sitter cancelled. couple took baby to $200 plus fancy pre.pay nonrefundable restaurant.

[Liberal_in_LA]

http://t.today.com/food/chef-grant-achatz-starts-twitter-debate-should-babies-be-banned-2D11918150



http://insidescoopsf.sfgate.com/blog/2014/01/14/should-babies-be-allowed-in-fine-dining-restaurants/

What started with a ponderous weekend tweet has now snowballed into a segment on Good Morning America (video above) and a national debate: Should babies be allowed in fine dining restaurants?

It’s a topic that the Chronicle’s Michael Bauer has tackled before (and former Voices contributor TJ Jacobberger also had some great thoughts on the subject on children in restaurants from a manager’s perspective), but after a couple brought a crying baby to Chicago’s 4-star Alinea when their sitter allegedly canceled, the debate has been rekindled.

Over the weekend, Achatz sparked the situation when he tweeted the following:

+see tweet at link+


The kids-in-restaurants debate is one of those restaurant-related topics that everyone — the industry, the public, the media — loves to chime in on, in part because it’s such a universal experience. But the case of Alinea (and many similar fine dining restaurants) presents a few new quandaries. It’s one thing to bring an ill-behaved baby to a pizzeria; it’s another thing to bring a baby to a restaurant where fellow diners are paying top dollar in a muted environment. As Achatz points out, he’s in the business of accommodation and hospitality, but when does the scale tip to look out for the other diners. Then, adding another wrinkle to the story, Alinea sells non-refundable tickets ($210-$265) to its diners; so, cancelling dinner when the sitter flakes suddenly becomes a pricey situation.

Alinea partner Nick Kokonas points out that they’ve had kids in the restaurant before, and the responsibility should fall upon the parents to manage the situation:

[mindwalker_i]

1. ...

Somebody give that baby a cell-phone!

[Chan790]

2. I've already tuckered myself out on this one...

so I'm just going to enjoy some

[Initech]

31. If you need more butter I've got plenty!

[Aerows]

80. Scooch over on the couch

I'll sit next to you since you have the butter

[Initech]

86. Regular, garlic, or movie theater?

[Aerows]

95. Mmmm garlic, please!

[hlthe2b]

3. I think there can be restaurants (or at least times) when only adults are served...

Most would still want to remain family-friendly, but I know if I spent that kind of money at that type of exclusive restaurant on dinner with my SO, I'd expect it to be sans crying babies. Just as those under drinking age are not allowed in bars.

That hardly means I think I-Hop and Perkins and all the other zillions of restaurants should restrict...I think most should be family-friendly and if I go there, I'd expect to be tolerant of any unhappy children and empathetic to their parents.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

21. Children shouldn't be allowed in IHOP either.

Only because, as one comedian put it, IHOP is a chain of dirty restaurants.

[JVS]

146. This is why I refuse to dine anywhere that doesn't have nude dancers.

Problem solved.

[JesterCS]

161. This is win ;)

JK, but ya. Kids are alright, as long as they are behaved. personally I like kids, but do not want any of my own, and I definitely believe in the "Children should be seen and not heard " addage

[global1]

4. If This Restaurateur Was That Concerned For His Other Guests He Could Have.....

made an exception to these folks with the crying baby and told them he would accommodate them again when they had a sitter at no extra charge. He could have given them their money back and made an exception on his non-refundable ticket policy.

I don't blame the parents on this one. Babies cry. Fact of life.

This restaurateur could have nipped this in the bud if he wanted to. Seems to me he was more interested in the almighty buck versus his other "paying" guests at his restaurant.

[Liberal_in_LA]

5. restaurant or couple would have been out $500. difficult choice

[Dorian Gray]

17. That restaurant is one of the hardest

to get into in the US. They could have refunded the couple and found someone on the wait list to take their spot.

I could understand why the couple wouldn't want to give up their spot.

