RE: Restaurant bans kids, nearby chains and individuals virtue-signal about it immediately
I think it is unreasonable to punish all families because some kids are bad. But it's up to the business. I'm not sure it will be a net positive for them in the long run. I know that if I were bringing my well behaved child out to a restaurant and was told that wasn't allowed then I would be unlikely to take my business there again, with or without children. Seems like sort of the same logic as banning guns because some people are bad or banning alcohol because some people are alcoholics. Let's ban kids because some kids are bad.
On the other hand, if a child is causing a disturbance they need to be asked to leave.
But in all of my life, I can't think of one instance where I witnessed a child behave so badly that they should have been asked to leave (i.e. if there was a disturbance, the parent removed the child or got them under control quickly without being asked). But then I don't live in New Jersey. And now that I've said that, I've cursed myself to bad experiences every time I go out.
For sure. I suppose they weighed the options and thought they would be able to make it anyway.
The thing where you have never witnessed a child being so badly behaved that they were asked to leave has probably never happened because the staff were afraid to do this sort of thing. I worked in restaurants in the past where kids would cause absolute mayhem in the dining area and left a huge mess behind afterwards. I think if I were a parent I would probably do like you do and do something about it..
You are right that it is not fair that all people with children be banned for the actions of the few but what other choice do they really have? I suppose they could put up a sign that says that this sort of thing will not be tolerated and people will be asked to leave if it does but I can also see that situation getting wildly out of hand if the parents are also unruly.