Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Be Nice to Your Children…
Townhall.com ^ | September 1, 2011 | Rich Tucker

Posted on 09/02/2011 10:32:22 AM PDT by Kaslin

Older people almost always seem to think they had it tougher than “kids today” do. So some older folks are striking back against the privileges enjoyed by today’s young people. And this doesn’t bode well for the future of society.

Consider a recent story out of Pennsylvania. “The owner of a small restaurant outside Pittsburgh is banning children under the age of six, saying they regularly disrupted other customers’ meals,” the Wall Street Journal reported recently. “I’ve decided someone in our society had to dig their heels in on this issue,” the owner (a former teacher, luckily not of grammar) told reporters.

Well, it’s his restaurant, and if he wants to turn families away, that’s his choice. And he doesn’t seem to be facing a lot of pushback. The Journal reports that receipts at the restaurant are up, and notes: “A poll on the website of a Pittsburgh TV news channel found 64 percent supported the under-six ban, compared with 26 percent who said it was a bad idea. About 10 percent said they didn’t care. More than 10,000 people voted.”

Meanwhile, CNN columnist LZ Granderson opines that this restaurant is on the right track. “I don't know about you but I would gladly support an airline or restaurant that didn't make someone else's yelling, screaming, kicking offspring my problem,” he writes. “If you're the kind of parent who allows your 5-year-old to run rampant in public places like restaurants, I have what could be some rather disturbing news for you. I do not love your child. The rest of the country does not love your child either.”

Maybe I’m eating at the wrong restaurants. I’ve had more flights and meals disrupted by unruly (drunk) adults than by uncontrolled children. Still, it seems obvious that many Americans have no patience for the idea that “children will be children” and are instead embracing the wisdom of the Middle Ages: “children should be seen and not heard.”

Ah, but they will be heard from eventually, and we may not enjoy hearing what they’ll have to say. As journalist Michael Barone noted recently, Americans will soon depend on today’s youngsters to pay for the country’s lavish retirement promises.

“[U]nder Social Security, as with most public pension systems, current pensions are paid for by current workers. As lifespans increase and birth rates fall, the ratio of pensioners to active workers falls toward one-to-one,” Barone warns.

“That’s not enough to support the elderly in anything like the style to which they have been accustomed, unless tax rates are sharply increased. And sharply higher tax rates, as Western Europe has shown over the last three decades, reduce long-term economic growth. That’s the problem, often abbreviated as ‘entitlements,’ facing our political system.”

Still, many of today’s political leaders oppose slowing the size and scope of federal entitlement spending. In May, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi told the Washington Post she would fight to ensure “no benefits cuts” in Medicare. “It is a flag we’ve planted that we will protect and defend. We have a plan. It’s called Medicare.”

As for Social Security, “Two decades from now, I’m willing to take a look at it,” Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid told MSNBC in March. “But I’m not willing to take a look at it right now.” Earlier in the year he declared that changes to the program were “off the table.

Keep in mind that, because parents are having fewer children, each of those youngsters is on the hook for a steadily-growing share of the federal budget deficit. “Our social insurance programs have slowly created a massive and immoral shift of wealth and obligation from today's middle class to future generations,” Stuart Butler of The Heritage Foundation warned in 2007. “Medicare alone now has a $32 trillion unfunded obligation -- a tab that is being passed to our children and grandchildren. Medicare and Social Security together now constitute an unsecured ‘mortgage’ of $170,000 placed in the crib of every newborn American.” The tab Butler cites has only increased in the last four years.

When the time comes to pay that “mortgage” off, however, some of today’s youngsters might decide to change the laws instead. “If, for instance, Congress were to adjust the formula by which Social Security cost-of-living increases were calculated or change the age of eligibility, future federal liabilities would shrink by trillions of dollars instantly,” John Steele Gordon noted recently in the Wall Street Journal.

The lesson? We can either put our own fiscal house in order by reducing the amount we’re promising in entitlement benefits to future retirees. Or we’d better be nice to today’s children, since we’re counting on them to be nice to us when they’re running the country in the decades ahead.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial
KEYWORDS: babyboomers; control; population; snobocracy
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-83 next last

1 posted on 09/02/2011 10:32:25 AM PDT by Kaslin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Who can afford to go out to eat anymore anyway?


