Be a Supporter!

Child free zones

  • 1,471 Views
  • 49 Replies
New Topic Respond to this Topic
JoS
JoS
  • Member since: Aug. 11, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 04
Blank Slate
Child free zones Oct. 20th, 2012 @ 01:21 AM Reply

A number of restaurants and other businesses are starting to create "Child free zones" prohibiting children under various ages. This is in response to parents bringing their children out to environments that try and cater towards adults.

Some have stated this is a response to a change in parenting over the last 15 years. Before parents would get a babysitter to go out, now often they bring their children with them to nice restaurants. As we all know, children's behaviour can be unpredictable at best, extremely disruptive at worst.

Opponents of this feel its discrimination to ban children. They feel the fact some people choose to have children shouldn't be held against them.

I personally think this is an acceptable compromise. If a business wants to exclude certain people, if thats in the best interest of their business then why not. I mean barring blacks, gays etc is one thing, banning disruptive children is different. we already do that with liquor licences, you can't bring your kids to night clubs, so whats different about banning them from restaurants.


Bellum omnium contra omnes

BBS Signature
Korriken
Korriken
  • Member since: Jun. 17, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 05
Gamer
Response to Child free zones Oct. 20th, 2012 @ 03:35 AM Reply

It's really no different from the no smoking section of a restaurant. you can't smoke in the non smoking section, and yet you can sit in the smoking section and not smoke.

some smokers do believe that it's discrimination... I think they're douchebags. Personally it irritates the everliving shit out of my when I'm sitting down to a nice meal and the smell of someone's raunchy ass cigar makes it to where I'm sitting... and yes that happens quite often here in Texas. It's the ONE thing I miss about living in Louisiana... in LA you can't smoke inside of public buildings.


I'm not crazy, everyone else is.

JoS
JoS
  • Member since: Aug. 11, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 04
Blank Slate
Response to Child free zones Oct. 20th, 2012 @ 01:56 PM Reply

At 10/20/12 03:35 AM, Korriken wrote: It's really no different from the no smoking section of a restaurant. you can't smoke in the non smoking section, and yet you can sit in the smoking section and not smoke.

The counter-argument is though that its age discrimination by not allowing children in, and no different then not allowing blacks or women in.


Bellum omnium contra omnes

BBS Signature
Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to Child free zones Oct. 20th, 2012 @ 02:51 PM Reply

At 10/20/12 01:56 PM, JoS wrote: The counter-argument is though that its age discrimination by not allowing children in, and no different then not allowing blacks or women in.

I wouldn't necessarily say age discrimination, as that really only applies to adults, and there is no age of adults that will have children dining with them.

This falls under the much less recognized family status discrimination, like in the FHA.

Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to Child free zones Oct. 20th, 2012 @ 03:02 PM Reply

At 10/20/12 02:51 PM, Camarohusky wrote: and there is no age of adults that will have children dining with them.

By this I mean there is no set age of adults that is discriminated aainst by the company of children as adults of all ages are accompanied by children and adults of all ages go out without children.

Gario
Gario
  • Member since: Jul. 30, 2009
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 06
Musician
Response to Child free zones Oct. 20th, 2012 @ 03:44 PM Reply

It's discrimination, of course, but not all discrimination is bad, per se. If there is a purely functional reason for the discrimination then it's reasonable, and I can understand the reasoning behind the restaurants decision.

I was forced to employ the same rule to my classroom when I taught adult education some years ago. I love children, but it's disruptive to the environment, and everyone else suffered for it. For a restaurant that's trying to cater to adults, it's very understandable that children will disrupt that environment, as most children would be, given that environment.


Need some music for a flash or game? Check it out. If none of this works send me a PM, I'm taking requests.

Boss
Boss
  • Member since: Apr. 19, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 31
Melancholy
Response to Child free zones Oct. 21st, 2012 @ 09:48 AM Reply

They are being discriminated against and they deserve to be discriminated against. Their brains are not developed and they should be told that their brains are not developed.


I'm an instigator

BBS Signature
morefngdbs
morefngdbs
  • Member since: Mar. 7, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 49
Art Lover
Response to Child free zones Oct. 21st, 2012 @ 11:03 AM Reply

At 10/20/12 01:56 PM, JoS wrote: The counter-argument is though that its age discrimination by not allowing children in, and no different then not allowing blacks or women in.

