Restaurant Bans Children Under 6

Rael

Banned
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
3,524
The free market at work...


It hasn't been a banner year for the under-6 set.

Starting July 16, McDain's, a Pittsburgh-area restaurant, will ban children under the age of 6 from its dining area. Restaurant owner Mike Vuick said the policy came in response to complaints he'd received from older customers about kids causing a ruckus. In an email to his clientele, Vuick wrote, "We feel that McDain's is a not a place for young children … and many, many times they have disturbed other customers."

A few weeks ago, Malaysia Airlines announced that it would ban infants from flying in the first-class cabin because other passengers had complained about squalling babies. And last February it was rumored that Virgin Atlantic and British Airways had been pressured to consider child-free zones and even child-free planes to appease business travelers who, according to a travel survey, listed unruly children as their No. 1 travel-related complaint.

SEE PHOTOS: Weirdest Drive-Thru Restaurants

So, just when did our precious "pets" become everyone else's pet peeves? Are these bans even legal? Apparently yes. Federal law forbids discrimination on racial or religious grounds, but there is no blanket protection for children. For business owners like Vuick that means they can set the rules.
Underage ER Visits Spike on Holiday Weekends Watch Video
Spanking Debate: Real-Time Study of Effects Watch Video
Researchers Record Parents Spanking Children Watch Video

For his part, Vuick said it's all about keeping his customers happy – the older ones anyway. McDain's is a small restaurant that seats 40 people. It's nestled on a golf course, so it's natural that the casual eatery caters to an older clientele. Vuick said, "We have had lots of older people complaining, and the parents refuse to do anything about their kids' behavior. They just ignore it."

Unruly behavior is exactly what recently infuriated Kristen Johnston of 3rd Rock from the Sun fame. According to the website TMZ, Johnston stalked off an L.A.-bound flight because Nadya Suleman (Octomom) could not or would not control her kids who were acting up in business class.

Christopher Elliott a consumer advocate and author of the syndicated Travel Troubleshooter column, said that although the "kids or no kids" debate on airplanes has been around forever, something has changed. "The way airlines feel about kids has changed. Air travel has gone from being an experience to [something] commoditized. A seat is a seat is a seat. … By and large you're just self-loading cargo, and that includes your children," said Elliott.

In a tough economic climate airlines – like restaurant owners – want to cater to their best clients, which happen to be business travelers, not babies. "The case for getting rid of kids in first class is actually fairly solid. … When you're dealing with lie-flat seats and Champagne, a child is not going to fully appreciate that anyway," said Elliott. But the father of three adds, "I think how a society treats its children is important, and getting rid of kids entirely is a whole different discussion."

Certainly the Pittsburgh-restaurant owner's decision to ban kids has caused a stir online. Moms have been weighing in on various mommy blogs expressing their outrage and insisting that Mike Vuick will likely rue the day he closed his doors to kids. "If said restaurant can afford the loss in money, then go for it. I don't care to go where I'm not welcomed," wrote one commenter on CafeMom.

Perhaps McDain's is taking a page the case of Old Salty's in North Carolina. Last year, the seaside restaurant posted a sign in its front window that read "No screaming children allowed." And shortly thereafter, there was a storm of negative media coverage. So, how's business these days? According to the daytime manager, business has actually increased. "People know they can come in and enjoy their dinners quietly. They always comment on the sign and take pictures and tell us "I love your sign." The only ones who seem to get upset are the ones who don't control their children."
 
+1 for that. No offense towards children, but the high-pitched screeching/crying is one of the most irritating sounds I can think of. It's the last thing I want to hear when I go to a nice restaurant to relax.

Not to mention, all free market discrimination should be legal.
 
I approve.

If there are people who are upset over this, they can protest and boycott and get others to join in.

If it starts costing the restaurant/airline business, they will reverse the policy.
However, in the airline's case, I'm sure they'll come up with a way to appease those with children.
 