2 posted on 09/02/2011 10:35:21 AM PDT by frogjerk (Today is already the tomorrow which the bad economist yesterday urged us to ignore. - HAZLITT)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

So we can’t say anything about out of control children in a restaurant, because these kids will be paying into Social Security in the future?

So these out of control kids are going to hold a grudge against all of society when they become adults, if we don’t let them run wild today??????


3 posted on 09/02/2011 10:36:45 AM PDT by Dilbert San Diego
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: frogjerk

is this fool trying to say that if we don’t let children inside restaurants then when they grow up they won’t pay our SS benefits?


4 posted on 09/02/2011 10:39:24 AM PDT by mamelukesabre (Si Vis Pacem Para Bellum (If you want peace prepare for war))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Well I guess because it has not happened to you in the $150 a meal restaurants the writer eats in it is not a problem.The only time I have ever had food interrupted by a drunk was having nachos in a bar where that is kind of expected.I can’t count how many times I’ve ate and either dealth with someone’s child screaming,running, or even standing at my table trying to eat from my food.I do not go out that often so having this happen is really infuriating....I’d rather do dishes at home and not spend the money!


5 posted on 09/02/2011 10:41:46 AM PDT by chris_bdba
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

People do need to control their children better in restaurants. My brother and I operate a few franchised locations, and many complaints forwarded up to our offices by the managers are from disgruntled diners. The diners are angry that they had their dining experiences ruined because of children screaming or simply being out of control. These are not infants we’re talking about. Six year old kids should be able to sit at a table and behave themselves. If I had acted like these kids do sometimes, I would have gotten a few swift spankings.


6 posted on 09/02/2011 10:44:56 AM PDT by 10thAmendmentGuy ("[Drug] crusaders cannot accept the fact that they are not God." -Thomas Sowell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

I ran into this years ago in Colorado on vacation. We wanted to eat somewhere nice, but this place owuldn’t let me in with a baby.

Then Estes Park wouldn’t let me in the craft place with a toddler. It was a weird vacation.


7 posted on 09/02/2011 10:45:55 AM PDT by yldstrk (My heroes have always been cowboys)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chris_bdba

See #6


8 posted on 09/02/2011 10:46:03 AM PDT by 10thAmendmentGuy ("[Drug] crusaders cannot accept the fact that they are not God." -Thomas Sowell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: chris_bdba

Kids trying to eat from your plate? I’d call the waiter over while the kid is there and tell the waiter to put little Johnny on a stick and roast him like they roasted that kid for you last week and then glare at little Johnny and say, “Bwuhaha! He was tasty, but you look plump and tender!” Maybe even pinch him and say, “Oh, yes, he’ll be tasty!”


9 posted on 09/02/2011 10:49:08 AM PDT by blueunicorn6 ("A crack shot and a good dancer")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Dilbert San Diego
So we can’t say anything about out of control children in a restaurant, because these kids will be paying into Social Security in the future?

Yeah - it's the kind of thing liberals try to push off as logic.

It's that twisted type of thinking that gave us beliefs in the dangers of Alar, nuclear winter, global warming, the population bomb, global cooling, Club of Rome, and whatever other illogical scare stories liberals pushed.

People having to put up with liberals' out of control children is not connected to Social Security in any way... There are plenty of restaurants that welcome families - enjoy children and carter to them. They don't need to be everyplace. Liberals can hire a babysitter if they want to play adult for an evening.

10 posted on 09/02/2011 10:49:29 AM PDT by GOPJ (126 people were indicted for being terrorists in the last two years. Every one of them was Muslim.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: GOPJ

I appreciate your points. It seemed like bizarre thinking to me to say that, we can’t discipline kids today, because they will be offended as adults that they were disciplined as children, and because of that, they won’t want to pay into Social Security. That’s quite a stretch of logic........


11 posted on 09/02/2011 10:52:22 AM PDT by Dilbert San Diego
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

The author is muddle-headed, at best, and clearly has no business writing.


12 posted on 09/02/2011 10:52:44 AM PDT by Psycho_Bunny (Public employee unions are the barbarian hordes of our time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

My advice to today’s young is: Work hard, get a good education so you can get a high paying job because I’M going to need it!

And if you’re thinking of what you’ll do when you have control just remember an eighty year old with a walker has very little to loose any more.

