Should fancy restaurants be allowed to ban babies?

[Sånıc Bÿm]

Two days ago, I read an article about a couple who brought their 8-month-old child to a fancy restaurant and how people reacted to the situation: http://www.whio.com/news/news/national/crying-baby-disrupts-fancy-restaurant-debate-ensue/ncn2s/?icmp=cmgcontent_internallink_relatedcontent_2013_partners2

At first, I decided that restaurants should be able to set their own policies with regard to whether or not they allow customers to bring their babies, that way, diners who want to bring their babies and diners to want to stay away from babies can both have restaurants to choose from. (Yes, in the specific news story above, the babysitter canceled at the last minute. All I have to say is, the couple should have had a backup plan...)

But then I thought, "If it is ethical for restaurants to discriminate on the basis of age, would it be ethical for restaurants to discriminate on the basis of race?" I would imagine that most people, including myself, believe that restaurants discriminating on the basis of race is wrong. Race shouldn't determine who we are as individuals, and "there is a broad scientific agreement that essentialist and typological conceptualizations of race are untenable." But isn't it logically inconsistent to consider banning babies from entering restaurants acceptable but a ban on the basis of race unacceptable? (Fancy restaurants that ban babies might argue that their lack of babies gives their dining rooms a certain "atmosphere," but then again, a hypothetical Ku Klux Kitchen might make similar arguments...)

Then I thought, "If it's unacceptable to ban on the basis of race, would it be acceptable to ban smokers?" But then I realized that smokers can still go to smoke-free restaurants as long as they don't bring their cigarettes, smoke, or have a noticeable tobacco odor. I've concluded that it wouldn't be logically inconsistent to find a race-based ban unacceptable but a ban on smoking acceptable because a race-based ban is a ban on BEING while a ban on smoking is a ban on DOING.

Where does that leave babies? Proponents of banning babies might argue that babies have a much higher propensity to loud crying and throwing temper tantrums than adults, but can we really blame the babies? I mean, by their very nature, babies are less developed, both mentally and physically, than adults. Why not let babies in as long as they're well-behaved and then only kick them out once they start causing trouble? Yes, the parents may potentially have some of their time and money go to waste, but then again, it is they who are rolling the dice.

Should restaurants be able to ban babies from entering in the first place? At first, I thought I knew the answer, but after thinking about the issue of restaurant entrance restrictions in terms of race and smoking, I am no longer certain. What do you guys think?

[Sifer]

I believe that all private companies should be able to turn away anyone based their beliefs and if it discourage the targeted demographics from shopping/eating/etc. there.

The restaurant can do this since they decide what kind of restaurant and atmosphere they want to serve their customer in. If the owner feels that crying babies ruin the atmosphere and drives away their target demographic, they can then be able to refuse service to children and their caretakers

Edited January 17, 2014 by sifer

[Nobody]

Yes they should. I honestly don't understand why you're comparing banning people because of their race to banning people because of their age.

Babies make a lot of noise. Many people who go to restaurants don't want to listen to babies crying.

Babies can't fully control their actions, so they can't necessarily be stopped from crying or gushing/peeing/pooping in the middle of the restaurant.

Race shouldn't determine who we are as individuals,

That's exactly why they're different. Race doesn't determine who people are as individuals. Being a baby does.

Edited January 17, 2014 by Nobody

[Shauni]

I believe that all private companies should be able to turn away anyone based their beliefs and if it discourage the targeted demographics from shopping/eating/etc. there.

The restaurant can do this since they decide what kind of restaurant and atmosphere they want to serve their customer in. If the owner feels that crying babies ruin the atmosphere and drives away their target demographic, they can then be able to refuse service to children and their caretakers

Pretty much this.

If the owner wants to be racist and kick out members of a certain race so be it.

If the owner wants to kick out members of a certain religion so be it.

If the owner wants to kick out babies so be it.

While it's obviously an egregious thing to do in the first two cases, it should be up to the owner to decide who is allowed into their establishment.

[Parrhesia]

Where does that leave babies? Proponents of banning babies might argue that babies have a much higher propensity to loud crying and throwing temper tantrums than adults, but can we really blame the babies?

They're loud and annoying little shits and should be thrown out before they inevitably start bitching, what do they gain from being at a fucking restaurant anyway - it's not a matter of blaming the babies it's a matter of making certain a howling toddler isn't screaming and making everyone else shagging annoyed because they paid too much having sex money to go to eat overpriced food in what they essentially paid for being a nice atmosphere. This has literally nothing to do with race.

Edited January 17, 2014 by Parrhesia

[Refa]

Good for them. I hope movie theatres do it too.

But then I thought, "If it is ethical for restaurants to discriminate on the basis of age, would it be ethical for restaurants to discriminate on the basis of race?"

Classic slippery slope fallacy. Ha, bet you didn't think old Refa took Philosophy 101! If I misused the term, it's because I didn't ever actually go to that class.

