The banning kids thing. So to make sure I understand.

[RegieRocker]

These business owners want a choice to nix kids, is that right? Sounds like pro choice to me.

[pnwmom]

1. No, it sounds like Jim Crow. n/t

[Daemonaquila]

5. Sounds like total awesomeness to me.

If parents won't teach their kids not to act like morons in public, banning is reasonable. Nobody else needs to put up with the results of bad parenting.

[JoePhilly]

20. A ban ignores parents who DID teach their kids how to behave ...

you seem to miss that.

By banning ALL kids, you not only ban the kids of the "bad parents" you refer to, but also the kids of "good parents".

Did you miss that?

[rbnyc]

59. +1 (nt)

[ProfessorGAC]

112. That's The Same Thing I Said Yesterday

My solution: If the kids act up, send the parents to the car and let the kids eat.
GAC

[pnwmom]

23. Why should all children be banned because of the behavior of a few? n/t

[uppityperson]

103. Good example of prejudice or bigotry. Ban all based on the actions of a few.

Instead of banning those who are obnoxious, ban everyone of a certain category because of the actions of a few in that category.

[joeglow3]

107. Thats exactly what the whites said in the 1960's.

Nice. Real nice.

[TheWraith]

7. That's hardly an apt comparison.

Unless you think that there is an inherent right to bring kids in anywhere, it's neither accurate nor appropriate. Some venues are simply not child-friendly. But there's lots and lots of family-friendly restaurants out there, and those that are will reap the business of the places that aren't. If there's enough people around who want to eat at a no-kids venue, then those places will stay open.

[pnwmom]

I think that children are as human as you are, with the same human rights. n/t

[Daemonaquila]

27. That's a red herring.

Kids have long been banned from bars, strip joints, etc. They are required to be in school until a certain age. They are subject to curfews. They are legally disqualified from signing contracts and engaging in other legal process except through an adult. They can not smoke or drink. They can't work until a certain age, and even then they type of work and hours are restricted. They can't drive a car or motorcycle. The list goes on and on. They are NOT treated like adults, and they do NOT have the same rights.

If many parents still bothered parenting decently, the kids wouldn't act like little jerks or be taken into venues that just aren't appropriate (usually for babies and toddlers), and restrictions like this wouldn't be necessary.

[pnwmom]

29. Restrictions that protect children make sense. Restrictions that ban all children

simply because of the behavior of other children aren't fair.

[Daemonaquila]

37. They're perfectly fair - and not all those restrictions are for the sake of kids' protection.

Most curfews aren't for kids' protection. They're for the sake of businesses and business owners who don't want kids creating havoc past a certain point. Banning kids from a bar or casino (I'm talking about babies, not teens who might find a way to join the fun) isn't for their safety either. Most parents could have a baby or toddler in tow in those places, and never be in any kind of situation where there would be the slightest risk to the kid. Other bans, like not being able to rent a car until age 25 with most companies, is for the company's protection, not the teen/young adult potential customers'.

It's absolutely fair to refuse entry to kids when, statistically, parents in our society have become such irresponsible jerks that a large number of their kids on any given evening will cause some problems. Once upon a time, a kid really acting out in public would be relatively rare, and the parents could be trusted to walk them out if necessary. In the unusual event that someone didn't do that, a manager might eject the parent and kids. Nowadays, management would have to be walking through a theater constantly to kick out people with disruptive kids. Same with nice restaurants, performance spaces, etc. At a certain point, you have to deal with the situation.

The real issue here from the people complaining it isn't fair, is that THEY don't want to be banned from going someplace if they drag their kids along. The kids don't care. Infants and toddlers don't care if they can't see Twilight in the theater. They don't care that they don't get to eat sushi at the sushi bar. They don't care that they won't be able to see Rent or Les Miserable until they're 10. They don't care if they aren't allowed to sit for 3 hours in a fancy restaurant while the adults talk about things that make no sense to them. If anything, they're happier not being in those situations. It's only the parents who are inconvenienced because they don't wanna get a babysitter. That's the definition of selfish, right there.

[pnwmom]

38. I haven't seen ANY statistics that show that little kids today

act out any more than they did a generation or two ago. And it hasn't been my experience, either. I can't remember the last time anyone else's kids disturbed me in public-- and I just took two plane flights with a number of small children.

I think some people are hyper-alert to every disturbance and some aren't.

[Daemonaquila]

45. Ah, the tactic of demanding specific scientific studies rears its head...

No go. YOU aren't disturbed? Yay for you. However, many of the rest of us aren't dulled to the reality.

Not every small kid causes a problem. Not every flight, every restaurant visit, etc. is marred by a kid acting out. But let's see... a few memorable examples from just the last month or two -

* A toddler who spent an hour of a two-hour flight throwing a screaming temper tantrum on a plane.

* Several people having to get a manager to eject about 5 sets of parents and kids at a 10 PM movie premiere because they all brought infants well past their bedtime that would wail, set each other off for more wailing, and when people nearby asked them to take the kids outside they started screaming that it's their right to be there.

* A set of kids (6-9 year age range) with two mothers, SCREAMING in a sushi restaurant that they want their food NOW. As they waited, they got bored and started trying to steal a gameboy from each other, resulting in the gameboy flying across the restaurant and hitting someone else's chair, then hitting the ground and shattering. Cue tears and screaming, and hitting each other. The moms? Ignored it all.

So, either you think these things are acceptable, or you don't go places where it's a problem. Those of us who find it a problem will make a stink and keep pushing for bans - we're sick of it.

[JoePhilly]

55. YOU said there were STATISTICS ... .

"It's absolutely fair to refuse entry to kids when, statistically, parents in our society have become such irresponsible jerks that a large number of their kids on any given evening will cause some problems."

YOU said that in this same thread. Post # 29.

You claim STATISTICS, but then what you rely on are anecdotes.

[pnwmom]

66. Your post: "It's absolutely fair to refuse entry to kids when, statistically, parents in our society

invited my reply about statistics. I'm still waiting.

(And I have no statistics to back this up, but my gut feeling tells me that the biggest adult complainers were among the most annoying children in their day. Of course they wouldn't have seen THEMSELVES this way. In their own minds, they were all practically perfect.)

