Narga_Rocks Posted January 25, 2014 Share Posted January 25, 2014 (edited) Maybe instead of outright banning babies from restaurants, the staff should just cook the ones that are brought in :P new topic: should fancy restaurants be allowed to cook babies? Only when I'm there to eat it. "Mewling whelps". Fantastic. XD Are we thinking this has been posted in fftf or something? SD means no posts like that. Edited January 25, 2014 by Narga_Rocks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dondon151 Posted January 25, 2014 Share Posted January 25, 2014 is humor banned from serious discussion? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Florete Posted January 25, 2014 Share Posted January 25, 2014 is humor banned from serious discussion?Spammy humor is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esau of Isaac Posted January 27, 2014 Share Posted January 27, 2014 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. How? A business refusing service to people who don't wear shirts or shoes is not equivalent to businesses refusing service to blacks. They're not equivalent groups. It is not necessarily contradictory to regulate businesses and allow them to discriminate in some cases but not in others. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Passionfruit Cappuccino Posted January 27, 2014 Share Posted January 27, 2014 Well i say that if they have a sign or notice saying "we reserve the right to refuse anyone" then its fine, however unfair, discriminatory or annoying it may be to the customers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phoenix Wright Posted January 27, 2014 Share Posted January 27, 2014 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. What if I don't believe companies can decline business to certain individuals or groups of people because of what they were born as, but I do believe they can decline business to certain age groups? The analogy you're using doesn't fit as well as your post implies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Superbus Posted January 27, 2014 Share Posted January 27, 2014 How? A business refusing service to people who don't wear shirts or shoes is not equivalent to businesses refusing service to blacks. They're not equivalent groups. It is not necessarily contradictory to regulate businesses and allow them to discriminate in some cases but not in others. The former is a safety issue. The latter is simply intellectual consistency. If you say it's OK to apply one arbitrary metric to one group of people, but not to apply a similar metric to others, that's not consistent, especially as neither have anything to do with the safety of patrons or personnel. What if I don't believe companies can decline business to certain individuals or groups of people because of what they were born as, but I do believe they can decline business to certain age groups? The analogy you're using doesn't fit as well as your post implies. Again: arbitrary metrics. You can't selectively apply them and expect to pass either legal or constitutional muster. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nobody Posted January 27, 2014 Share Posted January 27, 2014 (edited) The former is a safety issue. The latter is simply intellectual consistency. If you say it's OK to apply one arbitrary metric to one group of people, but not to apply a similar metric to others, that's not consistent, especially as neither have anything to do with the safety of patrons or personnel. Again: arbitrary metrics. You can't selectively apply them and expect to pass either legal or constitutional muster. Age affects the behavior of people. Race doesn't. As simple as that. That's why there's no contradiction in saying banning babies is right but banning people based on their race is wrong. Edited January 27, 2014 by Smogon'sWashingMachine Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phoenix Wright Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 Again: arbitrary metrics. You can't selectively apply them and expect to pass either legal or constitutional muster. My point is that the "arbitrary metrics" that you believe are comparable (ie, race and age) are not actually comparable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rewjeo Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 It's not even actually age that's the issue. It's things that come about when people are a certain age. If race actually made people scream and cry and not even be able to eat the food that the restaurant makes the comparison might work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magical CC Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 (edited) 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. Huh? I think the restaurant rating system stops at three stars? And yes, they should also ban the below then 6 years old kids from entering the "fancy" places. They are annoying, they are noisy and what are they doing in those places? If the parents have money to enter those places, they should hire a babysitter. Edited January 28, 2014 by Char Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esau of Isaac Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 (edited) The former is a safety issue. The latter is simply intellectual consistency. If you say it's OK to apply one arbitrary metric to one group of people, but not to apply a similar metric to others, that's not consistent, especially as neither have anything to do with the safety of patrons or personnel. Again: arbitrary metrics. You can't selectively apply them and expect to pass either legal or constitutional muster. Of course you can. It's literally already happened countless times. It's legal for businesses such as Hooters for example to discriminate against men (and some women) based upon sex and sex appeal, respectively. The code of law in this instance has never been so cut and dry, and never will. Consistency for the sake of consistency isn't always preferable. Maybe it would be in a perfect world, but then in a perfect world laws wouldn't be necessary anyways. Something doesn't need to be consistent in every imaginable scenario to be a logical course of action. It is logical for a restaurant such as this to reject clientele that will harm the heart of its business, namely loud babies. It's not surprising, it's not unprecedented, and it's not legally without merit. Edited January 29, 2014 by Esau of Isaac Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.