So figure out something else to cut or we’ll be coming to live with you.


13 posted on 09/02/2011 10:57:01 AM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change

Thanks for aborting a quarter of my generation, btw.


14 posted on 09/02/2011 11:00:08 AM PDT by BenKenobi (Honkeys for Herman!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Really stupid way to frame an argument


15 posted on 09/02/2011 11:00:42 AM PDT by GeronL (The Right to Life came before the Right to Happiness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mamelukesabre; Dilbert San Diego
Banning children is simply illegal: a violation of federal law. It's also immoral, as well as being a really stupid long-term business strategy in this economic environment.

Restaurants are public accomodations and they cannot discriminate on the basis of age.

Some attorney is going to make a killing, and this restauranteur is begging for it.

And yes: if you want to cash Social Security checks on the backs of those children one day, you're going to have to treat them as if they were your fellow human beings and endure their presence.

What I find hilarious (other than the fact that many of the applauders of this child ban labor under the delusion that they are also Christians), is that many of those complaining about the presence of children are the same people who whine about not being able to blow smoke on other people while they're eating.

16 posted on 09/02/2011 11:01:56 AM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: 10thAmendmentGuy
You have to expect infants to cry as this is the only way they can express themselves. Many mothers make the mistake that when the infant cries to feed the baby. While the reason could be that the baby is uncomfortable, or does not feel good.

If a six year old does not sit still or runs around then the parents should be smacked, for not making their brats behave better

17 posted on 09/02/2011 11:02:56 AM PDT by Kaslin (Acronym for OBAMA: One Big Ass Mistake America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
Maybe I’m eating at the wrong restaurants. I’ve had more flights and meals disrupted by unruly (drunk) adults than by uncontrolled children.

Allow me to be the first to wholeheartedly agree with Rich Tucker: You're eating at the wrong restaurants. Where are you eating, Rich, biker dives or something?

18 posted on 09/02/2011 11:03:10 AM PDT by Cyber Liberty (I like both Perry and Palin, and will vote for whichever of them wins.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change
And if you’re thinking of what you’ll do when you have control just remember an eighty year old with a walker has very little to loose any more.

The same attitude that has created the anti-child atmosphere has also created the pro-euthanasia atmosphere.

The eighty year old with the walker will be getting a final, powerful cocktail of painkillers in a state-run hospital - not being quartered on the young.

The culture of death cuts both ways.

19 posted on 09/02/2011 11:06:07 AM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
... we’d better be nice to today’s children, since we’re counting on them to be nice to us when they’re running the country in the decades ahead.

Talk about a losing proposition.

20 posted on 09/02/2011 11:06:17 AM PDT by Cyber Liberty (I like both Perry and Palin, and will vote for whichever of them wins.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
"Be Nice to Your Children"

I AM nice to my own children. little hooligans running around a restaurant are not MY children.

what a maroon.

21 posted on 09/02/2011 11:07:52 AM PDT by ZinGirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wideawake

I don’t follow your reasoning. The issue isn’t the presence of children as such, it’s the presence of out of control children, whom we presumeably are not allowed to discipline. Due to today’s political correctness, you are not allowed to touch another person’s child, so only the parents are allowed to discipline a child in a public place. If parents don’t do the job, the rest of us have to endure an obvious lack of discipline. We do treat children as fellow human beings, while also believing that children should not be allowed to run around out of control.

It sounds like you think that if children are disciplined, they will carry that grudge to adulthood. I just don’t follow that reasoning.

I’m not sure about age discrimination as such. Bars can and do ban people under 21 because alcohol is served. So there are limits under which you can discriminate based on age in that manner.


22 posted on 09/02/2011 11:11:50 AM PDT by Dilbert San Diego
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Cyber Liberty
Where are you eating, Rich, biker dives or something?

He probably isn't. He may be going "nice" restaurants that also host bachelor/bachelorette parties, post-golf tournament dinners, business convention dinners and other events that the well-heeled and overserved like to celebrate on school nights.

I'd also point out that the most distracting children in restaurants are generally groups of teenagers. High school football team brunches are always good for lots of cursing and thrown objects.