[joeglow3]

108. Just admit you are old.

Old people tend to tell us about how the good old days were so much better (even when ACTUAL statistics disagree - not claims of "statistically speaking"). Old people also tend to be more demanding, thinking they are entitled to certain things (i.e. I should not have to be bothered with children at this restaurant). Some will even go so far as to tell us how it is in the kids best interest to discriminate against them. The irony is that these same people lived through very public examples of discrimination where the same claims/excuses were made and yet, now that THEY are the old people, will make the same claims.

Sad. Very very sad.

[11 Bravo]

125. With respect to anecdotes # 2 & 3; the parents should have removed the children.

With respect to your anecdote #1, I'm curious, what the fuck would you have had the parents do? Strap the little fucker into a parachute and toss him/her out? Skip the parachute altogether and just flush the toddler down the toilet? Check the little bastard as baggage?
Parents everywhere await your words of wisdom.

[tblue37]

134. You know, I ran a home daycare for 18 years. I raised my own 2 kids, plus 34 others over

that time span.

I really like kids, and I have never--not even once--had a child throw a tantrum while in my care, no matter where we were or what we were doing, and no matter how old the child was.

However, I often had to step in and remind children that we "didn't act a that way" when the parents came to pick them up, because some of the kids would start in on an attitude storm as soon as their parents were "in charge" (obviously not, though!).

At first I would try to let the parents handle their own kids, but I soon realized that the parents would NOT handle them, and I had no intention of letting the kids think such behavior was acceptable in my home--or in my presence, especially when other children were watching.

Somehow in our society parents have gotten the idea that they should expect their young children to frequently be uncooperative and throw tantrums. I have never found that to be the default mode for children, though.

I didn't hit, and I didn't yell, but kids just never threw tantrums for me, and I never expected that they would.

I see my sister's grandchildren screaming and crying these days, and when our own kids were young, hers also did a lot of screaming and crying.

I also see kids in stores, restaurants, and other public places screaming and crying and throwing tantrums.

I know for a fact that we didn't have tantrums when we were kids. (There were six kids in my family--and we were all born within an eight-year span.) I also didn't see many (if any) other kids throwing tantrums in public when I was growing up.

If so many kids are having so many tantrums in public (or even at home), then maybe the parents could use some parenting classes. During my daycare years I could see exactly what parental behaviors were triggering and encouraging the tantrums. Fortunately, most of the parents were willing to accept my advice on how to handle their kids, but I can see that a lot of parents these days really do believe that kids are supposed to go through several years of throwing tantrums while young.

I really am glad that I don't have to live in their homes!

[FloridaJudy]

135. Sometimes the parent and kid *can't* leave

As in the example of the crying child on the airplane. Been there/done that, walking the aisle with an infant crying because his ears hurt from the change in cabin pressure. Not only did I have to dodge the service carts and passengers lining up for the restrooms, but endure the glares of the child-free. Honestly, do you think if I could stop this kid from crying, I wouldn't? Where, exactly, would you suggest we go? Meanwhile the obnoxious drunk trying to paw the flight attendants gets a pass.

Yeah, I'm much more pissed at adults behaving badly than at kids acting like kids. Yeah, children can be a pain running around the grocery store like little barbarians, but at least they're not slewing their shopping carts sideways, blocking the aisles while loudly discussing their irritable bowel syndrome on the cell. Or driving their monster trucks - complete with nutz - at a brazillion mph through the parking lot blasting obscene music at ear-bleeding volume. Or loudly discussing their latest sexual conquest in the check-out line.

What I do wonder about is the recent phenomenon of people shopping en famille. I frequently see two adults shopping trailed by two or more children, and it's not in places where kids need to be - like buying them shoes or clothes. It's in the grocery or hardware store. Really, do you need your five-year-old's input into what brand of ketchup or hinges to buy? And there are two of you! A single parent gets a pass: maybe there's no one else to watch the kidlets. But couldn't papa or mama take the kids to a park while the other stocks up? Kids are kids, and sooner or later they're going to be bored watching you reading labels and debating what brand of toilet paper to buy. They're either going to act up or be thoroughly miserable.

It's a matter of consideration and common sense, and both seem to be lacking in adults these days. Just watch the average grown-up using a cell. I'll take the colicky baby any time.

[SwampG8r]

86. i dont think statistically you could find any

era when children acted out more than others
moms are moms from a cave to a mansion and moms only put up with so much crap
i think a lot of people who are not regularly exposed to children get their vision of how they act from TV

[ProfessorGAC]

114. Seems Impossible To Measure

We won't find stats because you can't do stats on an immeasurable phenomenon. I can't begin to think of a valid way to measure the generalized behavior of young children.
GAC

[Bandit]

92. What do you feel about rental units that say "no children no pets"

And those that say "No Smoking". It is for the protection of their property because there is a history of children and pets (and smoking) being quite hard on things, like furniture etc..

[pnwmom]

96. Pets lack human rights, which is why they can be banned and children can't,

except for specifically senior residences.

Smoking is banned as a health issue, since in most buildings smoke cannot be confined within one apartment. Even if the air circulation was completely separate in each apartment, there would be the problem of the smoke seeping into the walls and carpeting; and there is the problem of additional risk from fire.

If children damage their parent's furniture, that isn't an issue to the rental owner.

[kick-ass-bob]

74. We need some sex ed here... when you use it, you better know what you're doing with it.

And by that, I mean the term "statistically."

It's not just a word you can toss out there to make yourself look smart, you better have something to back it up.

/s
Senior Statistician

[smirkymonkey]

94. You win!

:)

[blueamy66]

137. +1

nicely done

[slackmaster]

63. A 24-year-old can't run for a seat in the House of Representatives

WHERE IS THE OUTRAGE?

[JoePhilly]

22. Sure, and if there are enough people around who want to east in a "no blacks"

venue ... then those places will stay open.

The comparison is quite "apt".

[TheWraith]

42. There is precedent and objective merit in some venues not allowing children.

Because those venues aren't appropriate for them one way or another. R rated movies, bars, nightclubs, etcetera. Designating certain restaurants which are not child friendly that way does not compare to banning a certain class of adult.

[JoePhilly]

54. We are not discussing bars, r-rated movines, or night clubs.

We are talking about restaurants. Places where families eat.

Now, I've actually been to an "adult only" resort. For our 10th anniversary, my wife and I went to one. That same resort family also has kid friendly locations ... and we've used those too.

And there are already bars in which you must be 21 to enter. Is that what these restaurants plan to do?

Or will they let in kids over 12? Will they card them?

Its nonsense.

[H2O Man]

72. Er, okay. But

we do not draft 2- and 3-year olds into the army, and send them to Afghanistan. We have rules.