Also I don't get what being ethical has to do with anything. And really this is what babysitters are for (or relatives or close friends, I guess), all the baby does is detract from the experience and I doubt he/she much wants to be there either.

[dondon151]

a restaurant that discriminates against race, depending on the part of the world in which it is located, is probably going to get a bad reputation in addition to excluding a group of potential customers, which is bad for business. on the other hand, a restaurant that discriminates against infants would only be repelling a very small group of customers while potentially attracting many more.

[Agro]

a restaurant that discriminates against race, depending on the part of the world in which it is located, is probably going to get a bad reputation in addition to excluding a group of potential customers, which is bad for business. on the other hand, a restaurant that discriminates against infants would only be repelling a very small group of customers while potentially attracting many more.

I'd say they're equally bad for business either way. I mean, what's worse, not having a bunch of black people and then them telling their black friends not to go to you or having some annoying middle-class white woman try to sue you for not letting her baby in

[Constable Reggie]

I'd rather keep the issue handled with social consequences, rather than legal ones. If a restuarant loses business from forbidding babies, well, they might have to renege on that decision. If the ban gets more people to come to the restuarant, then maybe that's what people prefer. Age isn't a protected category in this case, and I see no reason to make it so.

[Parrhesia]

why just fancy restaurants anyway

cheap restaurants

cafes

pubs

public transport

the streets

supermarkets

haggling markets

churches

mosques

monasteries

vinyards

anywhere i live

BAN CHILDREN

[Naughx]

why just fancy restaurants anyway

cheap restaurants

cafes

pubs

public transport

the streets

supermarkets

haggling markets

churches

mosques

monasteries

vinyards

anywhere i live

BAN CHILDREN

It could be deemed unconstitutional in some countries. (Canada)

--- --- --- --- --- ---

Source: http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/const/page-15.html

15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

Edited January 17, 2014 by Naughx

[cyron]

why just fancy restaurants anyway

cheap restaurants

cafes

pubs

public transport

the streets

supermarkets

haggling markets

churches

mosques

monasteries

vinyards

anywhere i live

BAN CHILDREN

why would anyone ever take a baby to a pud?

[Chiki]

But isn't it logically inconsistent to consider banning babies from entering restaurants acceptable but a ban on the basis of race unacceptable?

No. One is on the basis of age; the other is on the basis of race. There's a disanalogy.

It'd be morally acceptable for most people to ban Nazis from a restaurant, for example. That'd be on the basis of belief. But it doesn't follow that it's okay to ban people on the basis of race.

Classic slippery slope fallacy. Ha, bet you didn't think old Refa took Philosophy 101! If I misused the term, it's because I didn't ever actually go to that class.

A slippery slope fallacy is an informal fallacy.It's a term generally only used by pseudo-philosophers online, who read a couple Wikipedia articles on fallacies and call themselves philosophers, with some exceptions. It's not supposed to be taught in class.

Edited January 17, 2014 by Chiki

[Rehab]

why would anyone ever take a baby to a pud?

Tangent rapidly becoming offtopic: when I was 17ish and on vacation+on the road with my family, we were trying to find dinner, and stopped in front of a fuckhuge place that didn't actually have "pub" or "bar" or whatever anywhere in the name, just looked like a steakhouse or something. As we went in the door, we (I) got told that they weren't serving anybody under 21 anything.

I'm a teetotaler sissy in the first place, we just wanted to not have to drive around looking for eats any more :{

[jiodi]

Consumer-establishment checks and balances should hash this out.

I think allowing babies and having smoking sections are in the same group here. I understand that second-hand smoke blah blah fucking blah, but whatever it still fits, because the people who care about the establishment with a smoking section can go to the place that doesn't allow the smoking section, and the owner of the establishments can decide what the cost-to-benefit ratio is.

I agree with the whole thing about babies being uncontrollable, because it's true. Also, yeah, no benefit from being at a restaurant. I can sympathize with parents who get plans ruined because of a babysitter canceling or whatever, but last time I checked parenting is the responsibility of the parent, not the people at the restaurant who have to deal with a baby screaming his/or face off because who-knows-why. It's time to put on the momma and poppa pantaloons and accept that responsibility. If they didn't want shit to get in the way of them living their lives, then they shoulda wrapped it or snipped something.

I wonder how many of these parents have stances on things like, say gun rights or first amendment rights or religious oppression, where they don't like something encroaching onto their personal freedoms. Baby cries are MEANT to bug us, you can't sit and ignore it or 'deal with it' because you are wired to have your attention drawn to it. Doesn't that feel about as grating as telling someone who they can marry or whether or not they can own a gun or say certain words? These people are taking their bad luck out on people surrounding them without recognizing how inherently dickish it is.