23 posted on 09/02/2011 11:11:50 AM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

I am with the restaurant manager. What he says is correct.

the reason is that kids are not raised the way they were 50-60 years ago. there is a picture of a black woman sitting in a chair with her three kids at a welfare office from the late 1950s/early 1960s and the kids are just sitting there and standing there. When I was young and growing up I got yelled at and shrugged and tugged on to behave and sit still in public places. Todays’ parents beg and try to coerce their children to ‘please stop’ and ‘please don’t do that’ and ‘ooh play with this’ and appease the kid hoping the kid will do what they want.

I totally understand where the restaurant manager is coming from. If parents knew how to raise kids properly like our grandparents and for the older gen-xers, our parents, did, and weren’t trying to be friends and coax good behavior out of the kids instead of a little well-placed corporal punishment - instead of the kid running the family - I’d say the manager was over-reaching. But he is so not over-reaching at all.


24 posted on 09/02/2011 11:14:33 AM PDT by Secret Agent Man (I'd like to tell you, but then I'd have to kill you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mamelukesabre
Something like that. Seems like the author thinks that if you criticize bad behavior of children and don't want to put up with it you should be lumped with people who hate children.

It doesn't make a lot of sense but it makes the author feel smart and important.

So if you criticize her I'm going to lump you in with people who kill reporters. -sarc

25 posted on 09/02/2011 11:17:33 AM PDT by frogjerk (Today is already the tomorrow which the bad economist yesterday urged us to ignore. - HAZLITT)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: wideawake

They are banning kids because of their associated behavior problems. Things they actually do.

It is far better than having to wait until the kids go nuts, and then asking the whole family to leave because they can’t control their kid, and they’ve already messed up everyone else’s dining experience.


26 posted on 09/02/2011 11:17:59 AM PDT by Secret Agent Man (I'd like to tell you, but then I'd have to kill you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: wideawake

Restaurants refuse service to unruly customers, customers who can’t behave, have kids who can’t behave and won’t stop misbehaving. Heck they even refuse to serve people who don’t follow their dress codes, or have no shoes or shirts. They have the ability by law to do this.


27 posted on 09/02/2011 11:20:56 AM PDT by Secret Agent Man (I'd like to tell you, but then I'd have to kill you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: wideawake
Banning children is simply illegal: a violation of federal law.

HUH?????

Restaurants are public accomodations and they cannot discriminate on the basis of age.

I don't know where you live, but that is just not true. Many establishments do not permit anyone under 21.

While it may be a place of public accommodation, it is still private property and the proprietor retains the right to refuse service to anyone.

What I find hilarious (other than the fact that many of the applauders of this child ban labor under the delusion that they are also Christians), is that many of those complaining about the presence of children are the same people who whine about not being able to blow smoke on other people while they're eating.

I don't complain about children, but respect the right of the owner to choose his or her clientele based upon his/her preferences for the clientele. Something you people who whine about those owners who prefer to permit smoking within their establishments do not respect, while supposedly claiming to be Christian.

28 posted on 09/02/2011 11:21:06 AM PDT by Gabz (Democrats for Voldemort.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Dilbert San Diego
I don’t follow your reasoning. The issue isn’t the presence of children as such, it’s the presence of out of control children

So banning all children, well-behaved or not, is "reasonable"?

It sounds like you think that if children are disciplined, they will carry that grudge to adulthood.

We're not talking about discipline, we're talking about contempt.

If you tell a child that he needs to behave or he can't stay, that's discipline.

If you tell a child he is not welcome under any circumstances, that's contempt.

That he will remember, and he should.

Bars can and do ban people under 21 because alcohol is served.

When it serves their purpose. Many bars depend upon the under 21 crowd, especially the female under 21 crowd, to keep their doors open.

The real reason for banning children, I suspect, is because the real money in a restaurant is made by the markup on alcoholic beverages.

Every seat occupied by a child is occupied by a customer who won't order any of the more expensive items on a menu and who will not order any of the alcoholic beverages that the resturants marks up by 200-300%.

Moreover, because most parents don't like to drive drunk, only one adult at the table will generally be drinking - and probably not as much as he would have otherwise.

This is exploiting a prejudice in order to make more money.

29 posted on 09/02/2011 11:21:29 AM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: ZinGirl
I AM nice to my own children. little hooligans running around a restaurant are not MY children.

But it takes your village to raise their child...

