Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
I would totally eat at this restaurant.
Comments
-
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.
