Posted by Wyld_Roze on July 28, 2011, 1:39 am, in reply to "Re: Second Look"
None of these options discriminate against anyone so I do not understand the correlation to the discussion as a comfort item that excludes a group of people.
OMG, YOU are the one that entered the "comfort" view, I was just trying to correlate that into the debate.
Particularly the last part - families spending time at places geared for adults. I don't understand this either because places geared for adults would not allow children to be there. So I do not see how this correlates to the discussion if it cannot happen.
You are deliberately missing the point, since that point was on hypothetical situations anyway.
See I would agree with this if it was not geared towards people who do not have children and who do not want kids around. I understand the adult time thing believe me. If they were marketing say "a" restaurant as an option for parents to have a nice evening out alone and spend time together without the kiddos, that would be fine. But trying to assimilate an entire kid free option for people because someone just does not want to tolerate children? That is discrimination.
Well see, I take that as a slam against people who don't have kids. But that's the attitude isn't it. That you are expected to have kids by a certain age, and if you don't, you're somehow less of a person. Well, I don't believe that. Regardless if I have kids or not, it doesn't set the standard on what kind of person I am. Also, it doesn't mean I don't want kids around,or that anybody with or without doesn't want kids around, at least not full time. It means occasionally they don't want kids around. And you are no less of a person because you want a break from something, even kids, now and again.
What's the point of going to a restaurant without the kids, if there is one sitting right behind you? Where is the break in that? This isn't Star Trek and the Borg where they are trying to assimilate a world without kids, just one place.
We certainly could flip this and make that any people group that another does not want to tolerate. Imagine if it was the elderly we didn't want to be around or people of a different race or whatever - that would drip with discrimination, but because it is children - somehow it is looking like a different face.
The difference in an adult vs a child is very clear, it cannot be compared to people of a different race. If you are, then I would say you are the one who discriminates. If an adult acts out, then they should immediately be asked to leave because they know better. You wouldn't ask a 7 month old to leave because he laughed loudly, or an 18 month old to leave because they were squirming, their maturity level is different, and it isn't bad parenting to completely put an end to those behaviors, because they are just being kids. As for the elderly, well you go ahead and tell them you are comparing them to children.
I still say hold the parents responsible and not the kids. Set firm guidelines in your restaurants and places of business and if someone is disruptive to other customers, ask them to leave.
That should be in place regardless.
How would it make you feel if say you wanted to hang out with your mom and dad and this particular restaurant or this store did not allow anyone in it over 50 years old? Do you think this would skew societies view on this group of people being discriminated against - less important than others etc... How do you think this would make the parents of children feel? I mean they cannot help the fact that their kids are kids, but they can help the behavior factor.
It wouldn't bother me, as there are PLENTY of other stores or restaurants to go to. There are already apartment complexes and mobile home parks with age restrictions. And while kids may visit, it is still sort of frowned upon. If they do visit, they are confined to that apartment, and they aren't running around outside. Babies would be asked to leave because of the crying. It's not discrimination, it's that the residents want peace and quiet.
How would parents feel? I'm sure some would love to be able to go places that are kid free, especially stay at home moms. Can you imagine being able to get away from all kids for a little bit to go shopping or get something to eat? When they do have their little ones, I'm sure they would look at it the same way that they do a bar or a casino. There are just some places kids can't go.
Kids are kids. Which is the whole point. Let them be kids and let people who don't want to deal with them at the time, have another place to go. It doesn't make kids any less important, but they are still kids and kids have boundaries. They don't get to go to adult functions like office parties. They don't get to go to casinos or bars. They WILL get to, when they are older. When they have the maturity to go. They will also get to do things like go to R rated movies, vote, drink, get their license, or is that discriminating too? Is it also discriminating to give kids or seniors discounts? How bout people under 25 who have to pay more for insurance? I mean, how dare they!
on July 28, 2011, 1:39 am, in reply to "