[Ms. Toad]

129. The restaurant would not be out $500.

It was out only what it would have paid for the food and share of the staff's salary for that night.

It did not make the (likely) exorbitant profit it expected to - but that is not the same as being out $500.

And, as someone else pointed out, any restaurant which can get away with $250 non-refundable/non-cancelable meals can likely fill those spots with a trivial amount of work.

[KittyWampus]

89. AH! So all one has to do to get their non-refundable deposit back is feign an absent sitter.

Cause if you make an exception for one, you then are forced to do it for all.

I'd give a couple with a youngin' a chance and if noise or mess became an issue, they would be asked to leave and given their dinner in a to-go bag.

[begin_within]

118. This is dessert at Alinea:

I say let the baby have at it.

[Paulie]

120. Already looks like the baby's crashed the tray into the middle of the table

[begin_within]

130. It's supposed to be art, that you can eat

[goldent]

137. I think someone has already eaten it. n/t

[KansDem]

156. And it didn't agree with them. n/t

[Warren DeMontague]

153. As a Miró or Jackson Pollock, that would kick ass.

As something a human being can logistically be expected to eat, not so much.

[yellowcanine]

169. "Babies cry. Fact of life." Yes, that is why the baby should have not been there in the first

place. Sorry, the parents had a choice here. On an airplane or train, etc. parents may not have a choice. But fancy restaurant for dinner, concert, whatever - yes, they had a choice. As the old cliche says - "Your lack of planning is not my emergency."

[global1]

171. Look - It's A Matter Of Good Customer Service In My Mind.....

He could have pleased both these parents that because of circumstances they couldn't control had to bring the baby. Let's face it $500.00 is a lot of money to lose. He could have pleased the other paying customers that were in the restaurant that might have been offended by a crying baby.

If the proprietor thought that much of those customers - he could/should have very diplomatically went to the parents of the crying baby and said - "Look - I can't have a crying baby in here as it inconveniences my other guests. So here's what I'm going to do. I'm going to let you come back on some other date (without your baby) and you won't have to pay again. You won't lose any money."

IMHO - this proprietor didn't handle this correctly. Again he was motivated by the $'s instead of the customers.

Look at all the attention he's brought on to himself now.

I live in the Chicago area and I wouldn't go to his restaurant now just because of how he handled this. It suggests to me that he doesn't really care about his customers/patrons.

I know that there are others here that are cheering him on - because they don't like to be inconvenienced by a crying baby. I just appeal to those people - that the look at this situation as an issue of providing Good Customer Service.

Perhaps we should kick this situation up to the hosts of The Chew and see how they would handle this same situation. A couple of them have restaurants of their own.

[Glassunion]

174. The owners have several avenues for folks to sell or trade their tickets.

The owner refunding a table last minute would cost them money. Unlike most restaurants, this particular restaurant has a gigantic, well paid staff.

They have 2 seatings for dinner. Where is the owner supposed to find someone last minute to sit down for a 4-hour dinner consisting of about 25 courses? What exactly did the owner do wrong?

[global1]

179. I Guess We've Come To An Impass Here.....

You don't believe the owner did anything wrong and I can understand you feelings on that. I'm saying that the way this was handled - I wouldn't trade at his restaurant as I believe he doesn't care about his customers. Sometimes you do things for the longer term benefit.

In my mind I think he could lose future customers - because of the way this was handled. I guess an argument could be made that he has gained future customers - 1. because of all the notoriety this issue has brought to his restaurant. There's no such thing as bad publicity. Probably a lot of people learned of this restaurant and want to go there now because of its fine reputation of being one of the best in Chicago. Perhaps if this situation didn't occur - they would never had heard of this restaurant. I sure that there are others that don't like crying babies - that are applauding this guy for his handling of the situation.

I just don't happen to agree. I'm a proponent of Good Customer Service. Go out of your way to satisfy your customers. I gave a way that he could have satisfied both the customers that don't like crying babies and the parents - by diplomatically asking the parents of the crying baby to leave (thereby not having the annoyance of a crying baby for those customers that don't like crying babies) and not penalizing the parents for throwing them out and not refunding their money.

