Businesses saying keep the rowdy children at home.

[Zappo]

I don't know about specific laws, but I know of places that will throw you out if you are obnoxious and refuse to behave, without being private clubs (which have a lot more freedom in the way of throwing out people). It's a pity that they are a bit out of my financial league, though not so much that I can't go there every now and then. I just wish there was a cinema and a pizza restaurant with the same kind of good manners enforcement. Probably not economically advantageous I guess.

 

[WhimsyTheFae]

It looks to me like no laws are being broken. Cafe owner puts up rules for his establishment, parents who object boycott said establishment. Everyone seems to be operating within the law (and thankfully, the media is available to fan the flames on both sides of the argument)...

 

[Desdichado]

No, no laws are being broken.

That's why I was "jumping on" Crothian (sorry, Croth, if you felt put upon) because by implying that this was illegal discrimination, he was ratcheting up the drama unnecessarily. If you don't agree with him doing that, that's one thing, but to imply that he was doing something illegal, or at least horribly wrong, on the other hand, wasn't going anywhere good.

 

[Lobo Lurker]

Eh, kids will be kids... My daughter is a year and 2 months old. While she's well behaved, we do hear an occasional outburst (especially when she's tired or very happy). I wouldn't classify her a loud or obnoxious and would be offended if someone asked me to leave thier restaurant because of her.

BUT, she's not the type that goes running around all over the place screaming and crying. And when she IS like that, we simply don't go out to nice restaurants.

I'm rambling now but my point is, Kids will be kids. They're not mature and they don't possess the self-control that adults (supposedly) possess. You can control them and teach them what they need to do in public places, but they're not dogs. If they decide to throw a tantrum then there will be wailing and screaming. As a contientious parent one should remove the child from the evironment that's causing thier distress; Both to calm the child and spare others in the area from having to deal with your child's noise.

Establishing 'no-kids' areas is just as fine as no-smoking areas, I guess. The problem with that is it's only a short jump from 'no-kids' to 'no-jews' or 'no-colored'. IMHO, this is a lawsuit just waiting to happen.

 

[Desdichado]

Establishing 'no-kids' areas is just as fine as no-smoking areas, I guess. The problem with that is it's only a short jump from 'no-kids' to 'no-jews' or 'no-colored'. IMHO, this is a lawsuit just waiting to happen.

I don't see it. The reasoning and motivation for the two scenarios are two completely different attitudes, and have little to nothing in common.

I also don't see how any lawsuit could actually go anywhere with this.

 

[Rel]

Eh, kids will be kids... My daughter is a year and 2 months old. While she's well behaved, we do hear an occasional outburst (especially when she's tired or very happy). I wouldn't classify her a loud or obnoxious and would be offended if someone asked me to leave thier restaurant because of her.

But I don't really think this rule is aimed at kids like yours (or mine) who have an "occasional outburst". I've never been outraged at a child letting out a scream or squeal of delight and I doubt most others have either. It's when they scream non-stop or barge around the restaurant uncontrolled for minutes at a time and the parents don't seem to be willing or able to get them under control that they are having a significant negative impact on the enjoyment of others.

Some parents take the position that they have a right to enjoy a meal somewhere regardless of if their kid is screaming the whole time and causing misery for everybody else within earshot. This place is just putting up a sign that says, "No you don't."

 

[StupidSmurf]

I don't see it. The reasoning and motivation for the two scenarios are two completely different attitudes, and have little to nothing in common.

I also don't see how any lawsuit could actually go anywhere with this.

I agree, JD.
The "No-kids" thing, IMO, is based on common sense experience...kids as a rule make noise and haven't quite learned how to behave, and unfortunately not all parents consider it important that they learn this. Kids by their very nature are immature...that's why they're kids. Some parents make attempts at exercising control and restraint, others don't, and in my opinion that latter group ruins it for everyone. The "no kids" thing is a sad concession to the whole "some ruin it for all".

The concept of "no blacks" or "no Jews" or whatever is based on no actual evidence, but rather simply on the basis of race, color, or religion. Thus, there's NO grounds for exclusion that would hold up.

There's no lawsuit potential here.

I also agree with Rel's post. It's not the occasional loud noise, outburst, or wandering away. It's the CONSTANT offenses...I've seen these parents in action (or should that be, in inaction???). Their kids pretty much run loose like a bunch of little savages, and they just sit there, blithely. Because, hey, they paid for their meal, dammit, and they have the right to enjoy it in peace!

Yeah, well so does everyone else in the joint...and our peace is being threatened by those little uncontrolled monsters.