;;;
I don't believe that's valid.
THey are not saying only female children, or black (or other races) children, it is all children.
I see no problem with that.
We already have rules that could be called discrimination for children , driving laws, alcohol laws, smoking laws. If you want to make it more apples to apples, keeping them out of a business place like a resturant, what about a Casino ?

I really hate that here in Canada you can bring your child to a bar. Adults are in the bar playing pool , drinking alcohol & gambling , that is legal in the bars here.
I do not believe that is a healthy enviorment to bring a child, yet because all establishments serving booze, also have to serve food, some people bring their kid's to the bar !
Their excuse is, to eat .... while they are drinking, gambling etc.

So as a parent, I welome the idea of adult only bars & resturants & would definately go to them on occassion...because sometimes its nice to get away from the kid's for a couple of hours.

One other point.... I don't understand why a business cannot set itself up as say, a smoking bar. Where warnings on the doors inform the public ...This Is a Smoking Establishment.
Why do nonsmokers feel they should have the right to have a designated place in a smoking room ?
I just don't understand the 'logic' of Governments that enfoce those kinds of rules on a privaterly owned club or business.


Those who have only the religious opinions of others in their head & worship them. Have no room for their own thoughts & no room to contemplate anyone elses ideas either-More

Korriken
Korriken
  • Member since: Jun. 17, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 05
Gamer
Response to Child free zones Oct. 21st, 2012 @ 11:11 AM Reply

At 10/20/12 01:56 PM, JoS wrote: The counter-argument is though that its age discrimination by not allowing children in, and no different then not allowing blacks or women in.

that's a piss poor analogy chief. the counter-argument would be that it's age discrimination, yes, but what about not letting the elderly in?


I'm not crazy, everyone else is.

4761
4761
  • Member since: Jun. 8, 2011
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 07
Blank Slate
Response to Child free zones Oct. 21st, 2012 @ 02:15 PM Reply

Unlike discriminating against people of different ethnicities, genders, or any irrelevant distinguishing factor, discriminating against age isn't such a bad idea. This way the environment is much more pacified and orderly.

Besides, there are already many laws prohibiting children from doing something or entering some place, I think it would be consistent to ban children from certain places.


Even the most righteous, logically sound individuals are subject to poor reasoning skills and deluded mindsets.

BBS Signature
JMHX
JMHX
  • Member since: Oct. 18, 2002
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 15
Blank Slate
Response to Child free zones Oct. 21st, 2012 @ 10:40 PM Reply

Plenty of nice places ban kids. I love 'em. Not kids. Fuck kids. But not in the sexual way. Maybe in the sexual way.


BBS Signature
Iron-Hampster
Iron-Hampster
  • Member since: Aug. 27, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 10
Blank Slate
Response to Child free zones Oct. 22nd, 2012 @ 10:19 AM Reply

the rights of the children and their parents do not over-rule the rights of the owner of what ever property they decide to visit. how would they like it if the government started getting involved in their own households making sure they were politically correct about the guests they let in and how they treat their guests. oh yea, and no more smoking in your own house anymore, its a public place now.


ya hear about the guy who put his condom on backwards? He went.

BBS Signature
Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to Child free zones Oct. 22nd, 2012 @ 10:53 AM Reply

At 10/21/12 10:40 PM, JMHX wrote: Fuck kids. But not in the sexual way. Maybe in the sexual way.

Penn State Grad?

Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to Child free zones Oct. 22nd, 2012 @ 11:06 AM Reply

At 10/22/12 10:19 AM, Iron-Hampster wrote: the rights of the children and their parents do not over-rule the rights of the owner of what ever property they decide to visit.

Yes and no.

how would they like it if the government started getting involved in their own households making sure they were politically correct about the guests they let in and how they treat their guests. oh yea, and no more smoking in your own house anymore, its a public place now.

Very poor analogy. Your personal residence has no societal ties whatsoever. Your business does. The restriction of someone to your business put s a strain (however slight) on society by forcing them to go elsewhere, and in some cases great distances, to access a service equivalent to what your business offered. When you block out an entire group of people for illegitimate reasons those slight harms to society aggregate into bigger and bigger harms to society. they can even aggregate to the point of becoming a de facto prohibition for a certain group of people even being able to live economically in a location. The government allowing such acts would be quite similar to the government performing those acts itself.

The issue here is not, has never been, and never will be, whether it is wrong to prohibit business from illegitimate discrimination, rather the issue is whather the discrimination the business is undertaking is legitimate or not. As I pointed out before, the restriction of children does not trigger age discrimination as children are not adults. Until they are adults they are considered part of their partents' unit for many types of discrimination. The discrimination that would be triggered here is family discrimination, a much less protected status. Family discrimination is strongly protected in housing, but outside of that it renders few protections. A restauraunt attempting to keep out children for noise purposes may be OK as family status discrimination isn't as protected (if protected at all) in the consumer sector.