[fishwax]

58. agreed -- not an apt comparison n/t

[slackmaster]

60. Jim Crow laws are about personal traits that can't change

Nobody can outgrow being black, but children can outgrow being children.

[Maine-ah]

71. I've seen plenty on DU

that never did outgrow being children. Using names like "brats" to describe all children and "breeders" to describe parents, and no...they are not using that term in an appropriate manner. They're using it to insult.

[slackmaster]

77. That kind of immature behavior is very common in situations where people feel they are anonymous

Some of us don't stoop to it.

[uppityperson]

104. Children can't help being the age they are, like we can't help our skin color. Apt comparison

Unless you mean something like if you lighten your skin using chemicals, you can come into this restaurant, like once enough yrs pass you can come into this restaurant?

[slackmaster]

105. There are many situations in life in which age confers privileges

You can't drive until you are (age varies by state).
You can't vote until you are 18.
You can't drink alcohol or buy a handgun (under federal law) until you are 21.
You can't run for the House of Representatives until you are 25.
You can't start collecting Social Security retirement benefits until you are 62.

Those are age-related restrictions imposed BY LAW. If those aren't unlawful forms of discrimination, then certainly the owner of a private business setting a minimum age limit for customers isn't either.

BTW, my mom lives in a neighborhood where the CC&Rs prohibit anyone under age 55 from owning property. She thinks it's silly and counterproductive, because it makes homes there less valuable than comparable ones in nearby neighborhoods without the age restriction.

Certain forms of discrimination, e.g. not hiring someone based on race, are prohibited by law. But outside of those specific situations in which discrimination is proscribed, people have the right to discriminate in general.

[uppityperson]

115. Are you seriously comparing safety issues of driving age minimum with eating in a restaurant?

Seriously?

[slackmaster]

122. You're focusing too closely on one of several examples that I provided

Try to look at the big picture, please.

If you don't LIKE the policy of a restaurant that bans people under a certain age, you always have the option of not eating there.

[uppityperson]

123. If you don't LIKE the policy of a restaurant that bans gay people, you always have the option of not

eating there. I mean you've seen them kissing in public.

Gotcha.

[slackmaster]

124. Discriminating against people based on their sexual orientation is illegal in my state

A restaurant that tried to ban gay people would be put out of business in a heartbeat.

There is no law prohibiting a restaurant from banning people under a certain age.

YMMV.

[rbnyc]

62. I would have agreed without reservation...

...when I was 11.

I remember making a distinct promise to myself to remember when I grew up that I should advocate for children's rights. I think, at the time, my primary concern was curfew.

:evilgrin:

[Lucian]

126. That is the most absurd thing I have ever read on this website.

And I'm going all the way back to the cornflake crusted chicken wars.

:eyes:

[Shandris]

2. Hrm. I am, at present, ambivalent.

I can understand where a parent would think it's like Jim Crow. I can most certainly see a business' point that it is a business decision (so long as it wasn't a 'decision' that was picked up and carried to the point there were NO places children could go).

I think I'm inclined to agree with the business view that it's a business decision. HOWEVER, I think it's an incredibly foolish decision, and would support any boycott of a business making that decision. That way I'm true to ideological beliefs, as well as to my personal beliefs.

[seabeyond]

3. i have issues with "brat ban" and labeling all kids as brats. i have issue

with the intolerance of kids when the vast majority behave. and an intolerance with parents when the majority would walk an upset child out of restaurant to not disturb others.

i think so much of this is create a problem that is not there. an intolerant society in so many ways. this is just another part

[Daemonaquila]

19. Yes, but the asshats ruin it for everyone.

If there wasn't a problem, people wouldn't have to resort to bans. It's not a matter of "intolerance," but a matter of a society that has been unable or unwilling to hold parents accountable. If parents still walked misbehaving kids out of restaurants, didn't change diapers right on the dining table, didn't let kids wander unsupervised through inappropriate places, etc., nobody would be banning kids. But, now we have the problem and the only way to deal with it is to refuse service... until hopefully the pendulum swings the other way and people learn to parent again.

[seabeyond]

24. then hold the parent responsible instead of punishing all parents and kids. what sense does that

make?

an adult misbehaves he is told to quiet. if not, he is kicked out. might even have to call the cops. reality... running a business. what happens.

if a kid misbehaves, tell parent to fix it. if parent doesn't fix, kick them out. if there is a problem, call a cops

really, not a huge ass deal and just common sense.

[blueamy66]

138. So you advocate kicking out families of kids

who are misbehaving, correct?

likewise

[notadmblnd]

31. That events you describe is a business owner issue

If I have a business and I see a parent changing their child at the table, it is my responsibility to tell them that they have to use the restroom for that. It is a health issue, if they do not comply, then it is time for them to be asked to leave. Same with wandering, same with noise issues. What is it with business owners? They don't want to confront the bad customers, instead they want a law to do the dirty work for them.

No one has to own a restaurant, but if you choose to, do your own dirty work. It is also not an absolute necessity to go out to dinner. People that can't/won't tolerate others in public places, should just stay home and order carry out.

[Daemonaquila]

47. They don't want to confront individuals any more because those bad actors make even more of a scene.

Lovely idea, doesn't work in practice. Bad parents also have a tendency to go ballistic and cause even more disruption when staff or management try to deal with the problem or eject them. It doesn't work to get on a parent who's letting their kids throw food around, if the parent starts screaming that it's their right to be there, how dare management say anything, etc. The disruption is even worse than the original, and now the restaurant has to call the cops... for more disruption...

It's a lose-lose for management because people have become too entitled to accept responsibility for their bad parenting and their kids' bad behavior. The best way to deal with it is ban the kids and prevent the opportunity for this kind of situation to be created by jerks.

[notadmblnd]

57. the world is such a scary place.

No one can be trusted, there's danger around every corner. Lock your doors and close your shades. Stay away from those nasty, dispicable children- and what ever you do don't politely confront their parents.

You know, I just got back from a restaurant. There weren't many people in there, but there was a lady with a child. He was probably six or seven and was crying because he didn't like what his mother ordered for him to eat. He wasn't wailing like a banshee but was weeping and whining. One look over to the mother (it wasn't a nasty look or glare, it was a look of concern), caused her to relent. I guess she realized it was a battle she didn't want to fight at that moment. As we were leaving, a group of 6 or 7 walked in and had a toddler with them. It was obvious the child was tired, he was whining and crying. I heard the mother say to the child in a very nasty tone "shut up". My sister walked by and engaged the baby by asking what was wrong, he stopped crying. I felt really bad for the child at that moment, I can't imagine a parent speaking to their child like that. The disdain, the anger. She truly sounded like she hated that baby.

