Sticksboi05 Posted July 18, 2011 Share Posted July 18, 2011 Good, if so many parents aren't willing to at least ATTEMPT to keep their kids in line then sayonara. Note the key word there is attempt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted July 18, 2011 Share Posted July 18, 2011 I'd claim equal rights but Chucky Cheese's fills that gap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarrellsMyHero28 Posted July 18, 2011 Share Posted July 18, 2011 In VA, you can have smoking inside as long as its in a separate section of the restaurant. I am SO glad you can't smoke inside in VA anymore, as someone with allergies it was miserable to go into a bar. I have no problem with having a smoking section that is legitimately separated from the rest of the place so that we can all enjoy it and I can go into the smoking section if I so choose but if you want to smoke I shouldn't have to suffer by being around you. Plus, second hand smoke can give you cancer. Obnoxious kids will give you a headache at most. Apples and oranges. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sticksboi05 Posted July 18, 2011 Share Posted July 18, 2011 In VA, you can have smoking inside as long as its in a separate section of the restaurant. I am SO glad you can't smoke inside in VA anymore, as someone with allergies it was miserable to go into a bar. I have no problem with having a smoking section that is legitimately separated from the rest of the place so that we can all enjoy it and I can go into the smoking section if I so choose but if you want to smoke I shouldn't have to suffer by being around you.Plus, second hand smoke can give you cancer. Obnoxious kids will give you a headache at most. Apples and oranges. Seriously, do you people not see the difference? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarrellsMyHero28 Posted July 18, 2011 Share Posted July 18, 2011 Seriously, do you people not see the difference? I have no idea why people brought up smoking. There is literally zero comparison. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieselPwr44 Posted July 18, 2011 Author Share Posted July 18, 2011 Because smoking is illegal in some states indoors. Plenty of comparison here. It's OK for a business to decide who they will serve and it's OK to alot of people here...unless you happen to be a smoker and then it should be outlawed. Why not outlaw kids under six in all restaurants? Both groups have been classified as annoying and a major distraction to the public, so what's good for the goose is good for the gander, right? don't several states outlaw smoking inside food establishments now? i guess that would answer that question. it's outlawed. I have no idea why people brought up smoking.There is literally zero comparison. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
endzone_dave Posted July 18, 2011 Share Posted July 18, 2011 The restaurant owner is in PA. My four year old daughter is much more pleasant and has better manners than any Phillies or Eagles fan that I've been around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveMason Posted July 18, 2011 Share Posted July 18, 2011 The restaurant owner is in PA. My four year old daughter is much more pleasant and has better manners than any Phillies or Eagles fan that I've been around. Haha. Well done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spaceman Spiff Posted July 18, 2011 Share Posted July 18, 2011 I think it's pretty awesome. I'd gladly visit his restaurant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McD5 Posted July 18, 2011 Share Posted July 18, 2011 If only he owned a movie theater too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarrellsMyHero28 Posted July 18, 2011 Share Posted July 18, 2011 Plenty of comparison here.It's OK for a business to decide who they will serve and it's OK to alot of people here...unless you happen to be a smoker and then it should be outlawed. Why not outlaw kids under six in all restaurants? Both groups have been classified as annoying and a major distraction to the public, so what's good for the goose is good for the gander, right? No. Second hand smoke can give you CANCER. Kids are just annoying. This is not a thread about the government getting involved with private business. Its about a private business exercising their right to refuse service to whomever they choose. You really think we should make it illegal for businesses to refuse service to people? