Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
I would totally eat at this restaurant.
PurpleBaze
Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 30,329 
in Tug Tavern
I know it's the Daily Mail, but I don't care.
This is due to most parents not teaching any manners to their precious little fuck trophies.
Fisherman's Grotto basically bans little brats...
This is due to most parents not teaching any manners to their precious little fuck trophies.
Fisherman's Grotto basically bans little brats...
Comments
-
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. -
Exactly! If you don't like their policy, don't eat there.
I saw a bunch of people on the news whining about how "this sends the wrong message". Really? It just shows that many people have kids and don't know how to raise them. Their kids are coddled and allowed to act like total shitbags in public.
In any case, if this guy's policy was totally wrong, then free market economics would take care of the problem. Looks like his business hasn't taken a hit at all. -
Sounds like Old Fisherman's Grotto doesn't believe in the 1st Amendment...
-
Free market economics determines right and wrong?PurpleBaze said:Exactly! If you don't like their policy, don't eat there.
I saw a bunch of people on the news whining about how "this sends the wrong message". Really? It just shows that many people have kids and don't know how to raise them. Their kids are coddled and allowed to act like total shitbags in public.
In any case, if this guy's policy was totally wrong, then free market economics would take care of the problem. Looks like his business hasn't taken a hit at all. -
How is it wrong?Fire_Marshall_Bill said:
Free market economics determines right and wrong?PurpleBaze said:Exactly! If you don't like their policy, don't eat there.
I saw a bunch of people on the news whining about how "this sends the wrong message". Really? It just shows that many people have kids and don't know how to raise them. Their kids are coddled and allowed to act like total shitbags in public.
In any case, if this guy's policy was totally wrong, then free market economics would take care of the problem. Looks like his business hasn't taken a hit at all.
I have a 3 year old and a 6 year old.
They act like shit bags in public. According to some, I raised them wrong, boys will be boys and they like to get each other fired up and act like Muslim Terrorist on an American plane.
If someone wants to dine away from these fucking jihadist ... I don't blame them.
I wouldn't eat there because I have kids and know sometimes kids will just be fucktards.
There is no law against what he is doing (my black question could challenge that), so let the free market determine his policy. If he takes a hit ... then he may change.
But is it wrong? No. -
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.Fire_Marshall_Bill said:Free market economics determines right and wrong?
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? -
You don't have kids ... do you.PurpleBaze said:
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.Fire_Marshall_Bill said:Free market economics determines right and wrong?
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?
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. -
No, we don't have kids. But, we do have plenty of nieces and nephews who act like shitbags at times.topdawgnc said:
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.
Anyway, I actually don't have a problem with the kids. It's really some parents who don't properly monitor and discipline their kids. I've seen it way too often. They'll let their kids just run around and tear up a place and not say a word. I've also seen some really good parenting, but it's not the norm.
You're also right that there are many adults who act like the world revolves around them. I get to spend too much time at public places, thanks to my line of work. I'm at airports, hotels, and restaurants more than I care to be. So, I get to see plenty of real self-centered, entitled behavior. -
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.topdawgnc said:
You don't have kids ... do you.PurpleBaze said:
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.Fire_Marshall_Bill said:Free market economics determines right and wrong?
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?
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.
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. -
No, it doesn't "determine" right or wrong. But if a business is doing wrong, often times the free market takes care of it.Fire_Marshall_Bill said:
Free market economics determines right and wrong?PurpleBaze said:Exactly! If you don't like their policy, don't eat there.
I saw a bunch of people on the news whining about how "this sends the wrong message". Really? It just shows that many people have kids and don't know how to raise them. Their kids are coddled and allowed to act like total shitbags in public.
In any case, if this guy's policy was totally wrong, then free market economics would take care of the problem. Looks like his business hasn't taken a hit at all.
This place was pretty much put of of business by the free market responding to their business practice of not baking wedding cakes for the gays:
oregonlive.com/gresham/index.ssf/2013/09/gresham_bakery_that_refused_to.html
-
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.PurpleBaze said:
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.Fire_Marshall_Bill said:Free market economics determines right and wrong?
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?
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. -
Thanks, I just wanted someone to acknowledge that.MikeDamone said:
No, it doesn't "determine" right or wrong. But if a business is doing wrong, often times the free market takes care of it.Fire_Marshall_Bill said:
Free market economics determines right and wrong?PurpleBaze said:Exactly! If you don't like their policy, don't eat there.
I saw a bunch of people on the news whining about how "this sends the wrong message". Really? It just shows that many people have kids and don't know how to raise them. Their kids are coddled and allowed to act like total shitbags in public.