I guess I'm wrong - many people in this country are so used to bad customer service that they couldn't tell the difference between good and bad customer service. People just tolerate it now.

[Glassunion]

180. In your opinion the restaurant should just eat the loss?

$500 is a lot to lose when you have more full time staff than tables. The kitchen alone has one staff member per 4 tables. They have a floor staff of almost 1 to 1 table. You buy a ticket knowing that it is not refundable. Why all the outrage of not getting a refund?

[yellowcanine]

184. Granted, as a courtesy, yes. But the main fault still goes to the parents.

I am guessing first baby so maybe a little slack in in order. But OTOH by 8 months they ought to be a little more organized about how to take the kid outside the house. And not cut corners on child care when they want to have a nice evening out. My guess is they hired a cheapo inexperienced baby sitter without references (a MUST in today's world) and they got their money's worth. You are spending $500 + at a fancy restaurant, you can afford to pay the going rate for an experienced and professional baby sitter. An experienced and professional babysitter would have had a backup plan and experienced parents would have had a backup plan, which might be hiring a babysitter in the first place who is responsible enough to plan for coverage in the event of an emergency.

[cali]

6. Why on earth would you want to?? Even if your sitter cancelled.

How stressful. Hardly designed to be a relaxing wonderful dining experience.

[Liberal_in_LA]

9. forfeiting $500 hard to accept, i guess

[Blue_Tires]

16. If they're they type of couple who can drop $500+ on dinner

they're the type of couple who could handle the loss for a no-show with no problem...

And if the couple really wanted to, I'm guessing they could have easily sold their reservations to the next person on the waitlist

[Chan790]

20. Sold them for a profit possibly.

People buy these tickets to resell them at a markup, even though Alinea posts on their webpage that they will not honor tickets they believed have been scalped for profit.

The main reason for those scalp-sales is people who want tickets same day. Going scalp rate is ~$325, though on certain occasions I've heard of them going as high as $3k for a pair on Valentine's Day last year. Law of scarcity...it's the night everybody wants and there's only two seatings of 40 tables available.

[Blue_Tires]

23. $3,000 on Valentine's Day?!??

I just hope that after dinner the poor sap got his chance to set some new records in the Sex Olympics...

[Luminous Animal]

45. Why do you assume the man paid for the tickets

or even that he was the sole contributor to the expense.

[Blue_Tires]

48. Just playing percentages...I suppose they could have been a married couple

and split the cost....

But if they were dating, I just can't really see a NON A-list Hollywood couple saying "Let's go Dutch" on a $3,000 reservation...

[MattBaggins]

76. So the only thing you can see

is that the man paid and is therefor owed sex.

Stay classy as always

[Niceguy1]

144. especially

On Valentines day.

[bettyellen]

181. insulting and sexist assumptions.

[pnwmom]

64. It's probably not easy at the last minute. n/t

[OriginalGeek]

25. Most of the time, probably yeah

but I save up all year long to take my wife to a nice place on our anniversary. I've spent close to 300 bucks a couple times for just the two of us (Which I know isn't much in the grand scheme of things but it's a lot to me). SO I might have the scratch to go to a fancy dinner night out but it would hurt like a sunnuvvabitch to lose that money and not get fed.

Now, if they really could have sold their reservation then I think they should have done that. Luckily, my youngest is now 23 and I don't take the grandkids to anything fancier than Golden Corral so I'm unlikely to have to face that decision again.

But if I did get to go to a place as fancy as this and someone sitting near me ended up bringing their baby and it cried I have a hard time believing I would be grinchy enough to raise a stink about it. Hell, my wife would probably ask if she could hold the baby and get it quiet.

Babies gonna babe.

