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.