a requirement. There can be no compelling reason why this should not be so. The logic of equal accommodations is clear. A customer who paid full price was required to limit her choices in a way that others were not. It's simply unfair.
"Does the owner have a right to chuck people out who are not using the facility as it was intended, as a restuarant? I say absolutely yes. "
But that is not the case here. This doesnt appear to be a 'loitering' issue. This appears to be a 'segregation' issue where the students who paid the same money for their happy meals as the other customers are deliberately segregated.
It's not 'racial' in any manner but you can't arbitrarily arrest someone for sitting in the wrong seat. If that owner came up to me and told me I couldnt sit in that seat because I was a 'student', Id probably be arrested too!
Now if there was a 'no loitering' sign, or some indication of '20 minute limit' or something that's different. An owner can definitely enforce that because it is applied to everyone who walks into the restaurant. Now if you wanted to really walk the line, you could post a sign that restricts extended period diners to certain areas. Because 'extended period diners' could be anyone and not just students or any particular segregated group.
It's like saying 'all truckers must sit in the back of the restaurant'... you are just BEGGING for trouble.
"a bit rambunctious"
I would agree with this regarding the students. But the owners idea of segregating the students was ill advised. He would have been better off dealing with the 'rambunctious behavior'. "Loud Disruptive Behavior will not be tolerated" signs would have done nicely. Again because it doesnt segregate people by their social status (categorizing all of a certain group) rather it targets a behavior (loud disruptive behavior).
Have an adult supervise your responses from now on. Lucidity seems beyond you.
Where's the seating section for those who have not bathed in the last 96 hours?
If loitering is the issue, should the manager kick out the geezers who buy a cup of coffee and stay three hours?
Totally agree. Why couldn't Smith and her friends just boycott McDonald's instead of complaining? Just quietly take your school lunch business elsewhere. Mickey D's will get the hint sooner or later.
Really. Get over it.
This is an owners rights issue. Plain and simple.
The students are the ones who forced the owner to adopt this policy of segregating them to certain areas because of past unruly behavior. I guarantee you this student/person who was arrested knew the policy was in place. I would bet they wanted a "quiet" meal away from their fellow students, but in moving out of the designated student area , this person violated the owners policy.
Funny, how there had to be a security guard in the restuarant, should tell you this place must be a zoo at times.
I feel for the owner, cause I know exactly the type of problem he/she is dealing with. It is a no win situation. This is the kind of thing that closes restaurants/stores down. Some people just can`t be reasonable and understand that it is they that are the problem in the first place.
""article: was two bites into her Chicken Selects""
She was asked to move to the area designated for students, not an unreasonable request. Given that she more than likely knew about this policy beforehand, she could have simply got up and moved to the area and nothing would have happened.
Then "the security guard singled her out because she was the most vocal".
Hmmmmmmm, I can tell you what that means, she started screaming in the restaurant. What would you have done to her when she started screaming ?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.