My wife came across this article about a heroic restaurant in Monroeville, Pennsylvania, that has chosen not to allow entry to children under 6. This is in response to inconsiderate, doltish parents who do not understand that some restaurants are for a quiet night out, and that not everyone in the world wants to hear their whiny, poorly raised kid scream like a savage all night.
But what can the title of the article — “Restaurant Bans Kids Under 6: Discrimination or Smart Move?” — mean? The word “discrimination” is so associated with p.c. regimespeak that the very utterance of it is supposed to shut down all discussion. But what can it mean here? “Discrimination” involves favoring some individuals or groups over other individuals or groups. Um, OK, but we already know that’s what this restaurant is doing: in order to enhance the dining experience for its adult customers, it is banning young children. How does it constitute an argument to take this practice and merely apply a scary-sounding label to it? What is that supposed to prove?
Naturally, the restaurant has every right to impose whatever policy it wants. We do not own the restaurant, so we do not have a “right” to take our screaming kids and ruin everyone’s evening. I’d love to hear the theory of rights that can make a coherent claim to the contrary.
Then we read: “It’s not illegal to ban kids from eating establishments, but some parents consider the move discriminatory, and potentially a violation of rights for certain special needs kids.” Again, what does it prove to say some parents consider the move “discriminatory”? That’s like saying some parents consider orange to be orange or a top hat to be a top hat. How is such a statement helpful? What does it prove? Is the practice good or bad? Does the restaurant have the right to do it or not? To heck with the scary propaganda words. Make an argument already.
The claim that the policy is a violation of “rights” does not merit a response; what version of natural rights claims that every human being has the natural right to bring his screaming kid onto someone else’s property? Spell it out for me, please.