Posted on 09/02/2011 10:32:22 AM PDT by Kaslin
No it’s not. It’s a practical observation that private property rights are not infinite and being restricted by law a business must still obey those laws to stay in business.
A bankrupt, closed business need not not worry about it’s rights.
“You can not compare being served on another’s property with being provided necessary services on your own property. There is no comparison.’
Yes, I can because the comparison was in the decision of a privately owned company not to provide service on specious grounds or just dislike of a certain person.
And no mind reading, thank you.
right.
What a joke. Usually the restaurants with obnoxious drunks are not the same restaurants that have screaming children running around. So, yes, he is eating in the wrong restaurants, and this is not an imaginary problem.
Also, disciplining your children and “being nice” to them are not mutually exclusive, and expecting children to behave with manners in public is not an idea from the “Middle Ages”. I’m only in my early 30s, and nearly everyone I grew up with knew that you behaved by one set of rules on the playground, and another when you went inside. Children can learn that quite easily, if parents bother to teach them.
“Banning children is simply illegal: a violation of federal law.”
Is it really? I know there age discrimination is banned in hiring, but I find it hard to believe what you are asserting. How could bars exclude people under 21 if that were true? How could concerts be 18 & over? Does not compute.
It wouldn’t be helpful to stop talking about or advocating about things that might be important just because somebody might then want to make a law about it. And avoiding talking about it won’t make the people who want to make a law for every situation back down and go home.
I agree. While parents need to discipline their kids, the best way would be to ask the parents to leave if the youngsters are unruly. The generation that gave us abortion on demand also made illegal immigration a necessity in that 50 million American kids are missing who would otherwise be the workers who supported the retired and aged. Demography is destiny, indeed.
There is nothing "conservative" about suing a business because you don't like their choice of policy. You have the choice of not patronizing the establishment. You have no "right" to enter it.
So you would support a law that forbids this policy?
By your logic age restrictions on the sale to or purchase by those under 18 of tobacco products or under 21 of alcohol are age discrimination.
You are making no sense whatsoever. The owner is making a legitimate business decision here that does not harm anyone's "rights." These type policies are nothing new and only making the news because some whiny liberal with an over reaching idea of his "rights" was offended by it. That you agree with that speaks volumes.
“This is exploiting a prejudice in order to make more money.”
That’s quite the obnoxious leap in logic. I would gladly spend my hard earned money at a restaurant which forbade uncontrolled brats and I don’t drink!
You can do it all you wish, that it is not a worthy argument is another issue, but obviously one you do not understand.
Just like business owners who have chosen to refuse service to legislators who voted to ban smoking in their establishments, I would encourage any business owner to refuse service to anyone willing to sue them because of a dislike of their legal business policy.
Find another restaurant if you don't like the policy.
I’m not saying stop talking about it, I’m just saying it is articles like this that do start the ball rolling for stupid over reaching laws/ordinances and comments such as those advocating suing this business for it that cause the problems.
The simple solution is to not patronize establishments that have policies with which you disagree and inform them why your are doing so.
What is “legal policy” and how do you know? And no, your opinions about what you would do IF you ran a business don’t count.
I agree with you. To be helpful, they should identify their excluded clientele, maybe with pictorial codes like a rat in a crossed-out circle for "No Democrat Congressmen." That way people wouldn't plan to go someplace, only to find they weren't welcome.
Dear Rich,
Bless your heart honey, but you just don't get it. The undisciplined brats that are running around being hellions now are not going to be the productive workers of the future. They are the convicts of the future. Or possibly the dead bodies.
Perhaps, I am going out on a limb here, but perhaps, people are reacting to the fact that "kids will be kids" now seems to mean that little Johnny or Susie can run up to a adult, kick them and the spawns progenitor will just smile vacantly and say, "kids will be kids!"
There are plenty of places where feral children may run free. Their warped little personalities will not be damaged by being denied the joys of dining in a swanky restaurant before they have reached the age of seven. Their progenitors have already twisted them so badly that untwisting them will prove next to impossible.
I do note that there are parts of the country where it is very rare to run into these hell-spawn. And in those parts of the country you don't find even the swanky restaurants having any kind of child restriction. That is because there people understand that taking to young child to a upscale restaurant is usually a bad idea. They also keep their children under control. Some go so far as to insist that their children use words like, "please", "thank you" and even address adults as "Ma'am" and "Sir"
I know that such a stifling of a child's creativity might seem strange but you know what Rich? Those children are the future workers and builders. Not the tiny terrorists that are so out of control that people are having to restrict them from places.
Best Regards,
HTB
Policies such have this have been in place all over the country for decades. There has never been an issue made of them. Until some whiners, such as yourself, decide to make an issue of it.
The road in front of your house is public, not private property and there are certain things you can not do upon it. Are you going to sue the government because you do not have the “right” to walk on it any way you decide is your right?
You are granted an invitation to enter the establishment, you do not own it and you have no “right” to be there other than what is granted by the owner. The rights of the property owner trump any rights you believe you have.
Say you decide to hold a yard sale this weekend, you’re opening your property to the public. I see it as I’m driving by and stop. I get out of the car with my dog to browse your wares. You don’t want the dog there. Whose rights trump here? Mine because you are open to the public, or yours because you own the property.
BTW - I have probably run more businesses than you have, including the one I run now.
You got that right!!!!
The issue of private property open to the public has been argued in state and federal courts for well over half a century or more or did you miss the Civil Rights issue?
And I am glad you've operated many businesses, but selling Avon products, newspapers and on E-Bay aren't really relevant to the discussion at hand.
And I am glad you've operated many businesses, but selling Avon products, newspapers and on E-Bay aren't really relevant to the discussion at hand.
Your snideness, not just here but throughout this thread, leaves me with no alternative but to determine you really have no leg to stand on here. When one resorts to insults one has obviously lost the argument.
Try suing me after you are asked to leave my establishment because you have broken the rules and see how far you get. One woman once had the audacity to bring a police officer into my building to have me arrested for smoking at my desk when I had already explained to her I did not have to put out the cigarette because it was a private business and not a government building. The officer asked me if I wished to press charges against her for trespassing.
Have a good evening.
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.