I would totally eat at this restaurant.

Free market economics determines right and wrong?
Click to expand...

Acting up and annoying the shit out of other customers is definitely wrong. The policy is behavior based. Yes, it makes an assumption that those in strollers and high chairs are going to misbehave.

Same type of policy should be adopted regarding people talking on their cell phones in restaurants.

BTW, do you think the "no shirts, no shoes, no service" policy is wrong too?
Click to expand...

No shoes, no shirt is a little different. That's just common decency, although a lot of people disregard it here ans seem to get away with it. Nobody likes obnoxious kids. I tend to avoid restaurants that are kid friendly, but every time there's an annoying kid on my flight I cringe.

Restaurants should have every right to refuse service to obnoxious customers, including parents who make no attempt to discipline their spawn, but banning all kids (I know that's not exactly the case here) seems over the line.
Click to expand...

If your going to ban brats that's fine, but the banning of strollers, high chairs, and boosters seems to ban all children. If you have a well-behaved child I guess they have to sit on your lap? I say keep the accessories, but if a child gets out of line. Ass. Door. Out to the entire dining party.
Click to expand...

Yes, they can sit on your lap. If you don't like it, eat at the hundreds of other places that will give your kid a high chair.

Why does every asshole with a kid think they're special and the world revolves around them just because the successfully fucked and shit out a kid?

They don't want your business. That's their right. Your right is to spend money someplace that does.
Click to expand...

Even if a person brings their own?
 
It's obvious that there are some kids here whose intent is to disrupt and eff up this restaurant before it can get started. Please have the managers ban those guys pronto.

I've been the manager of my own hobby restaurant for years. If you don't ban those guys quickly and often, this board will get out of hand.
 
Free market economics determines right and wrong?
Click to expand...

Acting up and annoying the shit out of other customers is definitely wrong. The policy is behavior based. Yes, it makes an assumption that those in strollers and high chairs are going to misbehave.

Same type of policy should be adopted regarding people talking on their cell phones in restaurants.

BTW, do you think the "no shirts, no shoes, no service" policy is wrong too?
Click to expand...

No shoes, no shirt is a little different. That's just common decency, although a lot of people disregard it here ans seem to get away with it. Nobody likes obnoxious kids. I tend to avoid restaurants that are kid friendly, but every time there's an annoying kid on my flight I cringe.

Restaurants should have every right to refuse service to obnoxious customers, including parents who make no attempt to discipline their spawn, but banning all kids (I know that's not exactly the case here) seems over the line.
Click to expand...

If your going to ban brats that's fine, but the banning of strollers, high chairs, and boosters seems to ban all children. If you have a well-behaved child I guess they have to sit on your lap? I say keep the accessories, but if a child gets out of line. Ass. Door. Out to the entire dining party.
Click to expand...

Yes, they can sit on your lap. If you don't like it, eat at the hundreds of other places that will give your kid a high chair.

Why does every asshole with a kid think they're special and the world revolves around them just because the successfully fucked and shit out a kid?

They don't want your business. That's their right. Your right is to spend money someplace that does.
Click to expand...

Even if a person brings their own?
Click to expand...

They would charge a "corkage fee" for that.
 
Free market economics determines right and wrong?
Click to expand...

Acting up and annoying the shit out of other customers is definitely wrong. The policy is behavior based. Yes, it makes an assumption that those in strollers and high chairs are going to misbehave.

Same type of policy should be adopted regarding people talking on their cell phones in restaurants.

BTW, do you think the "no shirts, no shoes, no service" policy is wrong too?
Click to expand...

No shoes, no shirt is a little different. That's just common decency, although a lot of people disregard it here ans seem to get away with it. Nobody likes obnoxious kids. I tend to avoid restaurants that are kid friendly, but every time there's an annoying kid on my flight I cringe.

Restaurants should have every right to refuse service to obnoxious customers, including parents who make no attempt to discipline their spawn, but banning all kids (I know that's not exactly the case here) seems over the line.
Click to expand...

If your going to ban brats that's fine, but the banning of strollers, high chairs, and boosters seems to ban all children. If you have a well-behaved child I guess they have to sit on your lap? I say keep the accessories, but if a child gets out of line. Ass. Door. Out to the entire dining party.
Click to expand...

Yes, they can sit on your lap. If you don't like it, eat at the hundreds of other places that will give your kid a high chair.

Why does every asshole with a kid think they're special and the world revolves around them just because the successfully fucked and shit out a kid?

They don't want your business. That's their right. Your right is to spend money someplace that does.
Click to expand...

Even if a person brings their own?
Click to expand...

They would charge a "corkage fee" for that.
Click to expand...

/nambla'd

 
Free market economics determines right and wrong?
Click to expand...

Acting up and annoying the shit out of other customers is definitely wrong. The policy is behavior based. Yes, it makes an assumption that those in strollers and high chairs are going to misbehave.

Same type of policy should be adopted regarding people talking on their cell phones in restaurants.

BTW, do you think the "no shirts, no shoes, no service" policy is wrong too?
Click to expand...

No shoes, no shirt is a little different. That's just common decency, although a lot of people disregard it here ans seem to get away with it. Nobody likes obnoxious kids. I tend to avoid restaurants that are kid friendly, but every time there's an annoying kid on my flight I cringe.

Restaurants should have every right to refuse service to obnoxious customers, including parents who make no attempt to discipline their spawn, but banning all kids (I know that's not exactly the case here) seems over the line.
Click to expand...