[VanillaRhapsody]

106. We now have smoke free restaurants...perhaps their should be designated child free zones..

what if this restaurant just decided that it's an all adult restaurant....should everyone else in that dining room have had to have their $500 anniversary meal "serenaded" by a baby "singing for you the songs of her people" that night?

[OriginalGeek]

115. Perhaps, but

on the night in question that was not the policy of this restaurant. Nobody in that restaurant that night was guaranteed a baby-free zone.

And besides, in the grand scheme of things, a baby crying is not an earth-shattering event. Parents can easily take their kid outside if it starts crying. I have little to no sympathy for people who can't put up with it for a couple seconds while they do. Every single one of them was a crying baby at some point.

[VanillaRhapsody]

123. Yes...but we should be more supportive of the choice not to have children...

saying everyone has to put up with whatever unruly behavior happens is unfair and demeaning to those that make that choice. Its why you are asked in certain places to turn off your cellphones....sometimes it does disturb others around you...not everything children do is always "cute". If every couple in that restaurant were celebrating their 50th Wedding Anniversary together...should they be subjected to a baby that cries the entire night? (and some do just that). What if the child in question acts like that holy terror Honey Boo Boo? If it causes a disturbance of their other patrons....should not the restaurant have the right to ask them politely to leave?

[OriginalGeek]

132. Absolutely

if the parents are not actively seeking to remedy misbehavior the restaurant has a right to make the most people happy however they see fit. I'm saying nobody should get their nipples in a twist if a kid is there or if the kid starts crying and the parents take the kid outside to deal with the problem. I never said anyone should have to put up with unruly behavior all night. But give folks a chance to deal with the issue and not have to blow their non-refundable deposit.

Babies don't behave like babies just to ruin other peoples' night. All I'm saying is there should be a process in place that allows parents to not have to lose hundreds of dollars.

A restaurateur is free to set most any policy he or she wants (within the law - I have no idea if children are a protected class) and, as long as everyone knows up front what the policy is, patrons can choose to go or pick some place else.

[pnwmom]

62. I'd rather take a chance with the baby than throw all that money away. n/t

[PeaceNikki]

67. But if you had tickets to the opera or a huge Broadway play, would you?

All of the other patrons paid full price for their tickets as well. This place isn't Red Lobster. It's a several hour long experience. Obviously the baby was miserable there as well.

The parents were incredibly rude and selfish. Many DUers get very upset about people who text during plays or movies and have supported destruction of property and violence as a retort to that. How is this ok and the other so egregious?

[pnwmom]

69. No, that's where I'd draw the line.

Conversations among people in a restaurant can be re-started if they're interrupted by some noise from a baby.

An opera, movie, or play cannot.

I rarely took a small child to a nice restaurant because I wanted to be able to relax. But I've never been disturbed by other people's children. As long as it's not my job to keep them quiet, I don't care about any noises they might make.

I have been at parties, though, where I wished some adults hadn't disturbed people by drinking too much.

[PeaceNikki]

70. So the patrons of this establishment are not deserving of the same respect?

And again, what about that child who was obviously miserable for several hours screaming?

Like I said, dining there is an experience and the ambiance is part of it. And anyone who buys tickets to that place knows it.

It was very rude.

[pnwmom]

71. Where does it say the baby was screaming for several hours? n/t

[PeaceNikki]

75. OK, I stand corrected. It's a several hour long experience and the baby cried at least some of that

time. That much we know.

It's still rude and selfish to the other patrons and the child.

[QC]

7. $200??? Wow! That place must be even fancier than the Olive Garden!

I wonder if they have Mama's Famous Ham Scampi?

[Squinch]

33. Not possible!

[goldent]

138. Well, they should have it, and it should be twice as big!

Probably they call it Big Mama's Famous Ham Scampi?

[QC]

162. One can hope!

[1000words]

8. "First world" problems

Non-refundable tickets to dine? Whatever ...

[get the red out]

10. Well that's true

I agree.