Now, I would have to say that the restaraunts that do this are paying their attorneys too much, as they are still opening themselves up to lawsuits and major PR problems. If noise was the true issue, they could EASILY make a noise policy. They could also just make the restaraunt a bar and keep out all younger than 21. What the restaraunt is doing is choosing to take the long way from point A to point B at 150 miles and hour through school zones, when they could (with less effort) take the shorter expressway at the speed limit and get there at the same time.

WizMystery
WizMystery
  • Member since: Feb. 3, 2009
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 11
Musician
Response to Child free zones Oct. 22nd, 2012 @ 01:01 PM Reply

Any who oppose, how about this short list of things that are also discriminatory towards age?

1. Child Labor Laws
2. Legal Drinking Age
3. Age of Consent
4. Minimum Driving Age
5. Social Security/Pension

JMHX
JMHX
  • Member since: Oct. 18, 2002
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 15
Blank Slate
Response to Child free zones Oct. 22nd, 2012 @ 01:14 PM Reply

At 10/22/12 01:01 PM, WizMystery wrote: Any who oppose, how about this short list of things that are also discriminatory towards age?

1. Child Labor Laws
2. Legal Drinking Age
3. Age of Consent
4. Minimum Driving Age
5. Social Security/Pension

6. Prostitution


BBS Signature
All-American-Badass
All-American-Badass
  • Member since: Jul. 16, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 31
Blank Slate
Response to Child free zones Oct. 22nd, 2012 @ 03:10 PM Reply

Now ideally, since businesses should retain the right to refuse service, these no children under x years rules are completely legal but from a PR standpoint are ill advised so it would spur someone(s) to open up their own restaurant that does not have the no children under x years rules, thus everyone is happy. Unfortunately this is not an ideal world so instead of these people pooling money to make their own restaurant they're resorting to almost frivolous if not actually frivolous lawsuits since it seems to be the easy way.

Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to Child free zones Oct. 22nd, 2012 @ 03:12 PM Reply

At 10/22/12 01:01 PM, WizMystery wrote: 1. Child Labor Laws
2. Legal Drinking Age
3. Age of Consent
4. Minimum Driving Age
5. Social Security/Pension

Those are all VERY different. First off, all 5 are done directly by the government whereas the topic here is a private business. Second, the laws you stated have very entrenched and very valid reasons for the discrimination that could not be solved through other less discriminatory methods. 1 through 4 are all safety based. They are all rooted in empircal evidence (though some are much more tenable than others) that maturity = safety, and that people below the age set are more likely to cause physical or severe emtoional harm to themselves and/or others when engaging in these acts. 5 is age discriminatory because that is how it is built, and they are meant to cover those who have become to old to provide much economic benefit. Such services are there because at the upper end of the age scale people begin to lose financial support for themselves.

The reasons for the laws and programs you stated are 1,000,000 times more vital than "babies are noisy". Frankly, the adults at restaraunts are often louder and more annoying than any screaming baby is. WHy aren't we kicking out those people?

Cootie
Cootie
  • Member since: Jul. 7, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 43
Movie Buff
Response to Child free zones Oct. 22nd, 2012 @ 03:48 PM Reply

At 10/22/12 03:12 PM, Camarohusky wrote:
The reasons for the laws and programs you stated are 1,000,000 times more vital than "babies are noisy". Frankly, the adults at restaraunts are often louder and more annoying than any screaming baby is. WHy aren't we kicking out those people?

Because the cry of a baby is genetically bound to be annoying. We are designed to despise the sound of a crying baby, and have you never seen obnoxious people being kicked out of a restaurant?


For I am and forever shall be... a master ruseman.

BBS Signature
morefngdbs
morefngdbs
  • Member since: Mar. 7, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 49
Art Lover
Response to Child free zones Oct. 22nd, 2012 @ 05:02 PM Reply

At 10/22/12 11:06 AM, Camarohusky wrote: The restriction of someone to your business put s a strain (however slight) on society by forcing them to go elsewhere, and in some cases great distances, to access a service equivalent to what your business offered. When you block out an entire group of people for illegitimate reasons those slight harms to society aggregate into bigger and bigger harms to society.