Kids will be kids. As I said, I'm a dad of four, so I know it first hand. But's incumbent upon the parents to gradually push their kids away from childish things and point them towards growing up. Parents who refuse to do so aren't fit company.

 

[ssampier]

From a personal (and possibly legal) standpoint, the signs are nothing more than the signs at movie theaters to turn off your cell phone or the "Be quiet" signs of libraries of old.

I also agree with Rel's post. It's not the occasional loud noise, outburst, or wandering away. It's the CONSTANT offenses...I've seen these parents in action (or should that be, in inaction???). Their kids pretty much run loose like a bunch of little savages, and they just sit there, blithely. Because, hey, they paid for their meal, dammit, and they have the right to enjoy it in peace!

I agree. As a single person with no children, I can tolerate the ocassional upset or crying baby/toddler. It's the contant offenses that annoy me, especially when the parents don't even try to calm their child. It's almost like they took the "takes a village to raise a child" way too literally, and it's everyone's problem to monitor their behavior.

In my mind, the children are going to act like children, it is up to you as the adult to teach them proper respect and manners (even if means leaving a theatre early or having to come back for your double-latte frappacino). After all, who's going to teach it to them? It's not like children reach an age and magically know proper conduct, rules, and behavior.

 

[billd91]

But I don't really think this rule is aimed at kids like yours (or mine) who have an "occasional outburst". I've never been outraged at a child letting out a scream or squeal of delight and I doubt most others have either. It's when they scream non-stop or barge around the restaurant uncontrolled for minutes at a time and the parents don't seem to be willing or able to get them under control that they are having a significant negative impact on the enjoyment of others.

Some parents take the position that they have a right to enjoy a meal somewhere regardless of if their kid is screaming the whole time and causing misery for everybody else within earshot. This place is just putting up a sign that says, "No you don't."

The problem is, those signs, even if not targetted at regularly behaving kids, chill the atmosphere. Other patrons or staff may be emboldened to tell parents to leave for that occasional outburst even if the child, in the main, is behaving just fine or at least within socially acceptible parameters.

Quite frankly, people don't always behave responsibily on either side of the coin either before or after policies like that go up. I'm rather stunned that a retail clerk at a feminist bookstore would ask a woman to stop breast-feeding, myself. Aside from plenty of cities having ordinances stating that breasts can be at work anywhere public, to think that a feminist bookstore wouldn't be a safe haven for that in the first place is bizarre.

And it's not right to lump all parents who feel that chill as feeling overly "entitled". That's a gross generalization. It's about as gross as saying that people who want to be free of the sound of children anywhere are feeling overly entitled as well.

Now, does anyone else think it's curious that McCauley also has a criterium to hire people who live close enough to walk to work? I'm starting to wonder if he's just some kind of control freak.

 

[Raven Crowking]

From http://selfknowledge.com/26993.htm:

Discrimination (Dis*crim`i*na"tion) (?), n.
[L. discrimination the contrasting of opposite thoughts.]

1. The act of discriminating, distinguishing, or noting and marking differences. "To make an anxious discrimination between the miracle absolute and providential." Trench.
2. The state of being discriminated, distinguished, or set apart. Sir J. Reynolds.
3. (Railroads) The arbitrary imposition of unequal tariffs for substantially the same service. "A difference in rates, not based upon any corresponding difference in cost, constitutes a case of discrimination." A. T. Hadley.
4. The quality of being discriminating; faculty of nicely distinguishing; acute discernment; as, to show great discrimination in the choice of means.
5. That which discriminates; mark of distinction.

Synonyms -- Discernment; penetration; clearness; acuteness; judgment; distinction. See Discernment.

It should be fairly clear why discrimination has, generally, been considered a good thing throughout most of human history in most of its definitions. What is a bad thing is definition 3: arbitrary discrimination.

Arbitrary discrimination can be illegal (for example, when one discriminates on the basis of race, colour, or creed) or legal (for example, when one prefers Skippy to Jiff). What we are looking at here, though, is not a case of arbitrary discrimination.

What we are looking at here is a case of noting and marking differences; a case of judgment. Where etiquette is concerned, a little more clearness and discernment would generally be better for us all. Unfortunately, we live in a society where we see our "rights" much more clearly than the "responsibilities" that those rights entail.

Simply put, no one has a "right" to service in an establishment wherein they refuse to take "responsibility" for their behaviour. Think you have no responsiblity for your children's behaviour? Think again. When a child runs into the display case and it finally shatters who is going to be responsible for damages? How about for the resultant injury and/or death?

We live in a society where the answer is, all too often, the cafe owner.

How could one then also claim that the cafe owner doesn't have the right to demand that the parents be responsible for their children while in the cafe? Sorry, but that's just insane.


RC