We don't get to decide in this country who should be allowed to breed and who shouldn't. All we can do is try to walk a mile in someone elses shoes, even if it is a little child who is stuck with a parent who shouldn't have brought him into the world to begin with.

I don't know where people are eating these days, where they constantly run into unruly children, with bad parents and owners of businesses who have poor people skills? Children are the most defenseless of all the humans that walk the earth, so let's attack them. We have to deal with people in bunches and implement across the board policies because we are afraid to interact directly with each other anymore. I don't know about you or anyone else, but I refuse to live like that. :shrug:

[Daemonaquila]

64. That's completely off point, and overly dramatic.

"Children are the most defenseless of all the humans that walk the earth, so let's attack them." Not only is this silly, but nobody is attacking children. It's like people discussing the destruction of constitutional liberties, and someone saying "OMG, you're anti-American!!!!!"

There is no attack on children involved. Nobody is suggesting anything that would harm them. In fact, keeping them out of some of these places is GOOD for them. Nobody is suggesting anything about who should breed and who shouldn't - the issue of people being allowed to have kids was never mentioned in any post.

This kind of overwrought "Won't someone think of the children!!!!" message is off-topic and an attempt to distract from the point, which is that we've gotten to tolerance of such bad parenting in this country, that people feel there is no other answer (for now) than to have some places off limits to kids until things get a little more sane. Oh, the humanity! You refuse to live like that? Fine - deal with screaming, thrown food, and misbehavior. Others will do their level best to improve the situation by having some adult spaces.

[notadmblnd]

65. Banning children in restaurants isn't overly dramatic?

The one and only time I've ever seen food thrown in a restaurant was back in the 70's and it was done by an adult. As I said before, it is an owner issue and if it is allowed in establishments where you eat continuously, then it does boil down to fear! The owner is afraid to address the actions of his patrons.

From your many post defending the banning of children in "nice" restaurants, it sounds like you run into these problems all the time. Why would you even want to go to a restaurant repeatedly if this is what is allowed in the establishment? Yeah, we're gonna blame the kids because we, the adults are powerless? I don't buy it.

Call me over dramatic, but I'm tired of the child bashing.

[ProfessorGAC]

116. We Still Agree Completely

Are there bratty kids? You bet. Are all kids bratty? Nope.

That's why this is such a tough nut. You're prohibiting good kids and the good parents who helped make them that way.
GAC

[Warpy]

4. Some venues are just not inherently kid friendly

Fortunately, liquor laws and bouncers keep them out of most bars and night clubs.

Fine dining is also not suitable for them because high chairs, booster seats and other amenities are not made available along with the sommelier.

There are plenty of places that want family business and that provide amenities for children including child menus, seating, and even play areas that the loss of a few fancy places shouldn't be that big a deal.

Once the kids are old enough to be civilized, the fancy places will welcome them. Until then, get a sitter, people, or go family friendly.

[Maine_Nurse]

13. I "banned" kids from a business I managed, but it was a true

safety issue. We sold specialty woodworking equipment and supplies and most were quite dangerous. When a moronic adults got cut by touching something after ignoring the "DANGER-Do not touch" signs, it was their tough shit. Given that little kids can't read or won't pay attention anyway, that is a harder legal fight to win if you get sued.

[Warpy]

56. No kidding, but some parents simply will not understand

that not every place can be jammed into a child friendly mold.

[Daemonaquila]

17. Not to mention, basic common sense...

If you have a baby, and it has been out somewhere for a while (say, a nice restaurant, a stage show, a movie...) it WILL start fussing and often screaming. How about not causing a disturbance for everyone else who paid to come for a nice time, not an hour of wailing? There's only one word for parents who bring their young kids under those circumstances - SELFISH. They can whine all they want about how it's a public place and they need to have a good time too. But, it doesn't hold water. You have a choice to have a baby or not, get a sitter or not, have manners... or not. As for the argument that they can't afford a sitter, that's hogwash - going out and wrecking everyone else's evening with your kid because you "can't afford a sitter" is like going out for a nice dinner then stiffing the waiter because you "can't afford a tip." Either you afford the package deal that takes others into account, or you choose another activity.

[JoePhilly]

18. When you ban kids, you've said that you don;t care if they can be civilized.

I have 3 kids ... now 18, 12, and 9.

But each started to go to nice restaurants by 2 or 3.

Of course that is not where we took them first. Wendy's and McDonald's is where you start. Make sure that they know how to behave there before you take them anywhere nicer.

Then graduate to Chili's, TGIF, and Chinese or other mid-level, kid friendly, restaurants.

And if they are ok there, then move on to nicer Italian restaurants, so on. And when you move up to these, go EARLY because the nicer places tend to have more customers for later dinner. A kid acting up at 6pm is less disruptive than one acting up at 9pm. And oh, when you take a kid to these higher end restaurants, have a "plan B" in mind before you go.

But if you tell me that you don't trust me to manage my kids, you are also telling me that you really don't want my business.

[Daemonaquila]

25. People can no longer trust parents - that's the point.

You're right - at this point, people can't trust parents to manage their kids because so many parents can't be bothered. You want to make this a referendum about YOUR parenting when you say "you don't trust me to manage my kids." It's not. Business owners have no reason to believe your kids, specifically, are special snowflakes who won't create havoc, and they have no reason to assume that you, a stranger off the street with unknown kids in tow, aren't a nightmare waiting to happen. If that means that parents like you will only go to places that "want your business" like iHop or McDonald's, then that's fine with the rest of us. If responsible parents instead demanded accountability from other parents in public situations, the problem would never have gotten to the point that, as a society, we are deciding to ban kids (and therefore poor parents) from places where they are statistically likely to cause serious disruption.

[JoePhilly]

33. Ahh ... but I am not a stranger off the street ...

Like most people, I frequent the SAME restaurants regularly.

Right near me, there is a group of 4 nice restaurants ... an upscale Steak House, a very nice Italian place, a Japanese restaurant, and a nice seafood place. And I take my kids to each. They know me by name ... Joe.

If one of them used this model, they'd lose my regular business.

And, I bet, they'd lose the business of other regular customers in the area with kids.