;;;
WHile I agree with you , I again bring up the smoking club.
I know the owner of a cigar bar in Halifax NS that went under after it was forced to put in a non-smoking section that ate up half his space.
Here was a little club, about 40 seats, with a full selection of cigars, the chairs were mostly leather longing seats, a few big couches a small bar with a good selection of single malt Scotch's & a big humidor, where members could store their cigars, buy cigars, etc.
So in the minds of many it was ludicris for a smoking bar, in a city with hundreds of bars at least 5 visible from the sidewalk in front of the cigar bar.... yet they put this huge expense on the club, then when the city went 'smoke free' they closed him down...because you weren't allowed to smoke in the cigar bar ...I know you may read this & think " are you fucking kidding me ?"
I am not, it is IMO a perfect example of government insanity !

The issue here is not, has never been, and never will be, whether it is wrong to prohibit business from illegitimate discrimination, rather the issue is whather the discrimination the business is undertaking is legitimate or not.

Which is why I posted my example, a legitimate business catering to a select segment of the population & they in my opinion were discriminated against in the name of nonsmokers ... to the loss of jobs & loss of a business man's livelyhood.


Those who have only the religious opinions of others in their head & worship them. Have no room for their own thoughts & no room to contemplate anyone elses ideas either-More

JMHX
JMHX
  • Member since: Oct. 18, 2002
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 15
Blank Slate
Response to Child free zones Oct. 22nd, 2012 @ 05:31 PM Reply

ITT: People don't know the difference between a government and a private business and how the law affects each of them differently.


BBS Signature
Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to Child free zones Oct. 22nd, 2012 @ 07:34 PM Reply

At 10/22/12 05:02 PM, morefngdbs wrote: I am not, it is IMO a perfect example of government insanity !

This is more an example of a poorly written rule than government insanity. The rules in Settle and Portland, where I have lived, have (unless I am completely mistaken) an ability to apply for a special exception for hookah bars, cigar bars, and alike that are meant for the sole purpose of smoking. If not a direct exception, I know the Seattle law has a private club exception, where the locale can sell memberships and people can smoke freely inside.

Though, you do generally miss the point with smoking as smoking has direct negative effects that can, and do, physically harm those around them. Not even including the quite substantial section of the population that is very vulnerable to cigarette smoke. Very few people are physically harmed by a baby screaming. Very few people get any harm aside from minor (very minor) inconvenience from it.

Which is why I posted my example, a legitimate business catering to a select segment of the population & they in my opinion were discriminated against in the name of nonsmokers ... to the loss of jobs & loss of a business man's livelyhood.

Petition for an exception for businesses that cater specifically to smoking then.

WizMystery
WizMystery
  • Member since: Feb. 3, 2009
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 11
Musician
Response to Child free zones Oct. 22nd, 2012 @ 08:58 PM Reply

At 10/22/12 03:12 PM, Camarohusky wrote: Those are all VERY different. First off, all 5 are done directly by the government whereas the topic here is a private business. Second, the laws you stated have very entrenched and very valid reasons for the discrimination that could not be solved through other less discriminatory methods. 1 through 4 are all safety based. They are all rooted in empircal evidence (though some are much more tenable than others) that maturity = safety, and that people below the age set are more likely to cause physical or severe emtoional harm to themselves and/or others when engaging in these acts. 5 is age discriminatory because that is how it is built, and they are meant to cover those who have become to old to provide much economic benefit. Such services are there because at the upper end of the age scale people begin to lose financial support for themselves.

The reasons for the laws and programs you stated are 1,000,000 times more vital than "babies are noisy". Frankly, the adults at restaraunts are often louder and more annoying than any screaming baby is. WHy aren't we kicking out those people?

My point was discrimination isn't a bad thing.

My other point is that none of that matters since we aren't talking about the government, we're talking about a private business. It doesn't matter how petty the reason is, businesses should be able to do what they want with their own property.

If you're not for that, pretend for a second that a business is a person. In an isolated system, a person can legally do whatever he or she wants to himself. Outside of that isolated system, there are some restrictions where actions to or for the self can affect others. If another person is affected by that action without consent person 'A' is committing an illegal/immoral/whatever-you-definite-it-as act. Likewise, in an isolated system a business can legally do whatever it wants to itself. Outside of that isolated system, there are some restrictions where actions to or for itself affect people or other businesses. If another person or a business is affected by that action without consent business 'A' is committing an illegal/immoral/whatever-you-definite-it-as act. In layman's terms. Set aside the fact that some actions have unseen/uncontrollable consequences since that turns into chaos theory and nothing would ever get done if we worried about all of that.