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hubbs Posted July 18, 2011 Share Posted July 18, 2011 I have no idea why people brought up smoking.There is literally zero comparison. Seriously, do you people not see the difference? Seriously, do you people not see that you're focusing on the wrong thing? If you honestly think that Diesel was trying to say that obnoxious kids are as bad as cancer, then you don't understand his point. He's talking about whether or not a restaurant owner should be allowed to establish what is and isn't allowed inside his own restaurant. If an owner decides he wants to open his restaurant to smokers, he knows that he'll be losing some non-smoker customers in the process. Nobody's forcing you to go to a restaurant that allows smoking. If you're that concerned, go eat someplace else. ---------- Post added July-17th-2011 at 09:04 PM ---------- No.Second hand smoke can give you CANCER. Kids are just annoying. Good God man, you mean the CANCER that secondhand smoke could cause is in ALL CAPS? That must mean that you're somehow powerless to avoid entering a restaurant with smokers! After all, it's not just that it can cause cancer, it's that it can cause CANCER. This is not a thread about the government getting involved with private business. Its about a private business exercising their right to refuse service to whomever they choose. Irony circuits... overloading... can't... control them... brain... reaching critical mass... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarrellsMyHero28 Posted July 18, 2011 Share Posted July 18, 2011 Seriously, do you people not see that you're focusing on the wrong thing?If you honestly think that Diesel was trying to say that obnoxious kids are as bad as cancer, then you don't understand his point. He's talking about whether or not a restaurant owner should be allowed to establish what is and isn't allowed inside his own restaurant. If an owner decides he wants to open his restaurant to smokers, he knows that he'll be losing some non-smoker customers in the process. Nobody's forcing you to go to a restaurant that allows smoking. If you're that concerned, go eat someplace else. Totally disagree. Restaurant owners should be able to refuse service. They own the property, banning them from banning people would be ludicrous. My point was that the comparisons are outrageous because you can't just have a "Smoking Section" due to the fact that smoke wafts around unless, as under current VA law, they're totally separated by a door/its on another level and there's proper ventilation. There wasn't a single bar in VA that wasn't smoky as hell (that I'd been to) before they passed the law. I'd prefer to be able to go and have a drink, play pool and watch sports without worrying about smoke. I hate cigarette smoke, but I don't hate smokers. I shouldn't have to be subject to second hand smoke. Its not like there were only a few places where people were smoking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corcaigh Posted July 18, 2011 Share Posted July 18, 2011 If the obnoxious kid is smoking, is it OK then? Ban kids, smokers and cell phones. And blowhards talking too loud. Let us enjoy our meal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hubbs Posted July 18, 2011 Share Posted July 18, 2011 Totally disagree.Restaurant owners should be able to refuse service to whomever they choose. They own the property, banning them from banning people would be ludicrous. Um... how in the world does that mean you disagree? That's exactly my point. Restaurant owners should be able to set the rules for their own establishments. If they want to say children aren't allowed, then children aren't allowed. If they want to ban smokers, they can ban smokers. But it seemed as though a couple people were saying that restaurant owners shouldn't be allowed to allow smokers. That's complete hypocrisy. My point was that the comparisons are outrageous because you can't just have a "Smoking Section" due to the fact that smoke wafts around unless, as under current VA law, they're totally separated by a door/its on another level and there's proper ventilation. There wasn't a single bar in VA that wasn't smoky as hell (that I'd been to) before they passed the law. I'd prefer to be able to go and have a drink, play pool and watch sports without worrying about smoke. Okay, now you're just losing me. What comparisons were outrageous? All I've seen in this thread is someone making the point that if restaurant owners can choose whether or not to allow kids, they should also have the right to choose whether or not to allow smokers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HighPlainsDrifter Posted July 18, 2011 Share Posted July 18, 2011 You wouldn't have to be subjected to the secondhand smoke if you simply avoided restaurants that allowed smoking, and patronized those that do not allow it instead. Kinda how I would go to a place that didn't allow children before I would hit up Chucky Cheese's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarrellsMyHero28 Posted July 18, 2011 Share Posted July 18, 2011 Um... how in the world does that mean you disagree? That's exactly my point. Restaurant owners should be able to set the rules for their own establishments. If they want to say children aren't allowed, then children aren't allowed. If they want to ban smokers, they can ban smokers. But it seemed as though a couple people were saying that restaurant owners shouldn't be allowed to allow smokers. That's complete hypocrisy.Okay, now you're just losing me. What comparisons were outrageous? All I've seen in this thread is someone making the point that if restaurant owners can choose