If your going to ban brats that's fine, but the banning of strollers, high chairs, and boosters seems to ban all children. If you have a well-behaved child I guess they have to sit on your lap? I say keep the accessories, but if a child gets out of line. Ass. Door. Out to the entire dining party.
Click to expand...

Yes, they can sit on your lap. If you don't like it, eat at the hundreds of other places that will give your kid a high chair.

Why does every asshole with a kid think they're special and the world revolves around them just because the successfully fucked and shit out a kid?

They don't want your business. That's their right. Your right is to spend money someplace that does.
Click to expand...

Even if a person brings their own?
Click to expand...

They would charge a "corkage fee" for that.
Click to expand...

If I had well behaved kids, and the chowder was good enough, I'd pay it
 

Free market economics determines right and wrong?
Click to expand...

Acting up and annoying the shit out of other customers is definitely wrong. The policy is behavior based. Yes, it makes an assumption that those in strollers and high chairs are going to misbehave.

Same type of policy should be adopted regarding people talking on their cell phones in restaurants.

BTW, do you think the "no shirts, no shoes, no service" policy is wrong too?
Click to expand...

You don't have kids ... do you.

I'm on your side ... the guy has a right to do as he pleases in this scenario.

There are adults every day who annoy the shit out of me ...

Yes ... parents should crack down more ... but until you have one ... then two ... you will never understand.
Click to expand...

I raised two kids and think this policy is great. Fucking people taking there snot nosed ill-mannered shits in places and where people are expecting to not be annoyed by kids is wrong. This isn't banning kids, just ones that annoy people trying to eat. If you insist on taking your crying brat to dinner, go to McDonalds or Chuick E Cheese.

Just like the assholes who are bringing their fucking dogs everywhere these days. Grocery store, bar, airport...leave your fucking dog at home. I'd love to take my dog everywhere too, but I understand no one loves my dog as much as I do and people's fucking dogs hair and dog assholes on my chair or in my shopping cart is not cool.

We've become a society of narcissists who think we can do whatever we want no matter what the affect on other is.

I hate people.
Click to expand...

Fuckin' A,

Toppy - you'd better get a handle on those little twerps before they're stealing cars and smoking crack. Maybe a 3 year old can be forgiven for being somewhat out of control, but a six year old still acting like a clown in public needs a talking to. I have two sons, now 21 and 18, and the younger one was as full of piss and vinegar as any kid you're going to see. He walked just past 6 months and was potty trained by 18 months. That was about the same time he kicked the front window screen out, and took off to see his brother at school when it was about 40 degrees and raining........and school was a mile away.

Guess what? We didn't take that fuckin' kid out to nice places to eat. In fact, we didn't take him out to eat with us until he could be reasoned with and could understand that he was going to get his ass beat if he wanted to raise hell in public. Unacceptable behavior, and my kids knew that even though I let them do their thing, wild behavior in public just doesn't fly.

I never wanted to discourage my kids from being tough, being aggressive, but that is different from being ill-mannered.

I'd eat there now with my kids. I wouldn't have 15 years ago. I'd have been happy to let the patrons of this place eat in peace, too. That's what Chuck E. Cheese is for.
 
The moral to this entire story is not to get married, but if you do, never create spawn. Just drink, fuck, and snort coke all day. And eat wherever the fuck you like.
 
Free market economics determines right and wrong?
Click to expand...

Acting up and annoying the shit out of other customers is definitely wrong. The policy is behavior based. Yes, it makes an assumption that those in strollers and high chairs are going to misbehave.

Same type of policy should be adopted regarding people talking on their cell phones in restaurants.

BTW, do you think the "no shirts, no shoes, no service" policy is wrong too?
Click to expand...

No shoes, no shirt is a little different. That's just common decency, although a lot of people disregard it here ans seem to get away with it. Nobody likes obnoxious kids. I tend to avoid restaurants that are kid friendly, but every time there's an annoying kid on my flight I cringe.

Restaurants should have every right to refuse service to obnoxious customers, including parents who make no attempt to discipline their spawn, but banning all kids (I know that's not exactly the case here) seems over the line.
Click to expand...

If your going to ban brats that's fine, but the banning of strollers, high chairs, and boosters seems to ban all children. If you have a well-behaved child I guess they have to sit on your lap? I say keep the accessories, but if a child gets out of line. Ass. Door. Out to the entire dining party.
Click to expand...

So in the interim, while Little Johnny Fuckwad throws a raging temper tantrum, the remainder of the patrons have to sit through the process of mommy pulling out her teet and trying to calm the little bastard?

So conflicted on that scenario. So conflicted. Boobs, dining?: Boobs, dining? Boobs, dining?

Solution: Kids allowed if mom is at least a D cup.

 
I don't agree with the policy, so I would not eat there.

However, I admire the man:

He said: 'Let's put it this way, I haven't had a down year for over 20 years. Our business continues to grow.'

I wonder what would happen if a black person tried to eat there with a crying kid.

Any who ... good for him.
Click to expand...

What about two Black dads, one gay and one transgendered with Central American refuge kids who crossed the border illegally and are eating on a ICE dinner coupon? That would test the law I bet
 
I don't agree with the policy, so I would not eat there.

However, I admire the man:

He said: 'Let's put it this way, I haven't had a down year for over 20 years. Our business continues to grow.'

I wonder what would happen if a black person tried to eat there with a crying kid.

Any who ... good for him.
Click to expand...

What about two Black dads, one gay and one transgendered with Central American refuge kids who crossed the border illegally and are eating on a ICE dinner coupon? That would test the law I bet
Click to expand...

Race does it again!!!!!1!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top