Also, both sides of this particular action have petty views of said action if you ask me. So what if some people can't go into a restaurant? Boo-fucking-hoo. It's not like businesses are carelessly causing some kind of nuclear war for their gain. Some corporations verge on doing that level of crap though, which begs the question why anyone's even the slightest bit concerned with this bullshit (even me).

|-------------------------------------------- BONUS ARGUMENT ----------------------------------------------|

But let's just say all businesses started doing this. I'm sure that's going through your mind somewhere. Theoretically, if all restaurant owners hated black people and all grocery stores hated black people and all farms hated black people you'd have starving black people across the board. If this principle were to be extended all the way in some kind of ideal world I'd say the government would step in themselves and offer food which just goes to show that I'm in some sort of cognitive dissonance pickle between libertarianism and liberalism. Therefore none of the aforementioned views of this post are concrete.

Iron-Hampster
Iron-Hampster
  • Member since: Aug. 27, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 10
Blank Slate
Response to Child free zones Oct. 22nd, 2012 @ 11:03 PM Reply

At 10/22/12 11:06 AM, Camarohusky wrote: Very poor analogy. Your personal residence has no societal ties whatsoever. Your business does. The restriction of someone to your business put s a strain (however slight) on society by forcing them to go elsewhere, and in some cases great distances, to access a service equivalent to what your business offered. When you block out an entire group of people for illegitimate reasons those slight harms to society aggregate into bigger and bigger harms to society. they can even aggregate to the point of becoming a de facto prohibition for a certain group of people even being able to live economically in a location. The government allowing such acts would be quite similar to the government performing those acts itself.

Your personal residence is no less your property and there for, no less under your authority than your business is. While yes it is kind of an inconvenience if the closest restaurant to you wont let you smoke in it, or on the opposite end, will let other people smoke around you, all it does is push you away to their competition. It's the same with other issues like the screaming brat one in this thread. Truth is we don't really need to get the government involved because the businesses that will be better off will be the one that can offer accommodation to as many people as they can. With issues like the smoking and the kids though, the government seems to ensure that only one group will get convenient service while the other will absolutely not. We used to allow a compromise with "sections" so that every place had to work for both, but then one side gets greedy, lets say maybe noise from children can travel the same way small amounts of second hand can travel to the other side. What that causes is for the complainers to call for the government to ban the other side outright. Thing with referendums is, when called into issues like this, they don't display all of the options and it becomes a contest of majority vote, which team gets their way and which team gets to have their rights violated.


The issue here is not, has never been, and never will be, whether it is wrong to prohibit business from illegitimate discrimination, rather the issue is whather the discrimination the business is undertaking is legitimate or not. As I pointed out before, the restriction of children does not trigger age discrimination as children are not adults. Until they are adults they are considered part of their partents' unit for many types of discrimination. The discrimination that would be triggered here is family discrimination, a much less protected status. Family discrimination is strongly protected in housing, but outside of that it renders few protections. A restauraunt attempting to keep out children for noise purposes may be OK as family status discrimination isn't as protected (if protected at all) in the consumer sector.

when your life changes, so will your lifestyle. having kids is seen as a necessity to most people but the reality is that it is a personal choice no matter how much social and instinctive pressure there is behind it. But businesses should be free to cater to either or both as they choose to with out coercion from above. Both sides can be made moderately happy so long as there is demand from both of those sides to warrant both kid friendly and kid-free facilities. Whether it is fair or not when looking at the behavior of one place isn't thinking with a wide enough range.


Now, I would have to say that the restaurants that do this are paying their attorneys too much, as they are still opening themselves up to lawsuits and major PR problems. If noise was the true issue, they could EASILY make a noise policy. They could also just make the restaurant a bar and keep out all younger than 21. What the restaurant is doing is choosing to take the long way from point A to point B at 150 miles and hour through school zones, when they could (with less effort) take the shorter expressway at the speed limit and get there at the same time.

I think that the only noise violations that the government should have any power over are the ones where the noise goes from one property and starts to effect others. Any internal noise issues that one place might have can be best solved by the owner. When we use their services we inherently agree to the terms of their service. If the ruling Beuracracy is simplified so that this balance is maintained appropriately, then no one would be able to force another person to do anything with out their say so, and businesses would be left to serve the needs of the people in their area more appropriately than any regional mandate run by the whims of people with very different needs ever could. All we need to do is accept that while businesses will try to adjust to suit your needs to the best of their abilities, some times the customer must also adapt and know how to best serve themselves.


ya hear about the guy who put his condom on backwards? He went.