30 posted on 09/02/2011 11:22:45 AM PDT by frogjerk (Today is already the tomorrow which the bad economist yesterday urged us to ignore. - HAZLITT)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: BenKenobi
Well now I'm right sorry some folks just can't see the humor and irony in my comments juxtaposed to the sentiments in the article.

But I'll leave that to others, thanks.

(and BTW I aborted no one and accept no responsibility for those that did)

31 posted on 09/02/2011 11:24:55 AM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: wideawake; Dilbert San Diego

And yes: if you want to cash Social Security checks on the backs of those children one day...

What I find hilarious (other than the fact that many of the applauders of this child ban labor under the delusion that they are also Christians)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

what i find hilarious is you and your stupid idea that the next generation will decide or wont decide to pull the plug on a bankrupt SS program based on a restaurant’s decision dating back to a time before they are capable of forming memories. idiot.


32 posted on 09/02/2011 11:26:28 AM PDT by mamelukesabre (Si Vis Pacem Para Bellum (If you want peace prepare for war))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Gabz
I don't know where you live, but that is just not true. Many establishments do not permit anyone under 21.

That is based on another law: the drinking age.

You can't ban those under six by invoking that law - it has to be everyone under 21. Could a restaurant ban any guests over the age of 60?

While it may be a place of public accommodation, it is still private property and the proprietor retains the right to refuse service to anyone.

Of course he does, but he cannot designate an entire class, race, or age group of people. If he wants to refuse service to a party, he has to do it on a case by case basis.

respect the right of the owner to choose his or her clientele based upon his/her preferences for the clientele

No such "right" exists.

If you open your doors to the public, you open your doors to the public.

If you want to run a private club with membership requirements, then you're going to have to do it on that basis, with all that it entails.

33 posted on 09/02/2011 11:29:51 AM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

If these kids can’t sit and behave in a restaurant, what makes anyone think they’ll be responsible enough to hold a job to pay SS benefits in the future?


34 posted on 09/02/2011 11:31:38 AM PDT by bgill (just getting tagline ready for 6 months after you vote in Perry - Tried to warn you he's a RINO.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wideawake
Then it should be obvious that this is the goal of the yakking heads and political class...to create inter-generational conflict and cross interests so that each group will support whoever promises to “protect” this or that program or perk.

“Those guys are going to toss someone into the street! Bring the tar and feathers and most of all, your check book”.

35 posted on 09/02/2011 11:35:02 AM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: wideawake
That is based on another law: the drinking age.

You stated banning children was illegal under federal law, I proved it wasn't. Not all establishments that serve alcohol ban any age, some ban under 16.

You can't ban those under six by invoking that law - it has to be everyone under 21. Could a restaurant ban any guests over the age of 60?

I wasn't invoking the drinking age law, just proving your blanket statement to be wrong. I am also aware of restaurants/clubs designed for the under 21 crowd that do prohibit anyone over 21 (other than employees) and it is also perfectly legal.

No such "right" exists.

Yes it does, as I just proved.

If you open your doors to the public, you open your doors to the public.

Please see above.

If you want to run a private club with membership requirements, then you're going to have to do it on that basis, with all that it entails.

Not discussing private clubs here. Rather we are discussing the lack of respect given to the owners of these businesses and their rights. While an establishment may be open to the public, it is still at the invitation and with the permission of the owner that you remain on the premises.

Just like the Michigan businesses that are now banning legislators from their establishments for passing the smoking ban. It is perfectly within their right and perfectly legal to do so.

36 posted on 09/02/2011 11:44:18 AM PDT by Gabz (Democrats for Voldemort.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Gabz
“While it may be a place of public accommodation, it is still private property and the proprietor retains the right to refuse service to anyone”

No, not at all. State laws may regulate who may be served where alcohol is sold but I'd have great fun with a restaurant that turned me away because I had a child with me. Hello lawsuit, good bye restaurant.

37 posted on 09/02/2011 11:46:12 AM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: frogjerk

It may take a village to raise a child, but it takes a tank to raze a village.


38 posted on 09/02/2011 11:50:42 AM PDT by WayneS (Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm. -- James Madison)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change

So then you do NOT support private property rights?


39 posted on 09/02/2011 11:51:56 AM PDT by WayneS (Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm. -- James Madison)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Secret Agent Man
I totally understand where the restaurant manager is coming from. If parents knew how to raise kids properly like our grandparents and for the older gen-xers, our parents, did, and weren’t trying to be friends and coax good behavior out of the kids instead of a little well-placed corporal punishment - instead of the kid running the family - I’d say the manager was over-reaching. But he is so not over-reaching at all.