Personally, the most obnoxious diners I ever see (statistically, to misuse the term you misused), are drunk folks without kids.

And I bet you'd be pissed if restaurants banned those without kids using your same logic.

Here's an idea ... if ANY group at a restaurant is disturbing others, whether children, or drunks with no kids, the management reserves the right to ask them to leave.

Pretty simple.

[Daemonaquila]

39. Restaurants and other venues do ban people who are drunk or high.

It's not a big deal. It's common sense. Just like banning young kids from adult venues.

For all the restaurants that might lose your business will be happy to do so, because they'll get more business from the people they cater to. It's a win-win.

[smirkymonkey]

95. My sister and her husband have a great idea - they have 4 kids

from the ages of 4 (twins) to 8 and every Tuesday night she and her husband take turns having "date night" with ONE of the children at a restaurant. This way, the child gets the undivided attention of the parent and they usually go out to anywhere from McDonalds to a Thai restaurant or local seafood place (they live on the Maine coast).

If for some reason the child acts up, the parent has the food wrapped up and leaves the restaurant along with the child and also leaves an apology to the waitstaff and a large tip. The child then gets reprimanded for their behavior and does not get another "date night" with their parents unless they promise to behave. Each meal they are taught how to behave, say please and thank you and to stay in thier chair.

I have been out to dinner with all my sibling's children at the same time and they are all extremely well behaved and have very sophisticated palates since they have always been encouraged to try different things. Their parents involve them in conversation and on the rare occasion where there is a meltdown, they are immediately removed from the restaurant until they calm down or else they cash out and go home.

I have also been to restaurants with extremely poorly behaved children and I blame the parents, many who are not even phased by the numerous dirty looks they are getting by the other restaurant patrons. The parent should know better and if they know their child is not "restaurant trained" they should not take them out to restaurants. However too many parents are selfish and think thier kids are the center of the universe and that everyone else should be exposed to their tantrums as well.

[SwampG8r]

88. elitist

italian is better than chinese?
puhshaw i say and fie upon you
you are the worst form of bigot....the foodist for shame....shame i say

[NotThisTime]

53. My money is as green as any other, you disrespect my child you disrespect me and you will never get

my service. End of story. My children have been flying and fine dining since they were infants, only one time did we ever have a problem and that was the time we waited to bring the older child on an aircraft at the age of 1.5. By the time the youngest was four she could take a transatlantic flight and be the envy of every parent

[cherokeeprogressive]

6. So the owner wants the opportunity to choose who is allowed entry into his establishment.

Nope, no slippery slope there...

That's choice in its purest form.

[RegieRocker]

70. A choice to have KIDS.

[uppityperson]

113. I hope that was sarcasm.

If not, your name is ironic.

[cherokeeprogressive]

117. Of course it was.

I like to omit the sarcasm smilie. Keeps people on their toes.

[uppityperson]

121. Sometimes people surprise me and Du is something these days.

thanks.

[Wait Wut]

8. Yikes.

I see where you're going, but it's gonna hurt when you go off that cliff.

I remain neutral on this issue. I think both sides are misunderstanding the other.

[ixion]

9. I think all that stuff should be optional... kids, smoking, etc

It should be up to the business owner, and if someone doesn't like it, they shouldn't go there.

[Broderick]

10. I don't put it way up there in that realm

I say it is more people wanting to operate their business the way they see fit to cater to their perceived customer base.

Too many people want to jump from point A to point Z, but there are a lot of letters in between.


I harken it to the Bar scene. Do you want children in a bar? Do the bars cater to adults? Some establishments want to cater to adults.


Just my two cents.

[MADem]

11. In some cultures, there's no need to "ban" children, because adults with brains in their heads KNOW

that some venues are just not "right" for children. There's no need to 'ban' because self-enforcement holds sway.

Unfortunately, in North American society, a lot of people think it's just hunky-dory to drag their children everywhere, even to sophisticated venues that are plainly not suited. These parents lack judgment, and force business owners to look for ways to refuse to accomodate the children in order not to drive away their customer base--people with money who don't want to "dine" with the children of strangers screaming in their ears.

I like restaurants that have "back rooms"--you want to take your kids to a high end joint? You get shown to the soundproofed "back room" where there's a playroom for the kids and they can all scream and yell to their heart's content while the parents pay the same high prices and get to listen to their (and other) kids screaming and crying and fussing...but the people paying big money in the main room for a fine dining experience don't have to listen to the wailing and whining and spilling and fretting. It's a win-win!

[demmiblue]

12. Which business owners, Regie?

You are not being clear.

[RegieRocker]

83. That is the point. Once it becomes socially acceptable who will decide?

The business owner and his pocket book. I don't recall all my years of dinning this to be a major problem. Occasionally, yes, frequently no. Not enough for it to be an issue. I guess since I had kids I know the level of maturity one can expect from a infant or toddler. I tend to give allowances for that. That's me however.

[FLPanhandle]

14. I've stayed mostly out of this debate, but I think restaurants should have the right to ban children

It's their business and livelihood. If people demand child free environments and the owners get an uptick in business by providing it, great. People with children will go to places where owners and customers don't mind them.

[WinkyDink]

15. Well, I conclude then that you do not understand!

[demmiblue]

16. Interesting: PRO CHOICE

We are not stupid.

[drpepper67]

21. It's the only place I'd ever go if I lived near by.

I want to spend a relaxing meal conversing with adults. I wonder if the majority of children today have ever actually been indoors by the way they act.

One Sunday morning at an IHOP, two mothers just sat there talking while there 3 children ages 7, 5, and 3 years old literally ran back and forth ON the bench seat that goes the entire length of the back wall of the restaurant.

That is until the oldest one ran full steam into the youngest one. Sending him bouncing over the table and knocking over a chair before he hit the ground.

All three kids began screaming at each other. The mothers started screaming at each other...

Yes, I'd pay extra to go somewhere with no kids allowed.

[JoePhilly]

26. Wait ... You are upset about kids at an IHOP??????????

Is that a joke?

I thought this thread was about taking kids to nice restaurants.

IHOP????

IHOP is a restaurant who's main food group is a food intended for CHILDREN ... PANCAKES!!!!!

In your story, the problem wasn't the kids, eating pancakes that are made for KIDS, the problem was the PARENTS.

Regardless, IHOP is where I would take my kids to practice the right manners for nice restaurants.

I'd take them to IHOP after making sure they could handle McDonalds, but before taking them to TGIF.