BBS Signature
Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to Child free zones Oct. 23rd, 2012 @ 12:45 AM Reply

At 10/22/12 11:03 PM, Iron-Hampster wrote: Your personal residence is no less your property and there for, no less under your authority than your business is. While yes it is kind of an inconvenience if the closest restaurant to you wont let you smoke in it, or on the opposite end, will let other people smoke around you, all it does is push you away to their competition. It's the same with other issues like the screaming brat one in this thread.

There's a big difference. It costs ZERO dollars to not smoke during a meal. It costs a good amount of money to go out without one's children. Also, like I said to another, the harm caused by a loud child is trivial AT BEST. The problem with pushing to competition is that it still unfairly burdens a large group of people for the slight benefit of others. Freedom from cigarette smoke is hardly a light benefit, especially for those with health problems.

Again, not a good analogy.

when your life changes, so will your lifestyle.

I am not saying that it isn't rude to bring children certain places, but tht doesn't mean that a company can keep kids out of a public establishment with no danger to children without legal consequences.

I think that the only noise violations that the government should have any power over are the ones where the noise goes from one property and starts to effect others.

WHo said government here?

Any internal noise issues that one place might have can be best solved by the owner.

Exactly. If noise is the problem, have a noise rule. That way the drunk idiots and the people like my brother who unconsciously have an urge to tell every story to the entire room (by speaking 5 times as load as the background noise) will be stopped as well as the children, because in an adult restaraunt there are way more of those types than screaming babies.

All we need to do is accept that while businesses will try to adjust to suit your needs to the best of their abilities, some times the customer must also adapt and know how to best serve themselves.

What are you even talking about? "Oh, well this place don't like black people. Sorry, darkie, adapt." "This place don't like gay people. Sorry, faerie, adapt." "This place doesn't like Latinos. Sorry, wetback, adapt." Your logic? Absolutely.

Iron-Hampster
Iron-Hampster
  • Member since: Aug. 27, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 10
Blank Slate
Response to Child free zones Oct. 23rd, 2012 @ 09:46 AM Reply

At 10/23/12 12:45 AM, Camarohusky wrote: There's a big difference. It costs ZERO dollars to not smoke during a meal. It costs a good amount of money to go out without one's children. Also, like I said to another, the harm caused by a loud child is trivial AT BEST. The problem with pushing to competition is that it still unfairly burdens a large group of people for the slight benefit of others. Freedom from cigarette smoke is hardly a light benefit, especially for those with health problems.

its a small inconvenience for the benefit of everyone in the end actually, because the people with kids can eat with other people who don't mind kids because they probably have them too, and smokers can eat where they can smoke because the other people there are also smokers, and the business owners get their freedom as well.

WHo said government here?

any issue where the government forces you to or not to give service to a certain group implies government intervention.

Exactly. If noise is the problem, have a noise rule. That way the drunk idiots and the people like my brother who unconsciously have an urge to tell every story to the entire room (by speaking 5 times as load as the background noise) will be stopped as well as the children, because in an adult restaraunt there are way more of those types than screaming babies.

and my best friend habitually swears loudly in public around old people and kids. what happens to those people is that they get told to quiet the hell down. Can't say the same for the babies though, would that work on them?

What are you even talking about? "Oh, well this place don't like black people. Sorry, darkie, adapt." "This place don't like gay people. Sorry, faerie, adapt." "This place doesn't like Latinos. Sorry, wetback, adapt." Your logic? Absolutely.

I would love it if people did that because I would just open up a business right beside them that did the same thing except didn't discriminate and then lol as the people beside me get really mad because my customer base is bigger, my profits are bigger so my prices can get lower and suddenly people would have no incentive to go to them over me. Shooting fish in a barrel. You see inconvenience where investors see opportunity.


ya hear about the guy who put his condom on backwards? He went.

BBS Signature
Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to Child free zones Oct. 23rd, 2012 @ 11:49 AM Reply

At 10/23/12 09:46 AM, Iron-Hampster wrote: its a small inconvenience for the benefit of everyone in the end actually, because the people with kids can eat with other people who don't mind kids because they probably have them too, and smokers can eat where they can smoke because the other people there are also smokers, and the business owners get their freedom as well.