[hollysmom]

11. hey? did the kid have a ticket? n/t

[4Q2u2]

12. They should have

They should have let the baby breast feed from the Pit-Bull and all would have been good.

[frazzled]

13. You indeed can "exchange" tickets at Alinea (if someone wants them)

There are always people wanting to get a table at this restaurant: it's not just the top restaurant in Chicago; it's been considered the top restaurant in the United States for a number of years. It's got 3 Michelin stars and has been on the list of the world's top restaurants for seven years (I believe it was first one year.) People actually fly here just to eat at it. (Not something I would ever do, but hey.) And you'll spend more than the $210 to $265 for the meal, unless you drink just water. The wine pairings will drive the price up a lot more.

You buy your tickets in advance, and no, they are not refundable, and you can't change to another night. What you can do is go on the Alinea Facebook page and offer your tickets for sale. They'll likely get snatched up in less than 30 minutes, possibly less than 3 minutes. Then you log into your account on the Alinea site (which is how you bought the "tickets" in the first place) and transfer your tickets to the purchaser, so they have the official names. https://www.alinearestaurant.com/website/faq

I would never want to spend this kind of swag on a meal, and I don't even like this kind of food-as-theater concept (though we did splurge to eat at Achatz's other restaurant, Next, when it first opened: we bought "tickets" for our anniversary for a seven-course meal called Paris 1906; it cost $85 per person, which is more than we've ever spent, and it was actually a bargain. A truly memorable meal.)

I don't think it's confirmed that the people's sitter cancelled. It's just what everyone is assuming happened, or what the couple "said" happened. Maybe they just wanted to bring their baby. I think it's nuts, especially for the baby, who should be in bed at that hour. I would have been furious myself if I'd been a customer that night.

I am a firm believer that people need to just deal with babies on airplanes or anywhere else. I love them, and yeah, sometimes they cry. But they have as much right to fly as anyone else: people need to get places, and sometimes they have children. But I draw the line at concerts, where people have come to listen, or crazy fancy restaurants, for which patrons may have saved up for for an entire year to celebrate some special occasion. Leave 'em home.

But here's my favorite comment on L'Affaire Bébé: "Don't Ban Babies: Put Them on the Menu." That should keep indulgent parents away!

[Liberal_in_LA]

15. thanks for the background info

[redqueen]

24. Very well said.

And thanks for the details, too. I never knew meals could even be that expensive.

[MADem]

38. My sentiments exactly! Well said!!!!!! nt

[stevenleser]

68. If I was going to spend tons on a meal, I'd go to MASA's here in NYC. I'm a sushi fan

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/15/dining/reviews/masa-nyc-restaurant-review.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

This is the question that has attended Masa, the stupendously expensive sushi emporium in the Time Warner Center, ever since it opened in 2004. The food at the restaurant is exceptional, offering tastes and preparations that can be unforgettable.

Take one bite of expertly diced, top-grade fatty bluefin tuna tartare cloaked in an equal measure of osetra caviar and discover a central truth: Masa, owned and operated by the chef Masayoshi Takayama, is one of New York’s peak culinary indulgences.

That bite comes at some cost. Seven years ago, Masa had a base price of $300 a person, excluding tax, tip and upgrades like something to drink. Now it is $450 for the same fandango, an increase of 50 percent. A meal for two at the restaurant can easily run to $1,500 — an amount that is a little more than 35 percent of the Census Bureau’s most recent calculation of the median monthly household income in the United States.

[3catwoman3]

93. I lived in Japan for 2 years...

...and LOVE sushi and sashimi, but there is no way I would pay that much for it even if I could. That's crazy, IMO.

I just looked on Priceline, and a ticket to Tokyo is $1296.00

[stevenleser]

107. I'd have to have a ton of money to be willing to part with $1500 on dinner

I think if I was worth 8 figures I might do it once.

