Posted on 07/13/2011 7:26:05 AM PDT by markomalley
It hasn't been a banner year for the under-6 set.
Starting July 16, McDain's, a Pittsburgh-area restaurant, will ban children under the age of 6 from its dining area. Restaurant owner Mike Vuick said the policy came in response to complaints he'd received from older customers about kids causing a ruckus. In an email to his clientele, Vuick wrote, "We feel that McDain's is a not a place for young children … and many, many times they have disturbed other customers."
A few weeks ago, Malaysia Airlines announced that it would ban infants from flying in the first-class cabin because other passengers had complained about squalling babies. And last February it was rumored that Virgin Atlantic and British Airways had been pressured to consider child-free zones and even child-free planes to appease business travelers who, according to a travel survey, listed unruly children as their No. 1 travel-related complaint.
So, just when did our precious "pets" become everyone else's pet peeves? Are these bans even legal? Apparently yes. Federal law forbids discrimination on racial or religious grounds, but there is no blanket protection for children. For business owners like Vuick that means they can set the rules.
(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...
Interesting choice of words.
As a staunch defender of individual liberty, I'm willing to let the market decide whether this is a good policy.
There are plenty of other restaurants out there.
As the mother of more children than 99.9% of the population, I think this is perfectly fine. Freedom of association also means freedom of non-association, and taking little children to restaurants (or on planes) is something to be avoided as much as possible, anyway.
Actually, it’s the parents of these unruly children that need to be banned.
Growing up, not that we had many meals out, but whenever we were out in public, we behaved, if we knew what was good for us.
It has become a spare the rod, spoil the child world. Parents now want to be “friends” with their children instead of parents.....or parent, another problem.
But accurate in so many cases
“Children = precious “pets”??? “
Yeah, that was a weird.
Now, if they start having restaurants that don’t allow cell phones or children under 5, I’ll be there.
Considering how many parents view their kids as pets and allow them to go feral after getting bored with them, I think it is an appropriate word.
I call the little children “pet” sometimes. (I call the dog and the catz “the carnivorous mammals.”) Its original meaning is “something for which you feel affection.” That’s why the writer matched it with “pet peeve,” your favorite or more dearly held gripe about others.
While I personally wouldn’t go out of my way to eat in a restaurant that doesn’t allow children under 6, its a choice I could make for myself.
Too bad people in my state aren’t allowed to make the same choice when it comes to smoking.
McDain’s, Malaysia Airlines and British Airways: doing the job today’s parents won’t do.
I agree with this action. Child raising is rapidly becoming a lost art.
If you children cannot act in a civil manner in public, keep them at home.
We left half a tip since the baby wasn't vetted before being taken to the cheap seats.
And, we let the manager know that we wouldn't be back.
Crappy food anyway...
We were eating recently at a national chain steak house...there was a squalling toddler in a high chair..at least five adults at the table with it. We asked the waitress if they could try to do something....the adults were busy chatting and making NO attempt to make the kid stop screaming
She said the resturant had a policy that they said nothing to customers out of fear of law suits...as a customer if we wished to say something...go right ahead.
We did not go back there.
So hats off to McDains...
Resturants used to have the right to refuse service to anytone.
Freegards
Lex
Good for them.
We go to a restaurant here in (M)assachusetts called Sonoma, it’s very upscale and while there is no rule about kids, you would NEVER bring a kid in there in a million years. It’s simply too expensive (and worth it) and upscale to do that. My son is now 14 and we’re going to bring him this weekend for the first time (to celebrate his birthday, our anniversary, and my raise and bonus at work).
Parents with babies should keep them safely at home, and out of nice restaurants and airlines.
If they can stop me from enjoying an after dinner smoke, they should keep screaming infants from annoying me.
Exactly right. And, when I was a kid, parents wouldn’t allow their screaming child to remain in the restaurant. They would take them outside, away from everyone else, until the crying subsided so as not to interupt everyone else.
I completely support a private business doing this. They are trying to create an environment that is pleasant for the customers they are targeting. If one doesn’t like the no child policy, one can always go elsewhere.
I can’t recall the whole family going to a restaurant until I was in my teens, and all of us were at least ten. And it was a bad scene, several of us cutting up enough to cause a mini scene. And that was back in the day.
But heck, I always hated going to restaurants as a kid anyway. Same with every other “adult” activity - I just wanted to be out playing with my friends and catching snakes down at the swamp.
I would have left without paying.
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.