whether or not to allow kids, they should also have the right to choose whether or not to allow smokers. Now I'm confused. I'm saying that people should be able to ban whoever they choose. Smokers, kids, people with cellphones, people who chew loudly, whatever. I read that people were upset about states banning smokers, which I have no issue with...especially the way VA has done it. You can still smoke indoors, but people should be able to go into a bar and enjoy their meal/drink/whatever without being exposed to smoke. The smokers can go to the smoking section, where its ventilated and the smoke won't come out to where I am. ---------- Post added July-17th-2011 at 09:13 PM ---------- You wouldn't have to be subjected to the secondhand smoke if you simply avoided restaurants that allowed smoking, and patronized those that do not allow it instead. Kinda how I would go to a place that didn't allow children before I would hit up Chucky Cheese's. When smoking was allowed, I never ever found a bar that didn't allow smoking. I was literally unable to find one to patronize. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bubble Screen Posted July 18, 2011 Share Posted July 18, 2011 Sounds like my kind of place. ---------- Post added July-17th-2011 at 09:50 PM ---------- Beats me. I'm not a smoker, but I was all kinds of pissed off when North Carolina banned smoking from restaurants. Non-smokers are among the biggest pains in the ass in the world and I'm ashamed to be a part of them sometimes. Really, blue...really? ---------- Post added July-17th-2011 at 09:54 PM ---------- If only he owned a movie theater too. :applause: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew_Fl Posted July 18, 2011 Share Posted July 18, 2011 Plenty of comparison here.It's OK for a business to decide who they will serve and it's OK to alot of people here...unless you happen to be a smoker and then it should be outlawed. Why not outlaw kids under six in all restaurants? Both groups have been classified as annoying and a major distraction to the public, so what's good for the goose is good for the gander, right? The people you're quoting, including myself, were just answering the question. We didn't comment on if it should or shouldn't be outlawed, just why owners do not advertise such a place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redskinss Posted July 18, 2011 Share Posted July 18, 2011 am i the only one who sees this as discrimination, there not saying if your kid is too loud or annoying they will throw you out, there saying that there not allowed all together. other people in this thread have used analogies of loud chewing or cell phones but those are all things that can be avoided and you are still allowed in. I mean this is a slippery slope, how many things could we ban kids from cause we dont like them or dont want to be bothered. or are we going to stop at just restaurants? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bubble Screen Posted July 18, 2011 Share Posted July 18, 2011 Why is this even a story? I mean, like others have said, if you don't like their policy then go somewhere else! Like, if some place DID offer smoking I wouldn't step foot in their establishment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MissU28 Posted July 18, 2011 Share Posted July 18, 2011 If only he owned a movie theater too. There should be 21 and up movie theaters. The most annoying movie patrons are teenagers. am i the only one who sees this as discrimination, there not saying if your kid is too loud or annoying they will throw you out, there saying that there not allowed all together.other people in this thread have used analogies of loud chewing or cell phones but those are all things that can be avoided and you are still allowed in. I mean this is a slippery slope, how many things could we ban kids from cause we dont like them or dont want to be bothered. or are we going to stop at just resteraunts? It's a private business. It's not government controlled. You want to bring your kid to dinner, go somewhere else. Not discrimination at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Special K Posted July 18, 2011 Share Posted July 18, 2011 So with those responses, let me ask this question:Then why isn't it ok for the owner of a resturant to advertise that his restaurant is smoker friendly and let the people decide whether or not to patronize his business? 1. Smoking indoors is outlawed in many states. 2. The reason smoking indoors is outlawed is because it is a public health risk. Bratty children not being paid proper attention by their parents are not a public health risk, just an annoyance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipwhich Posted July 18, 2011 Share Posted July 18, 2011 I can't wait for MissU and Keastman to have children Carry on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#98QBKiller Posted July 18, 2011 Share Posted July 18, 2011 Good God man, you mean the CANCER that secondhand smoke could cause is in ALL CAPS? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.