Businesses saying keep the rowdy children at home.

[buzzard]

If you want spered leave the thread :\

I just made the comment since some people were being rude and cannot even see how someone might disagree with them

No, I think being are dubfounded at how an otherwise rational person (you) can posit such a preposterous position (banning misbehaving children is discrimination).

People can understand disagreement. They have trouble with arguments which lack reasoning.

buzzard

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

If a business owner doesn't want children around because his clients (or he) finds them annoying, then I see it as nothing different than banning smoking, banning ghetto blasters, or banning cell phones. If he is willing to take an economic hit (or just target his market elsewhere) then more power to him

It's his business. If the "Entitled Moms" don't wish to patronize his business anymore, then more power to them...it seems like a meeting of minds: they aren't welcome at his placeof business and they don't want to be there. Agreement.

Exactly correct. If they are decent about how they treat people with kids who start to act up, I might go there myself when I want an evening with just my wife. If they are a-holes about it, I wouldn't bother.

Banning people and banning cell phones are way different. Children are a type of people. Now if he wants to make the establishment truely adult in nature he can and make it proivate, and serve alchohol and then kids won't be alloud in. But since that is obviously not the case, then he has to deal with the kids.

Sorry Crothian, but I can't agree with you. All kids are permitted to enter the place and as long as they follow the rules they can stay. If he said no latino children permitted, that would be discrimination. There is no discrimination because he has not denied service to a particular group until they break the rules. If he does not apply the rules equally to all children, then there may be a case for discrimination. And if he did not kick out an adult who was running around, being loud and obnoxious, then maybe there also might be a case.

 

[Desdichado]

No, I think being are dubfounded at how an otherwise rational person (you) can posit such a preposterous position (banning misbehaving children is discrimination).

People can understand disagreement. They have trouble with arguments which lack reasoning.

yeah, if you're referring to me, that's exactly what I'm thinking, Crothian. You're on a really slippery slope there, too. Your (apparent) definition of discrimination is little more than "anyone who doesn't give me whatever I want is discriminating against me."

Hmmm... I wonder if there's an angle for more sex in there somewhere...

 

[Eridanis]

C'mon, folks. Let's keep a thread about incivility from turning uncivil. Back to your corners, please.

 

[spatha]

If you want spered leave the thread :\

I just made the comment since some people were being rude and cannot even see how someone might disagree with them

No that isn't what is happening. You are claiming discrimination when none is happening. Many people have pointed this out to you and you have ignored them. Here is the definition of the word: Treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit; partiality or prejudice: racial discrimination; discrimination against foreigners.

Not the bolded part. That is the key here. These kids aren't being targeted based on age they are being targeted based on action which would fall under individual merit hence not discrimination. If he said no kids allowed I'd give you your discrimination argument. But he isn't.

 

[RangerWickett]

That's nonsensical.

Jeff . . . I'm sorry, but I'm gonna have to ask ya to leave. Or at least to start serving alcohol. If I were drunk, I'd have more of a tolerance for this conversation.

Basically, I think we've reached the point where no one is going to change anyone's mind. Let's end the discussion, shall we, and be adult about it.

 

[the Jester]

Crothian, you cannot legally discriminate against people based on certain protected categories. For instance, you cannot (in the U.S.) discriminate based on color, religion, gender, etc. Behavior isn't a protected category. The sign even implicitly applies to adults equally as to kids. The owner isn't saying, "Kids A B and C can't come in, but kids D, E and F can." He's saying, "Well, kid A is being disruptive today, so he has to leave. If he's good tomorrow, he can come back." The problem is, some parents are saying, "My kid doesn't have to be good at all!"

 

[Crothian]

No, I think being are dubfounded at how an otherwise rational person (you) can posit such a preposterous position (banning misbehaving children is discrimination).

The problem is the definition of misbehaving. Misbehaving according to who and enforced by who? I think people read this and see it being enforced perfectly fairly, but I don't. I think it will be a differnet defintion of behavor different days and the guy is already hating these moms he feels are spoiled so I see him targeting their kids specifically. So, its the start of a slippery sloap.

 

[buzzard]

The problem is the definition of misbehaving. Misbehaving according to who and enforced by who? I think people read this and see it being enforced perfectly fairly, but I don't. I think it will be a differnet defintion of behavor different days and the guy is already hating these moms he feels are spoiled so I see him targeting their kids specifically. So, its the start of a slippery sloap.

So you have cast the business owner as the villain, and because of this any effort to control unruly children is a bad thing?

Why don't you just say that the business owner is a stupid git and has something against certain types of women?

In any case, it's not like the business provides a lifegiving service. That's the beauty of the free market, people can decide they don't like a proprietor's attitude and go to a different business. Only the vendor suffers for being a git.

It would seem to me that the general sentiment expressed here is that most people would like to see more public places require parents to actually keep their kids in line. Whether or not this particular businessman is a git or not is only tangential.

buzzard

 

[kenobi65]

The problem is the definition of misbehaving. Misbehaving according to who and enforced by who? I think people read this and see it being enforced perfectly fairly, but I don't. I think it will be a differnet defintion of behavor different days and the guy is already hating these moms he feels are spoiled so I see him targeting their kids specifically. So, its the start of a slippery sloap.

Which, as the owner of the business in question, he's perfectly allowed to do. If people don't like it (as you clearly don't), they're allowed to vote with their wallets. If he's made a bad business decision, then he'll suffer the consequences.