EXACTLY. I remember a few years back some customers complaining about being seated at the table next to where a 6yo was sitting. The waitress explained the child was just fine and would cause them no problem, but they would have none of it and asked to speak to the manager. They did not want to sit near the child, who was reading a book and eating french fries. The manager explained the only other available tables were all inside.

Long story short, that 6yo is now 13 and still sits at that same table reading and eating her french fries whenever we go in there. The other customers, well they show up about once or twice a year and if they see us they go sit elsewhere.

There still are parents raising their kids to behave in public. I respect the decision of this establishment and have absolutely no problem with it.

40 posted on 09/02/2011 12:00:39 PM PDT by Gabz (Democrats for Voldemort.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: WayneS
Absolutely I support private property rights, mine and others. But it must be recognized that these rights are curtailed to a degree in providing public, note PUBLIC, accommodations by civil rights laws.

The person who obtains a license agrees to operate under these laws so it's no mystery or surprise to them that I can be refused what is freely provided to others without a sound business reason and not liking kids isn't one of them.

41 posted on 09/02/2011 12:02:45 PM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: WayneS

If you watch threads carefully, you will find many of those on FR claiming to be conservative don’t support property rights in any area in which government theft of those rights benefits them. Moreover, there are many here who hate “redistribution” by the government, unless it is to them - typically in the form of an SS check or Medicare.


42 posted on 09/02/2011 12:04:17 PM PDT by achilles2000 ("I'll agree to save the whales as long as we can deport the liberals")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change
I disagree.

I think every business owner should be able to free to refuse service to anyone for any reason. The market can decide whether a particular business owner has been taking wise choices regarding whom he will and will not serve.

43 posted on 09/02/2011 12:06:27 PM PDT by WayneS (Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm. -- James Madison)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change
I disagree.

I think every business owner should be free to refuse service to anyone for any reason. The market can decide whether a particular business owner has been taking wise choices regarding whom he will and will not serve.

44 posted on 09/02/2011 12:06:44 PM PDT by WayneS (Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm. -- James Madison)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change

read “cannot be refused”


45 posted on 09/02/2011 12:07:02 PM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change
Hello lawsuit, good bye restaurant.

Really? You would disrespect the wishes of the owner and lawyer up instead of just going elsewhere?

That's a real conservative position there - NOT.

Why can't you respect the property owner? What do you have against private property rights?

Would you lawyer up if the policy of the establishment required a tie and you weren't wearing one and you were turned away?

46 posted on 09/02/2011 12:10:41 PM PDT by Gabz (Democrats for Voldemort.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: achilles2000; WayneS
If you watch threads carefully, you will find many of those on FR claiming to be conservative don’t support property rights in any area in which government theft of those rights benefits them.

It's actually totally amazing. And it has been getting worse, rather than better over the years.

The number of so called conservatives that actually applaud the ever increasing nanny state laws seems to be increasing rather than decreasing around here. And the vast majority of nanny state laws all encroach on private property rights in one way or another. Yet they are applauded right here.

It is scary.

47 posted on 09/02/2011 12:16:52 PM PDT by Gabz (Democrats for Voldemort.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: WayneS

You may disagree with what the law says but as a business owner you would still have to comply or face crushing legal costs.

It’s that simple. If you really think every, every business, should serve only whom it wishes then the private water company in my old neighborhood should be able to refuse water service to blacks or Jews or old people.

Maybe the the electric company could too since it was privately owned or the ambulance service.

How does that sound? Who should sit and freeze in the dark until the market decides against the business?


48 posted on 09/02/2011 12:21:30 PM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change

Wells.
Generators.
Private transportation of my own.


49 posted on 09/02/2011 12:31:12 PM PDT by WayneS (Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm. -- James Madison)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change

Nice attempt at diversion, but it won’t work.

You can not compare being served on another’s property with being provided necessary services on your own property. There is no comparison.

Admit it, you support nanny state laws to prevent private property openers from making what they consider to be best business sense decisions because they inconvenience you.


50 posted on 09/02/2011 12:31:20 PM PDT by Gabz (Democrats for Voldemort.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-83 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson