Be Nice to Your Children…

Townhall.com ^ | September 1, 2011 | Rich Tucker

[count-your-change]

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.

[achilles2000]

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.

[WayneS]

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.

[WayneS]

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.

[count-your-change]

read “cannot be refused”

[Gabz]

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?

[Gabz]

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.

[count-your-change]

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?

[WayneS]

Wells.
Generators.
Private transportation of my own.

[Gabz]

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.

[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.

That is a fantastic example of what is known as 'begging the question'.

[married21]

My kids behave better at restaurants than they do at home. They’ve been told for years that the owner of the restaurant does not have to serve them. He can throw them out if they cause trouble, and never welcome them back again.

I think kids should be given the chance to eat at restaurants. They need to learn about that part of life. But if they cause trouble, out they go. And, yes, when our kids were little, we had a number of times where one of us took the loud kid out to the parking lot while the other parent and child finished their meal.

I don’t like this policy of no kids in the restaurant because it is like they’re guilty until proven innocent.

[Gabz]

I don’t like this policy of no kids in the restaurant because it is like they’re guilty until proven innocent.

These type policies have been around forever. It is nothing new. It is only making headlines because some folks have complained, and they are most likely the guilty parties that have kids that have caused these businesses to implement these policies.

Would you support a law that stated the restaurant could not do this?

[BenKenobi]

Amen. If a business says no kids, fine. If a business wants a “no guidos” sign, fine by me.

Guido-friendly establishments will pop up and those who like to be around guidos will go there.

[married21]

Hmmm, no. It’s a cultural debate and I’m for cultivating a better American culture, not a larger matrix of laws.

[Gabz]

I only asked because that is exactly what this debate is going to be the precursor of. Someone will go to their city councilman or state representative and request introduction of an ordinance/law to prohibit restaurants from instituting these policies.

[count-your-change]

There’s nothing “conservative” about turning away a child from a restaurant. And you’re quite right I would get legal help in protecting his rights and mine in a heartbeat.

Racism, class discrimination and the like are not “conservative” by any definition I’ve ever heard and they most certainly are not rights to be exercised against others. And “conservatives” do obey even the laws they disagree with don’t they?

As to dress codes they may represent a legitimate business need like not wearing Levis in an office setting or must needs a coat and tie in an upscale eatery.

[beandog]

There’s nothing conservative about telling a private business who they have to let in.

[familyop]

"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."

That sort of thing is already being done to many, and in many ways. Those who hate kids, men, whole families and property rights are about to lose.

See the avalanche of foreclosures ahead, as soon as the unnatural freeze against them falls. See the rest of the middle class falling from their jobs. See the desires for sedentary leisure, comforts and spending habits of many of those born between 1945 and 1955 (the now heavily pensioned rumor-mongerers, busybodies,...). See the bond collapse in every level of government in the near future. See their dependencies on so many frivolous government services.

Become more self-sufficient. The generation growing up and coming of age now is going to be tough as nails (especially those without college degrees) in comparison to their spoiled rotten predecessors (the older half of my own Baby Boomer peers).

[familyop]

"There’s nothing “conservative” about turning away a child from a restaurant."

That's right.

"And you’re quite right I would get legal help in protecting his rights and mine in a heartbeat."

I wouldn't. I would sue government, though, just to see it busy with something other than trampling on other people's rights. Restaurants are a dying business. Why fight them? I don't go to restaurants. ...generates too much in revenues.

Teach the kids to build their world for tomorrow instead. Teach them to force the debt repudiation of tomorrow and turn America toward what is really American (for America).