| Topic: | Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Into the arms of Starbucks | |
| Posted by: | Tony Fredericks | |
| Date/Time: | 25/06/08 12:54:00 |
| So that brings us back to the market. The landlord in pub #2 probably wants the business from the parents and their kids, otherwise he or she would politely tell them where they can find a child friendly place (which is exactly what happens at the pub I mentioned a couple times). So what you're suggesting is that if a parent with a child goes into a place that doesn't have a kids menu, s/he should assume that the punters probably don't like kids and go somewhere else? I'm not trying to put words in your mouth again, I really don't understand why a landlord who welcomes (but doesn't necissarily encourage) children should turn away profit or a parent should not eat in a place which the owner says they're welcome. So no government involvement, the owner/landlord who has a right to make the establishment a child free place chooses not to.....who is responsible? I have a feeling you think it's the parents. No kids menu should mean stay away so grown-ups can have some peace and quiet, right? Anyway, as we are in a free market here, you can always open your own place and ban kids there. I know you'll get at least two customers from this forum on a regular basis. |