In all honesty, the establishment shouldn't HAVE to discourage or ban bringing super young children to their restaurants. As a culture we should understand that being annoying pricks is bad. It's so easy to say "man that random dude on acid in public is annoying, he should shut up" or "the drunk woman talking waaaaay too god damn loud is really ruining everyone's night" but when it comes to our little babies, they can do no wrong.

And speaking of loud drunk idiots, once someone is drunk they have less and less control of their actions and the more obnoxious they get they can be kicked out of anywhere! The difference is they're responsible for their own assholery and in the kid's case the parents are responsible for their children. Doesn't feel all that different, eh?

[Original Alear]

I wonder what determines whether a restaurant is fancy or not. I mean, yes, I have a general idea...obviously this is less important for people who'd advocate for baby bans in a lot of situations besides only fancy restaurants.

I honestly don't find crying babies annoying, and I think that people who do are just whiners, but I still side with letting them be banned. Apparently it's a pretty big deal to people, so let democracy reign.

[Esau of Isaac]

But then I thought, "If it is ethical for restaurants to discriminate on the basis of age, would it be ethical for restaurants to discriminate on the basis of race?" I would imagine that most people, including myself, believe that restaurants discriminating on the basis of race is wrong. Race shouldn't determine who we are as individuals, and "there is a broad scientific agreement that essentialist and typological conceptualizations of race are untenable." But isn't it logically inconsistent to consider banning babies from entering restaurants acceptable but a ban on the basis of race unacceptable? (Fancy restaurants that ban babies might argue that their lack of babies gives their dining rooms a certain "atmosphere," but then again, a hypothetical Ku Klux Kitchen might make similar arguments...)

You cannot seriously be trying to equate the banning of small children on account of their tendency to be noisy as opposed to banning a race because of being racist. They are not equatable by any stretch. Legally and just plain logically it's completely sensible to bar the entrance of customers who are bringing in a loud obnoxious child into a high-class, expensive diner.

Where does that leave babies? Proponents of banning babies might argue that babies have a much higher propensity to loud crying and throwing temper tantrums than adults, but can we really blame the babies? I mean, by their very nature, babies are less developed, both mentally and physically, than adults. Why not let babies in as long as they're well-behaved and then only kick them out once they start causing trouble? Yes, the parents may potentially have some of their time and money go to waste, but then again, it is they who are rolling the dice.

That's an entirely sensible solution as well, but it is also equally offensive to any of the customers paying hundreds of dollars. It's not a rule that needs making in the first place, because it should be a no-brainer: Don't bring a small child that is very likely to be loud and annoying to other patrons into an expensive restaurant.

Sometimes you just have a blanket ban because of what is likely. Do you think it is unfair to, for example, ban all pets from restaurants? Or is it simply the fact that most pets, being likely to misbehave, automatically pisses off anyone nearby who has to endure someone that brings them in?

Edited January 19, 2014 by Esau of Isaac

[eclipse]

Sometimes you just have a blanket ban because of what is likely. Do you think it is unfair to, for example, ban all pets from restaurants? Or is it simply the fact that most pets, being likely to misbehave, automatically pisses off anyone nearby who has to endure someone that brings them in?

I'm very much in favor of restaurants banning all non-service pets, because they present a tripping hazard. I'd like to argue that small children fall under this clause, as well (it's the combination of "being short" and "moving unpredictably").

[Dark Sage]

Maybe instead of outright banning babies from restaurants, the staff should just cook the ones that are brought in :P

Edited January 19, 2014 by Jack Frost

[dondon151]

new topic:

should fancy restaurants be allowed to cook babies?

[Original Alear]

Only when I'm there to eat it.

[Loki Laufeyson]

wonder what determines whether a restaurant is fancy or not.

Im thinking Five Star here. Black Tie dress codes, violinists, grand pianos, five course meals, you get the idea. A lot of upper crust restaurants dont even allow people who are wearing denim to eat at their establishment. So why in the mothergrabbing Nine Worlds would any of these types of places allow babies? Seriously.

There are restaurants and chains out there who design their businesses around family dining. If you are chowing down at Red Robin, babies arent a big deal. (Pretty fucking irritating though) But if you are eating at some place like the Waldorf, OH HELL NAW. Get that mewling whelp out! BAN IT! The restaurant owners can determine what goes on in their establishments. If babies are against their policies, well...They just won my business.

[jiodi]

"Mewling whelps". Fantastic. XD

[Superbus]

Let's say a restaurant calls itself "Honkys and Burgers", and labels itself a whites-only establishment. Hell, let's say they go all the way, with a "No Negros Allowed" sign, with bouncers and all that.

If you say this is wrong, then you're also saying that it's wrong to discriminate against children in this sense. Or anyone.

Ultimately, a company can do business with who they want. Period.

[eclipse]

I'm in favor of banning youngsters in fine dining establishments because they're unpredictable, loud, and a possible tripping hazard. I don't think a functioning adult of any race embodies all three of those qualities (and any adult who acts like a baby should be kicked out, as well).