[drpepper67]

28. I'm not upset. I was merely relating a story as an example of children's behavior.

Or parenting or lack there of.

[drpepper67]

30. Instead of a ban, just don't offer a kids menu or serve anything that requires ketchup.

[JoePhilly]

34. You might as well be arguing that kids were too loud at a Chucky Cheese.

Come on ... IHOP is a restaurant for kids, and grown ups who eat like kids.

The fact that some parents took their kids there, and then let them run wild, should not be a huge surprise ... and it really has no bearing on whether kids should be allowed to dine in nicer restaurants.

[drpepper67]

41. No one said kids should be banned from IHOP or Chuck E. Cheese.

I wasn't trying to make that comparison in any way.

I'm saying that if a restaurant near me banned kids, I'd go there.

Then I related a true story of what I've personally seen kids in restaurants do to support my opinion of why I'd go there.

I would not go into McDonald's and expect a nice quite meal.

However, you mentioned Chili's and it reminded me of another real life experience.

Why in the hell would a parent have a birthday party for a 5 year old at Chili's at 9:00 PM?

Really?

And you're surprised that your kids are acting up by 9:30?

[Daemonaquila]

49. It SHOULD be a surprise.

That kind of bad parenting should not be considered the norm, nor should that kind of bad behavior. Your statement that it shouldn't be a surprise is proof that there is a HUGE problem with bad parenting and bratty kids, and it absolutely supports the need for a ban in certain venues.

[Daemonaquila]

32. YOU would, but not the mothers in the example.

There is nothing wrong with being upset about THOSE kids and THOSE parents at an iHop. Unlike you, the mothers were not helping the kids practice manners for a nice restaurant. They were ignoring undisciplined brats and making them everyone else's problem.

I would not support banning kids from a place like iHop. However, this example illustrates perfectly why nicer restaurants or other, more adult (and usually more expensive) venues would ban kids. It's disgraceful when idiot moms set up this kind of situation at iHop. It's unforgivable when they allow this kind of behavior in a theater production or other venue where people actually want to listen to what's going on, a restaurant where people spend extra money for great food and AMBIANCE, and so on.

It's discouraging when parents take this outraged stance whenever someone calls out bad behavior in ANY venue, rather than understanding why someone might find it atrocious, and helping demand accountability from parents who are creating the problem.

[JoePhilly]

35. Ahhh ... but you want my kids to not be allowed in a nicer

restaurant because some other parent does a crappy job?

I have no problem if some one calls out bad behavior of kids who are acting up ... go for it ... but when you try to expand that in a manner which impacts my kids, you have a fight on your hands.

As for bad behavior at the theater or other nice locations ... that is not a behavior that is isolated to kids. In fact, I have had mu experience in such venues disrupted far more by adults who are acting up, drunk, loud, rude ... so on.

And most venues have a policy for this .. if ANYONE is disruptive, they are asked to leave. Pretty simple. Could be a drunk, could be a kid who should not be there.

[Missy Vixen]

40. Actually, that's wrong

>And most venues have a policy for this .. if ANYONE is disruptive, they are asked to leave. Pretty simple. Could be a drunk, could be a kid who should not be there.<

I've watched people with unruly kids asked to control their kids' behavior. They react just like certain parties here - outraged, pulling the "discrimination" card, etcetera. In other words, they have no intention of removing the problem, and they'll scream at the top of their lungs until the restaurant manager, etcetera, either backs down or apologizes for daring to stand up for the other patrons.

The rest of us don't care to get into it with OUTRAGED parents who are in the wrong in the first place. If the restaurant, theater, concert hall, bar, R-rated movie, whatever, doesn't have accommodation for kids, get a sitter or stay home.

[drpepper67]

44. Thank you!

[JoePhilly]

48. Then your problem is with the OWNER of the establishment.

They have rules about disruptive behavior of ANY kind, and they need to enforce those.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

76. And if they did, we'd have another article here about some parent....

...whining and crying that they were discriminated against by getting kicked out of the restaurant, saying their kids "weren't that bad" and of course at least one would be autistic......and the same people who think a brat ban is wrong would be moaning and groaning hoping they "sue the pants" off the owner and that people should get over screaming kids.

[Daemonaquila]

43. Exactly.

Yes, I don't want your kids, if they're under a certain age, in a nice place, because of other parents' crappy parenting. I don't care if you or anyone else thinks you're an exception.

My favorite example of parental entitlement was a woman I worked with who had a 9 year old daughter. We have several dozen theaters in town. ONE of them, a cinema cafe that serves wine and beer, bans all kids under a certain age even for showings at times when the liquor laws don't allow sales. She took the kid to see Harry Potter when it was released, but she wanted to go to that one and only theater where her daughter wasn't allowed. When she whined about it at work, saying it isn't fair because her daughter is such a little angel, EVERYONE, including the other parents, told her to suck it up. Even other parents told her they go to that theater to AVOID other people's kids, and understand why they shouldn't expect to bring their own.

Sadly, we've reached a point where trying to police everyone individually no longer works. A manager running ragged through a theater telling parents to take their kids out until they've stopped crying will do as much disruption as the crying. Parents have such an exaggerated sense of self-importance and entitlement that if a manager tries to eject someone whose kid is throwing sushi across a restaurant, they'll act out so much themselves that the sushi-throwing will seem like nothing. Managers and staff have much better things to do than try to eject today's entitled, bratty parents, have those parents cause a fuss, have to call the cops to resolve things, etc. Just banning them in the first place is a great answer, and actually gets the job done of creating some peace for them and their customers.

[JoePhilly]

50. And profiling Muslims, and African Americans is still wrong ... right?

The right wing makes the same arguments you make.

There are "some people" who are bad. And we can look at them and know who they are.

And so, rather than deal with people as individuals, we should profile them. And if they fit a type, then we should treat them differently.

That's what you just advocated.

Even if you don;t realize it.

[drpepper67]

51. Why can't Adults enjoy a nice quite meal?

Is that so much to ask?

Give me the choice.

If no one goes there, the restaurant will end the ban, right?

But I'm guessing that it will hard to get a table on Friday night.

[lumberjack_jeff]

36. It is one thing to exclude kids because the place is not developmentally appropriate.

It's something else to do so because they want to turn the country into Vulgaria

[Union Scribe]

46. You know, I don't have kids. I don't want kids. I don't even get along with kids.

But sometimes when I'm reading DU I feel like Dr. Friggin' Spock compared to some of you.

