Restaurant Imposes "No Children" Policy

[RobertoCarlos]

Good, next please ban them on flights.

fly privately if the general public annoys you so much

[Bigbazz]

Kids can be fucking crazy, there is nothing wrong with this.

[Noradin]

Why?

Why must people inflict their spawn on others?

If a lot of these businesses pop up, maybe take the hint: control your offspring people.

Why must you inflict yourself on others?

[P for Pancetta]

I rarely go to restaurants where children act out, since the only places that seem to happen regularly are the mcdonald tier restaurants and while I do occasionally eat such foods I always do take-out.

And somehow people that can afford fine dining generally have their kids under control or don't take them along.

[Crispin]

I've got 4 kids and I have no problem with this. I wouldnt take my kids to a restaurent that werent suited for it in the first place anyhow, and when I'm out eating without kids, I'd rather not have to listen to others kids go nuts in a restaurent which imo arent suited to handle them and often do not have a kids menu, god I hate it ><

[Deleted]

I think instead of a blanket ban (that affects "innocent" parents whose children are well behaved) there should be an explicit (sign-posted) discretionary policy where families with disruptive children can be ejected without delay, but as long as the kids behave there is no issue

[CatchingFire]

Good, ban the little monsters. At least adults will be able to eat in peace.

[Cerilis]

On one hand I’d be happy to have such a policy because dining with young kids can be annoying, and sometimes adults just want to be with other adults. On the other hand, I think this could be a downward spiral, where more and more restaurants and places of business ban children - we can’t have that. Imo, have a disruptive free policy. If children (or anyone) is too disruptive, you’re asked to leave... or even have adult only hours. Just don’t ban children completely.

Tbf, that's the case here. Children are only banned after 5 pm in the restaurant in the article.

I feel like a lot of people here didnt read that part.^^

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

Yes. Lock children in cages and keep them from experiencing anything in life. Heaven forbid they annoy you classy folk too much. If you want adult-only interaction go to a fucking strip club or bar.

Management should have discretion on asking families to leave if their children are complete assholes. A total ban is asinine.

I dunno, can't children still go into 99% of the restaurants around? This is one place, lol.

[Mirabai]

100% approved and i have 2 kids. Sometimes you just wanna relax and i understand this.

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

Cause you’re not giving people the opportunity to control their “spawn” if they’re banned completely, which is why I mentioned having some kind of policy for noise and disruptions, and/or adult only hours.

Remember, not all kids are out of control. I have two kids - age 8 and 12 - and they aren’t disruptive in restaurants, or any place, for that matter.

This is one restaurant... And how would that work when you need someone to leave? That sounds like a social media nightmare. Not to mention... does the family still pay of they have consumed some of the food and are asked in the middle of the meal? Because now we are talking about losing business.

I don't see an issue with having some adult only restaurants.. (that aren't straight up bars or strip clubs, which was previously mentioned).

[Mormolyce]

Children are kind of a special case, it's not the same as saying "we don't serve 40 year olds". The latter would be a breach of civil rights legislation (I'm not sure if Germany has the equivalent), but the former is more like saying you can't bring a guest or a pet or something - considering it isn't the child you're denying service to.

[Trassk]

This is amazing. Children behave as bad as animals sometimes, infact I've often seen dogs more well behaved then some children, but it's still considered acceptable for a no dogs policy on establishments.

I've been to too many restaurants and cinemas where annoying, loud, wild children ruin the experience, and careless parents just wave it off like it's gotta big deal. So since these parents can't be taught to discipline their spawns and not give a shit how it ruins everyone else's experience, then a child ban is a great idea.

- - - Updated - - -

Their business, their choices. If people disagree with this then show it by not dining there. What else is there to say?

Way I see it, if you choose to be a parent, you should be prepared to accept the world doesn't conform around your choice

[Gestopft]

This is amazing. Children behave as bad as animals sometimes, infact I've often seen dogs more well behaved then some children, but it's still considered acceptable for a no dogs policy on establishments.

Dog policies aren't because of behavior.

At the restaurant I work at, we had to close early one night because some kid got ahold of the fire extinguisher and sprayed it all over the dining room.

[Trassk]

Dog policies aren't because of behavior.

At the restaurant I work at, we had to close early one night because some kid got ahold of the fire extinguisher and sprayed it all over the dining room.

I worked in a large store, dog policies were in place because as the manager said, the chance of a dog having a piss while in the store. Guide dogs were the exception.
But in all the time I worked there, from the dogs sat outside waiting for their owner to the guide dogs allowed in, there never were any accidents from them.

You know what did cause hygiene problems though? Yep, peoples children, sticking their fingers in gumball dispensers or half chewing sweets from the sweet trays before putting them back in, or the one time a kid threw up at the entrance door.

Children really are worse then animals. And that's because we disapline animals to behave, while it's apparently okay to not disapline a child

[Louisa Bannon]

You know, this isn't really about banning children per se - it's about banning ill behaved children and the parents that do nothing about that situation. A ban of this type effectively means that the sort of parent that cannot or will not get a sitter, won't be a problem at this establishment. While you are not necessarily guaranteed a pleasant evening, the possibility that the evening will be dampened by an ill behaved child, or their parent that does nothing about it, is now almost nil. It's almost diabolically clever and simple in its effects.

Earlier I mentioned how I was raised. I had sitters, all the time. I was not included in adult activities until it was deemed I might be able to handle it. And seriously, woe to a child in my family misbehaving in public, there is probably nothing that will draw down punishment like that event.

[Spiffums]

It's gonna be funny when they turn away a protected class because of kids then it will be racist!!!

[Louisa Bannon]

It's gonna be funny when they turn away a protected class because of kids then it will be racist!!!

Yeah, I understand that many of you are challenged when it comes to smart people stuff:

Businesses are given leeway to set their own rules and have the right to refuse service. However, under federal law (The Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Americans with Disabilities Act), business owners are only prohibited from discriminating based on race, religion, national origin, or disability. Age is not a protected class.

In other contexts, there is a prohibition on discrimination based on age, but the Age Discrimination in Employment Act only applies in employment situations and only to those that are 40 and older. It has nothing to do with whether a business owner can prohibit children in his or her establishment.
source: http://lindleylawoffice.com/blog/201...m-restaurants/

It is also possible for local ordinances to address further issues if that's what folks want to do.

[Super Kami Dende]

Sounds good to me, Children screaming at a table 3 away from yours can ruin a good mood on a Date.

- - - Updated - - -

Children are kind of a special case, it's not the same as saying "we don't serve 40 year olds". The latter would be a breach of civil rights legislation (I'm not sure if Germany has the equivalent), but the former is more like saying you can't bring a guest or a pet or something - considering it isn't the child you're denying service to.

Just like some Bars/Pubs in Australia that have Kid-Exclusion zones.

[Selah]

As someone with kids, I have zero problem with this. If they don't want kids, good for them.

Same here, I totally understand why you wouldn't want kids in your restaurant.