Banning loud children from restaurants, airplanes

Post Reply New Topic

There are a few pubs in Alberta that sell food and DO NOT ALLOW MINORS. Many people pay good money just to get away from the screaming children and it should be well within their right to do so as they wish with respect to the free market.

Restaraunts should be allowed to make the decision to ban kids if they wish since we are supposed to be living in a nation with a capitalist economy. In capitalism, it should be up to the business owner to make these type of decisions, NOT the government. If people disapprove, they can choose not to go there. It is well within the company's right to decide who they want to cater to.

In the U.S., a business is well within their rights to refuse service to parents with screaming children.

There are many resturaunts which cater to "families," including McDonalds, Chuckie Cheese, and countless other eateries with "family" themes. If it offends you that a particular resturaunt asks you and your child to leave due to your child's misbehavior, then you are free to patronize a variety of other establishments. It's no different than certain places having an established dress code. Heck, theres a breakfast nook down the street where you will be ejected if you're overheard using foul language. Different places cater to different clients. Not EVERY business should be required to meet every one of your specific needs. Likewise, if a business tolerates disruptive behavior from their customers, children or otherwise, I am free to leave and go elsewhere, which is by far the most effective way of communicating a message to the owners.

As for airplanes, unless it is a an emergency or can't be avoided, I don't see why some idiots think it's cool to drag infants and/or young children on long flights. Children and infants don't possess the emotional maturity to sit for 12 hours in an uncomfortable space, and I consider it cruel to the child and disrespectful of other passengers. I have friends who simply decided NOT to bring their children on airplanes until they were old enough to handle it.

--XFG

Ahhh, the "I hate children" post.

Guess what. Children are humans and therefore protected by human rights legislation. Period.

As a service professional, I would never deny service to a family with children. It would be illegal and completely unethical. I would go out of my way to make sure that they were comfortable so that the children are best behaved. (Crayons, colouring books, quite toys, whatever).

I would make sure that the partrons food is served without unnecessary delay and the bill brought promptly at the end of their meal (you would not believe how often we have been waiting over 15 minutes for the bill and another 15 minutes to have payment processed - I guess they want the kids to start fussing with this kind of pathetic service...)

If the children were actually screaming - I would offer an area where the child could be calmed down and assure the parents that they are welcome to return when the child is calm. I would offer to heat a bottle or keep food warm.

I would NOT intervene if a baby or child was making regular child noises (e.g. laughing or squealing or talking). An adult would not be asked to leave if they had an obnoxioius or loud laugh or was speaking loudly or laughing with friends - no reason to discriminate against a child.

If there are people who genuinely dislike children - guess what - go to a pub or a bar. No kids allowed there due to licensing laws.

As for other establishments ... suck it up buttercup - kids are humans and have the same rights as anyone else.

Its perfectly legal to deny a human being service so your post is pure bullocks.

EDIT: for clarification

and?

EDIT: ~ one example with virtually no background information is not enough to uphold your argument.

And.... it is because here and in many other westernised nations it is a breach of someone's human rights and thus illegal to discrimate against them on grounds of race, religion, sexual orientation, disability, gender or age. Therefore, your statement that it is perfectly legal to deny a human being service is wrong.

Yes it does have a name.

Because it has no bearing on the point being made, that saying it is perfectly legal to deny a person service is incorrect. Plus it would be illegal for me to do so as the judge made it a condition of the ruling that neither side could publicly name the other party without their express written consent to do so.