Good for them. A private business has a right to refuse service from anyone, it's their property.

I'd approve of this ban at more restaurants, or at least a screaming child ban, I really hate going out the few times that I do eat out and having kids running around and playing while their parents sit and do nothing.
 
Good for them. A private business has a right to refuse service from anyone, it's their property.

I'm pretty sure the government disagrees with that statement. If I can't ban muslims or blacks from my business, I shouldn't be able to ban kids.
Of course this isn't gonna change, since it would affect all those age-restricted communities. And old people vote.
 
I would absolutely run to a restaurant with good food and no children in evidence :) It's not even that parents take their ill-behaved devilspawn out to dinner; that's fine. It's that they take them to boring restaurants where the service is incredibly slow from a child's perspective. Kids want to get their food/drink and get going. They might be cowed by those placemats and crayons, but they are ticking timebombs.
 
I personally would not likely patronize a restaurant that didn't allow young children, but I wholeheartedly endorse their right to discriminate.

Then again, I'm the sort of radical libertarian that thinks restaurants and other businesses should be able to refuse service to anyone for any reason. I wouldn't patronize a restaurant that banned black people... but I think they ought to be allowed to make that decision.
 
I would have no problem eating at a restaurant that banned young children, although I would certainly not go to a restaurant that banned people of certain ethnicities, etc.. Obviously they want to create an atmosphere for older people (in this case) and in other cases I have heard of similar rules in very nice upscale restaurants where people bring their dates.
 
Good for the owner.
It is highly annoying to want to go out and have a nice, relaxing dinner.. And then the four year old three booths over starts screaming because mommy won't let him stand in his chair or order icecream or whatever the problem is. Worse when they neglect to do anything about it and simply ignore the child's tantrum.

There are plenty of owners who would never implement this kind of policy, and that's fine, too. But if I do not have children with me, given the choice between a place that allows children and one that does not, assuming they are equal in every other way, I am likely to choose the latter to purchase my meal at.
 
I love it.

Their clientele will be happy and it gives a great opportunity for another restaurant to brag about catering to children under 6. If its controversial/unethical, people should be welcomed to protest which will cut into their profits/put them out of business.
 
Last edited:
I would absolutely run to a restaurant with good food and no children in evidence :) It's not even that parents take their ill-behaved devilspawn out to dinner; that's fine. It's that they take them to boring restaurants where the service is incredibly slow from a child's perspective. Kids want to get their food/drink and get going. They might be cowed by those placemats and crayons, but they are ticking timebombs.


And one could argue that those ill-behaved devilspawn are the result of public schooling and the prohibition of physical discipline. If I had a nice restaurant, I’d try banning anyone under 12.
 
It's that they take them to boring restaurants where the service is incredibly slow from a child's perspective. Kids want to get their food/drink and get going. They might be cowed by those placemats and crayons, but they are ticking timebombs.

Thats incredible insight.

Are you under 6? :D
 
Last edited:
I don't see how anyone could possibly be upset about this. I don't see how it's newsworthy either. Hasn't this already been happening for a long long time at more alcohol-oriented restaurants?
 
I don't see how anyone could possibly be upset about this. I don't see how it's newsworthy either. Hasn't this already been happening for a long long time at more alcohol-oriented restaurants?

That was my thought as well...I've never run in to this problem at all, but then again I wouldn't go to Dave & Buster's to get liquored up and hang out with adults.
 
I would have no problem eating at a restaurant that banned young children, although I would certainly not go to a restaurant that banned people of certain ethnicities, etc.. Obviously they want to create an atmosphere for older people (in this case) and in other cases I have heard of similar rules in very nice upscale restaurants where people bring their dates.

Is that just because of your personal discriminatory preferences?

Or, to phrase it another way, would I be considered a morally repugnant person if I wanted to eat dinner and not have all my fellow diners jabbering away in Spanglish?
 
Back
Top