[pipi_k]

52. Sounds like...

Pro choice to me, too.

The person owns the business. He gets to say who's welcome and who isn't.

Just like when a couple get married. Their wedding. If they don't want kids at their wedding, then they'll say so in the invitations and it's rude of people to bring their kids.

And if it's someone's home and they don't want kids or dogs or smokers or drinkers or whatever...their home, their choice.


And people with kids can choose to get a sitter for them or stay home.

:7

[cwydro]

61. I agree.

No idea why people get so upset over this issue.

Plenty of places cater to families with children.

[tammywammy]

67. +1 n/t

[Whisp]

68. when I want to out for a nice dinner, I leave the possible screaming kids at home.

I have no idea why this is such a big deal of ageism or wot wot. It's just common sense.

[MS68]

69. Baby in a nice restaurant

I have some friends who are college educated professionals with a good dual income and decided to bring their one month old to a very nice downtown restaurant on a lake. The restaurant is well known for a romantic atmosphere. She mentioned that he cried the whole time and they felt "bad" for the other patrons, but apparently not bad enough to leave.

She has family in town and they can afford a sitter, but apparently, for some reason, they felt the need to go to that restaurant THAT NIGHT.

Of course, I would not blame a one month old for crying and I certainly wouldn't call it a brat. I don't think it's fair for patrons to have to spend even 5 minutes listening to it, and it's not fair to put the restaurant in the position of having to ask them to leave. There are many people that can only afford to go to places like that for special occasions like an anniversay. They should have to deal with that on their one night out because these people can afford to go any time they want but are too lazy or inconsiderate to get a sitter?

I was appalled. I'm totally for a restaurant like that banning young children, at least after 7:00 pm. They can bring their young kids out for an earlier dinner.

[prayin4rain]

91. yeah, i think after 7:00 is good compromise. n/t

[Iggo]

73. Nice post, Rand Paul.

;-)

[RegieRocker]

79. You've have that reversed in your mind. I'm for Pro Choice,

however I find it ironic that any Pro Life would not think this is wrong. Same ol hypocrisy. Once this starts and it is socially acceptable as it seems on du, where is the line drawn?

[Iggo]

84. So is Rand Paul.

He thinks it's okay if business owners choose to not serve black people.

[RegieRocker]

128. Babies, black people and the list goes on with the complete

acceptance of most.

[Shagbark Hickory]

75. I've decided that it's discrimination based on age.

[WinkyDink]

78. Really? You mean like how one must be of age to marry, sign contracts, drive, work certain jobs, buy

booze and cigarettes, enlist, gamble, legally consent to sex, .................?

[Shagbark Hickory]

80. Not analogous.

For one, you cannot go into one store and legally buy cigarettes if you are a minor and then go into another store and have it be illegal. If that were the case, you'd be on to something.

[RegieRocker]

81. The responses are a eye opener are they not?

[Shagbark Hickory]

82. It really comes as no surprise that crying/screaming children are unpopular.

What comes as a surprise is the lack of consistency when it comes to the message of equality and fairness.

[seabeyond]

85. that is my issue. i am a karma kinda gal. a believer with our actions we create the world we live

in. and the feel of this is just an escalation of non tolerance that is already so harmfully prevalent in our society today.

[pipi_k]

87. It has nothing to do with equality and fairness...

IMO.

It really disturbs me when people say that crying/screaming babies or children don't bother them.

http://askville.amazon.com/explain-instinct-works-simply-amazing-creatures-taught/AnswerViewer.do?requestId=6907263


"Consider human instincts, as corrupted as many of them have become. Instinct makes us sensitive to a baby's cry. This is why a baby's cry is almost impossible to ignore, unless you have become desensitized to it over time. For this reason you can be in a crowded restaurant with countless irritating noises but the one noise people can't get over is a crying baby. They can ignore all the other noises but not that baby. This is a survival instinct to enforce the desire of humans to care for their young. In the wild a baby mammal's needs are quickly met because a crying baby brings predators. In human civilization, the crying baby brings disapproving looks to the parent who is pressured to attend to the child's needs immediately. Our instincts (unaltered) forbid us to ignore that crying baby. We are biologically programmed to respond.".


I've seen some people rather proudly declare that they can ignore a crying or screaming baby. Not so sure it's something to be proud of...

[Shagbark Hickory]

89. Not all children scream in restaurants. Not all babies cry in movies.

Ban all children, the vast majority of which are well-behaved or have considerate parents to remove them when they get out of control. And those that aren't well-behaved which will never learn propert restaurant etiquette.

Hell of a plan.

Here's an idea. How about ban adults who are overly sensitive to disruptive children. It's not a library. It's not an operating room. It's a restaurant. Where the clanking of pots and pans, loud laughter and lots of people talking all at once are very commonplace.

[pipi_k]

97. That's true, but...

along the same lines, not all German Shepherds, Rottweilers, or Pit Bulls are vicious, but many insurance companies won't insure homeowners who own one of those breeds. But just about everyone who owns one of those breeds (plus a few others) must pay for the actions of a few. My homeowners insurance won't cover dog bites inflicted by my dogs (GSD), should that happen, so if my dogs ever injured someone, I would be responsible. And that's how it is.


Let me recap on the information I posted previously...

We are programmed to be disturbed by the screams or cries of the very young.

To insist that there must be something wrong with people who find such noise disturbing on a gut level is ridiculous.

We have NOT been programmed to be disturbed by regular dining room or kitchen noise. We HAVE been programmed to be disturbed by the sounds of a crying/screaming baby or toddler.


I still think there is something not right about people who can just ignore the distress cries/screams of one of their own species.

[Shagbark Hickory]

99. Loud laughter and speaking loudly on mobile phones are more common than the occasional

crying baby. At least at the kinds of places I eat at.

Perhaps it's all in my programming as you put it. Perhaps I was programmed correctly?
Kind of ironic. My mother freaks out at the sight of a baby in a restaurant. If one so much as makes the faintest squeak. "OH NO! HERE WE GO... TAKE THE KID OUT #$@!%" And she'll carry on and on.

Oh and I don't know that I'd go writing civil rights legislation based on what insurance companies do.

[pipi_k]

101. Loud laughter and talking on cellphones...

I see that as a whole other thing completely.

Laughter doesn't equate to distress. The loudness of it, yes...it can be annoying if people at another table are trying to talk, but laughter itself isn't a distress sound.