Stop using smoking. It's not a good analogy. First off, it's 100% a choice, and one that can be suspended at no cost to anyone. One's family status is only partially a choice, and it cannot be suspended at any moment. You can substitute suspension, with day care and baby sitting, but that costs a good deal of money, an dif on eis lucky enough to have a free baby sitter, it costs a good deal effort.


any issue where the government forces you to or not to give service to a certain group implies government intervention.

The government intervention, yes. You said the government was distating noise. No one ever brought that up. The government is dictating whether a private business has the right to block a consumer based solely on their family status.

and my best friend habitually swears loudly in public around old people and kids. what happens to those people is that they get told to quiet the hell down. Can't say the same for the babies though, would that work on them?

I was just at a nice restaraunt with my brother a couple weeks ago, and he was talking well over the background noise. I told him to quiet down at least 10 times. A stubborn adult is just as unlikely to change as a child. So, shouldn't we block all stubborn people? Or better yet, as you want, block all adults?

I would love it if people did that because I would just open up a business right beside them that did the same thing except didn't discriminate and then lol as the people beside me get really mad because my customer base is bigger, my profits are bigger so my prices can get lower and suddenly people would have no incentive to go to them over me. Shooting fish in a barrel. You see inconvenience where investors see opportunity.

What if the segment is too small to support a business by itself? Does that mean that the restaraunt that serves them has to be a charity? What if the entire town colludes to block that group? What if the town is too small and there is no other reasonable alternative? The free market IS NOT A SOLUTION TO EVERYTHING. You see a business opportunity where there likely is not one. Also, you cannot copy the restaraunt, that's illegal. So you're advocating the "separate but equal (well, it's not really equal, but it's the best you'll get. Sorry that you're part of the disfavored group. Here's your immitation dinner.)"

This policy is BOTH underbroad and overbroad. It's underbroad in that in an attempt to control noise it fails, whollistically, to cover other very prominent and common sources of restaraunt noise pollution. It's overbroad in that it covers children who are quiet. My child, a 3 year old, is very quiet. Give him a lego toy, a transformer, or a plate of grapes at the table an he'll be quieter than the adults. Why should he be restricted when my noisy brother is allowed in?

In short, this rule is a poorly written rule just begging for a lawsuit with more zeroes than the restaraunt can handle.

ZJ
ZJ
  • Member since: Jul. 5, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Moderator
Level 44
Gamer
Response to Child free zones Oct. 23rd, 2012 @ 07:07 PM Reply

At 10/20/12 01:56 PM, JoS wrote:
At 10/20/12 03:35 AM, Korriken wrote: It's really no different from the no smoking section of a restaurant. you can't smoke in the non smoking section, and yet you can sit in the smoking section and not smoke.
The counter-argument is though that its age discrimination by not allowing children in, and no different then not allowing blacks or women in.

Some bars ban people who aren't under 21 from not just drinking, but even entering their premises. That's age discrimination. Plus, it's different than banning against blacks or women. A black person isn't going to naturally just turn into a white person and a woman won't just turn into a man. However, given enough time, a six year old will become an 18 year old and voila, he can go wherever he wants.

So I think this is a fine policy.


Sig by FB - AMA
Formerly PuddinN64 - Portal, BBS, Icon, & Chat Mod
"Your friends love you anyway" - Check out WhatTheDo.com & Guinea Something Good!

BBS Signature
Iron-Hampster
Iron-Hampster
  • Member since: Aug. 27, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 10
Blank Slate
Response to Child free zones Oct. 23rd, 2012 @ 09:07 PM Reply

At 10/23/12 11:49 AM, Camarohusky wrote:
Stop using smoking. It's not a good analogy. First off, it's 100% a choice, and one that can be suspended at no cost to anyone. One's family status is only partially a choice, and it cannot be suspended at any moment. You can substitute suspension, with day care and baby sitting, but that costs a good deal of money, an dif on eis lucky enough to have a free baby sitter, it costs a good deal effort.

You disagree with their lifestyle choices and don't want to be effected by them, that's fine because smoking is bad for you. Other people don't wish to be affected by your choice to take your kids with you to earls, that's wrong because noise is an inconvenience that they can live with? I don't give a damn what is bad for me, the only analogy is that both are a personal preference that some other people don't want to have to put up with, and that there should be a place for both groups that can maximize their satisfaction. The child free zones are in fact, an attempt to make everyone happy by allowing parents to take their kids while not annoying the people who would enjoy not having to hear the loud screaming. group A's happy, group B's happy.