In any case, if this guy's policy was totally wrong, then free market economics would take care of the problem. Looks like his business hasn't taken a hit at all.
This place was pretty much put of of business by the free market responding to their business practice of not baking wedding cakes for the gays:
oregonlive.com/gresham/index.ssf/2013/09/gresham_bakery_that_refused_to.html -
Well, I guess the restaurant had to make a choice between policing behavior or just making a blanket policy. The latter is easier, IMHO. If they were to go with the policing method, there would be quite a few more pissed off customers. It's a lot uglier to kick somebody out after they have set foot in your establishment vs. asking them to stay out.Fire_Marshall_Bill said: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.
As for airplanes, don't get me started. I've spent my fair share of time in aluminum tubes with screaming babies, big fat guys sitting next to me, etc. At least in a restaurant, you have the option to get up and leave. In an airplane, you're just plain (or plane - hardy har har) fucked. -
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.Fire_Marshall_Bill said:
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.PurpleBaze said:
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.Fire_Marshall_Bill said:Free market economics determines right and wrong?
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?
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. -
So why are you arguing something that isn't the case?Fire_Marshall_Bill said:
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.PurpleBaze said:
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.Fire_Marshall_Bill said:Free market economics determines right and wrong?
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?
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.
-
Could it be possible to bring an extremely well behaved child to a point that they know on cue to act like a shit when we are 3/4 of the way done with dinner, and thus get kicked out but not have to pay the tab?
-
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.greenblood said:
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.Fire_Marshall_Bill said:
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.PurpleBaze said:
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.Fire_Marshall_Bill said:Free market economics determines right and wrong?
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?
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.
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. -
Pics?topdawgnc said:
How is it wrong?Fire_Marshall_Bill said:
Free market economics determines right and wrong?PurpleBaze said:Exactly! If you don't like their policy, don't eat there.
I saw a bunch of people on the news whining about how "this sends the wrong message". Really? It just shows that many people have kids and don't know how to raise them. Their kids are coddled and allowed to act like total shitbags in public.
In any case, if this guy's policy was totally wrong, then free market economics would take care of the problem. Looks like his business hasn't taken a hit at all.
I have a 3 year old and a 6 year old.
They act like shit bags in public. According to some, I raised them wrong, boys will be boys and they like to get each other fired up and act like Muslim Terrorist on an American plane.
If someone wants to dine away from these fucking jihadist ... I don't blame them.
I wouldn't eat there because I have kids and know sometimes kids will just be fucktards.
There is no law against what he is doing (my black question could challenge that), so let the free market determine his policy. If he takes a hit ... then he may change.
But is it wrong? No.
/nambla'd
-
I bet they had restaurants like that in Nazi Germany
-
Even if a person brings their own?MikeDamone said:
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.greenblood said:
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.Fire_Marshall_Bill said:
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.PurpleBaze said:
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.Fire_Marshall_Bill said:Free market economics determines right and wrong?
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?
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.
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. -
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. -
They would charge a "corkage fee" for that.greenblood said:
Even if a person brings their own?MikeDamone said:
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.greenblood said:
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.Fire_Marshall_Bill said:
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.PurpleBaze said:
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.Fire_Marshall_Bill said:Free market economics determines right and wrong?
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?
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.
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. -
/nambla'dMikeDamone said:
They would charge a "corkage fee" for that.greenblood said:
Even if a person brings their own?MikeDamone said:
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.greenblood said:
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.Fire_Marshall_Bill said:
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.PurpleBaze said:
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.Fire_Marshall_Bill said:Free market economics determines right and wrong?
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?
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.
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.
-
If I had well behaved kids, and the chowder was good enough, I'd pay itMikeDamone said:
They would charge a "corkage fee" for that.greenblood said:
Even if a person brings their own?MikeDamone said:
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.greenblood said:
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.Fire_Marshall_Bill said:
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.PurpleBaze said:
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.Fire_Marshall_Bill said:Free market economics determines right and wrong?
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?
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.
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. -
MikeDamone said:
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.topdawgnc said:
You don't have kids ... do you.PurpleBaze said:
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.Fire_Marshall_Bill said:Free market economics determines right and wrong?
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?
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.
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.
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.
-
I'm waiting for an airline to step up and use this business model. Kids on planes are the fucking worst.
-
It's happening already. foxnews.com/travel/2013/08/29/families-feel-squeeze-as-more-airlines-adopt-kid-free-zones/PurpleJ said:I'm waiting for an airline to step up and use this business model. Kids on planes are the fucking worst.
Faux (lol) news is my source.
-
-
-
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.