Loud talk on cellphones...still not disturbing on a gut level, although it's very annoying and I personally tend to think the person guilty of it is a major asswipe. Or hard of hearing.


And I have to admit to thinking the same thing your mom does when I see kids or babies in a restaurant...oh no...!!!!!

But there have been times when I've been pleasantly surprised by how quiet the babies/kids were. Or how quickly the parents responded to their child's needs or removed it to another spot for a while.

[Shagbark Hickory]

102. You can't tell the difference between a crying baby and a distress call?

You were serious about that?

[pipi_k]

120. Where did I write that?

A crying baby IS a distress call.

Babies don't generally cry when they're feeling great.

[saras]

131. I think you've nailed why this debate can't be settled

The people who are capable, for whatever reason, of simply tuning out human distress calls, are, for some reason, extremely insistent that all the rest of develop that ability, or inability, regardless of its appropriateness.

[seabeyond]

90. i am pulled by crying babies, yes. the problem here is the few get all children labeled.

it is what we are doing in all things. instead of saying the fundamentalist are the few christians with the loudest mouth, we declare all christians to be the aboration of the few. minority of poor take advantage of the system. the majority just uneducated, underemployed or fighting tough work envirnoment. but, they are all painted as welfare queen. the minority of women use men for their money. all women use men for money. a few islamic extremist want to kill others, ergo we must ban all muslims. a few people try to blow up an airplane ergo we must treat ALL people as criminals and violate their constitutional rights.

it is intolerance. instead of saying what a bitch, there is an out of control child, we say, children are brats and we dont want them in our space.

the position here, is the owner would take responsibility of his business and eject the worst offenders that are really a problem.

that people not hear a child laugh and say see see, that child is disrupting my dinner. cause really it is not a big deal

that people wont see a child walk into a restaurant and say.... OMG, a brat. the breeder dared to bring that animal in my space.

it never makes sense that we punish the whole for the few. ever. that makes no sense to me. that is a bottom line, basic, offensive approach to life. i can not do it.

[pipi_k]

100. I agree that...

it's not right to label all children as "brats".

Some are very well behaved. I've had the pleasure of being in restaurants where such children were.

And yes, it's not fair that the many get punished because of the few...but often the waitstaff don't have the authority...or don't want to...ask a family to bring the screaming kid outside. Especially if the weather is bad.

Sometimes the managers might hope that the family will just finish up quickly and leave. And often they might think that if nobody complains, people must be OK with it. I've rarely seen anybody complain. They'll sit and stew or cast nasty glances over at the family, but nobody complains. Just once I'd like to see someone yell out for the parents to take the kid outside and let him scream in the car.

[WinkyDink]

118. Oh, please. No shoes, no shirts, no service. Yet it's okay in beach towns, right?

[LanternWaste]

93. I'm often lectured that prohibition never works.

I'm often lectured without qualifiers that prohibition never works.

Maybe this one will... maybe this prohibition will be more popular than others. :shrug:

[Blasphemer]

98. I'm honestly surprised this is such a "hot" topic

Legally, there is no issue. A business owner does not have to treat a 5 year old in the same manner as a 35 year old. As far as a ethical or moral issue, I don't see the problem. As a person without children, I would have no problem with a business being "Family only". Cruiselines have singles cruises, gay and lesbian cruises, etc. Certain business serve families almost exclusively without calling themselves a "Family only" establishment. This is a non-issue. No one cares if Chuck E. Cheese is a family entertainment venue. Why would anyone care if certain venues are Adults-only? It does not have to be about "hating" children just catering to specific clientele. I've been to restaurants many times where I hear raunchy conversations coming from neighboring tables. Maybe adults on a night out don't want to have to censor themselves if they happen to be seated near young children? I think there is a lot of touchiness about children being labeled brats. I can honestly say that I have been in precious few situations where ill-mannered children ruined my enjoyment or inconvenienced me in any way. I have been in situations where obnoxious parents have done so. There was a post in the original thread hypothesizing that the parents were more of an issue than the children. I think that is exactly right. Some parents may have an issue because their behavior is called into question moreso than their children's.

[slackmaster]

106. I think many among us must live in small communities where Applebee's is the hottest night spot

Or something.

[L0oniX]

109. So fucking what ...ya can't take them to a bar either but ya ain't b*tchin about that R ya!

Only a fool would have kids today anyway. They will have to do without a lot of the things we take for granted now. They will have to grow food and do reclamation for clean water. That is their future ...a very harsh life of hard work in a polluted environment with dwindling unsustainable resources.

[slackmaster]

110. The absence of children, teenagers, and dogs all make bars among my favorite places to be

:toast:

[L0oniX]

111. Strippers can also make a bar a favorite place to be.

:evilgrin:

[Prometheus Bound]

132. Oh dear. I have a two-week old. Why didn't you tell me this 10 months ago!

[WinkyDink]

119. Some establishments' being "Adults Only" is not a Civil Rights/Age Discrimination issue.

[Lucian]

127. There are many places where kids shouldn't be allowed.

And I really hope to see more businesses doing this.

[jobycom]

129. Yeah. Reading this thread makes me think of one.

:rofl:

[Iggo]

130. Ha!

:rofl:

[Chan790]

133. Can I get a child-free movie theater?

Maybe they could serve beer too...I don't drink but I think the margins would be better and I'd no longer have to pay $6 for $0.40 worth of popcorn there.

(I wouldn't mind so much but I like R-rated movies and when my enjoyment of such is disturbed by bored or rambunctious 7 year olds in the age-restricted movie I think we've failed as a society.)

[LizW]

136. They exist. You pay a premium.

My 19 yo son is working an internship this summer in a different city from where we live. He lives in an apartment alone, works on a military installation, has a security clearance, supports himself, but can't go in the fancy movie theater close to his apartment because he isn't 21. He doesn't mind that much because it costs $15 to get in the door. He prefers the dollar movie anyway.

Our local theater here in town bans kids under 17 after 8:00 p.m., no matter what is showing. I think it's a dumb practice, considering how movie theaters are struggling, but apparently they find there is enough demand for kid and teen-free movies.

[BiggJawn]

139. Jeebus. We still fighting over this?

Come Tuesday morning, nobody, kids or not, will have the money to go out anywhere.

[jobycom]

140. I've been away six months, and I think this is what they were fighting over when I left.

:rofl: It's funny, in that "Jesus H Christ!" sort of way.

[BiggJawn]

141. Come to think of it, they were fighting over this when I last got fed up and left in '04...

:P