The government intervention, yes. You said the government was distating noise. No one ever brought that up. The government is dictating whether a private business has the right to block a consumer based solely on their family status.

actually, I was thinking more in terms of "what if you found yourself on the other end of it, where the government started mandating the exact opposite of what you wanted so that the other side would benefit to your expense?"

I was just at a nice restaraunt with my brother a couple weeks ago, and he was talking well over the background noise. I told him to quiet down at least 10 times. A stubborn adult is just as unlikely to change as a child. So, shouldn't we block all stubborn people? Or better yet, as you want, block all adults?

its one thing if it comes from you, its another if it comes from the owner. An employee's voice can sound a lot more intimidating in the sense that it implies "do as we say or your on the curb." as opposed to "do as I say or I'll say it again."


What if the segment is too small to support a business by itself? Does that mean that the restaraunt that serves them has to be a charity? What if the entire town colludes to block that group? What if the town is too small and there is no other reasonable alternative? The free market IS NOT A SOLUTION TO EVERYTHING. You see a business opportunity where there likely is not one. Also, you cannot copy the restaraunt, that's illegal. So you're advocating the "separate but equal (well, it's not really equal, but it's the best you'll get. Sorry that you're part of the disfavored group. Here's your immitation dinner.)"

what would be the worst that happens? all the minorities that can't get service anywhere else flood to me, my dreams of corporate domination are bogged down to simply having a moderately successful business fueled by strengthened customer loyalty. And if the group is too small for that, well then they move on to an area where they are going to have a better life, because in the dystopia you speak of, their neighbors are going to resent them, their kids will be at risk every day of hate crime, even if the cops in the given area could care enough to do something about it. We don't live in the age of lynch mobs anymore, but even if we did, being able to get service at a restaurant would be the least of their problems. Even segregation isn't socially acceptable anymore and if some one were to try it, the law wouldn't need to stop it because too many people would look at the sign that says "blacks and gays need not enter" and just figure that the guys a jack ass, even though they themselves are neither gay, nor black.

This policy is BOTH underbroad and overbroad. It's underbroad in that in an attempt to control noise it fails, whollistically, to cover other very prominent and common sources of restaraunt noise pollution. It's overbroad in that it covers children who are quiet. My child, a 3 year old, is very quiet. Give him a lego toy, a transformer, or a plate of grapes at the table an he'll be quieter than the adults. Why should he be restricted when my noisy brother is allowed in?

In short, this rule is a poorly written rule just begging for a lawsuit with more zeroes than the restaraunt can handle.

I think quiet 3 year olds are very common, probably common enough so that most places won't ever feel the need to adopt a policy that might come across as "aimed against them." But then try two or more 3 year olds at the same table, or how about babies? Another thing this could lead to is loophole abuse, maybe they could make the kid free zone have things that will allow them to block people under the age of 18 from the area.


ya hear about the guy who put his condom on backwards? He went.

BBS Signature
morefngdbs
morefngdbs
  • Member since: Mar. 7, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 49
Art Lover
Response to Child free zones Oct. 23rd, 2012 @ 10:00 PM Reply

At 10/22/12 07:34 PM, Camarohusky wrote: Petition for an exception for businesses that cater specifically to smoking then.

;;;
Camaro H ...such a thing is not allowed in this Province, I am unsure about the entire country.
As unbelieveable as this sounds , this is right now going on in Nova Scotia.....

Presently there is a tobacconist shop, a shop that caters exclusively to cigar, pipe & tobacco products.
They sell all the various things that go with those products like pipes, humidors, etc. IT sells nothing else...yet it is in an ongoing battle with the Provincial Government because they refuse to hide their tobacco products in cupboards that keep all tobacco & any type of tobacco use product out of site of the public .

WHich means the entire inside of the store would be walls of cupboards with nothing in sight, nothing not even the sign saying it was a tobacco shop.
http://www.smokersclubinc.com/modules.php?name=News&file=art icle&sid=648

What's even more frustrating is it is barely carried by our mainstream news services.
It is basicly being supressed so that if the owner does win his case, which would be a set back to those attempting to ban tobacco completely , in that other store owners would once again be able to display tobacco products legally.

Gotta love Mainstream Media, all of it owned by 3 or 4 groups & all of them in bed with Government !

Free society my ass !
By the way I am a non smoker, haven't touched tobacco in many years. It is the attack on an individuals freedom to decide for themselves that pisses me off to no end .


Those who have only the religious opinions of others in their head & worship them. Have no room for their own thoughts & no room to contemplate anyone elses ideas either-More