[frazzled]

97. Whoa, that is way 1%!

My dream is simply to make it to Tokyo some day, where my nephew has lived for the past decade (he married a Japanese woman). I think he knows the secret special sushi places that tourists would never find on their own, and he could take us there. And I'd eat a lot.

I guess such a trip would cost more than dinner Masa, but then I'd get to see the sights and family as well.

[stevenleser]

154. Yes, it's hard to imagine those who can do this and not have to worry about the tab

It's a lot of money for a meal. I'd love to be in a position to drop $1500 on dinner and move on with my evening as if nothing just happened.!

[avebury]

14. It sucks for the parents of the baby but I think that

the restaurant would have a bigger potential loss if the rest of the diners were pissed off to pay for a high dollar meal and be forced to listen to a crying baby the whole time. How many of them would return again? They would have been better off giving them a ticket to return at a later date (when a baby sitter was available) and just defer the dinner.

[riqster]

18. Yep. Give them the chance to dine another night.

Costs nothing and makes the restaurant look good.

[CFLDem]

22. +100

[MADem]

41. It would cost the restaurant five hundred bucks.

The tickets are sold in advance. The diners should have gone on the restaurant's facebook page and resold the tickets, if they could have--it's not the restaurant's problem. It's the customer's.

The restaurant is packed every day, with a waiting list that is miles long. They don't have to worry about their reputation. They sell hoity toity food in an environment that is supposed to be noted for its TRANQUILITY. The screaming infant 'spoiled their brand' for the entire evening.

The chef said he could hear the kid screaming way back in the kitchen. And not just a little--the kid would. not. stop.

Anyone wealthy enough to afford a meal like that could probably afford to check into a four star hotel and ask the concierge to order a certified babysitter for the evening.

That's another way to handle it.

[frazzled]

42. That defeats the purpose of the ticket system

Achatz has been unique in implementing this new kind of system for restaurants (it probably would only work for a high-end restaurant). You buy a ticket in advance, which includes everything from the food to tax and tip. You just show up (you don't even have to bring your wallet), like at the theater. This allows the restaurant to plan everything, both the purchase of food and the planning of costs in advance.

Allowing people to change would start all kinds of kinks in this fine-tuned system (plus, everyone would say their sitter cancelled out, and there's no way to confirm that).

As I mentioned above, it's very very easy to sell your ticket online, on the restaurant's FaceBook page. I occasionally follow his other restaurant on their Facebook page, and people are selling or exchanging their tickets all the time: they go like hotcakes. People clamor for a seat. It would have taken these people a few minutes to sell or exchange their tickets with another couple.

Hey, Achatz has kids himself (two sons). He didn't ban these people or change his policies. He tweeted a question. He's not the bad guy here.

You have to understand: this is not a normal restaurant. It's not even a normal high-end fancy restaurant. It's more or less an experience situation, a theatrical performance of a meal that combines gastronomy with science and art. It's not for everyone (obviously), but it's not wicked, and it's not for babies.

[PeaceNikki]

53. This ^

*I* can't afford it, but my brother has been there twice now. You're right, it's an experience and a performance. In fact, I agree with everything you said (except i am 99% sure the price does NOT include tip).

[frazzled]

56. The price quoted in the article doesn't include the tip, but

the ticket does. You pay everything in advance: food, tax, and a 20% gratuity.

(When we went to Next they included an 18% gratuity; since we usually always give 20%, we thought it was a bargain!). I actually like the idea of a "fixed price" meal (not one that is that expensive, though!) and a ticket. You don't have that angst about ordering or thinking, "god, I hope this doesn't cost a fortune." You know exactly in advance what you're getting.

At any rate. I don't know why I'm into this discussion, except for the fact that it takes place in my city. I'm never going to eat there. Unless someone comes and offers to pay for it. Maybe not even then!

We rarely go out to dinner, unless it's somewhere fairly modest, but occasionally a group of friends will want to go somewhere. We always get stiffed when the bill is split, say, three ways: we didn't order cocktails or appetizers, but we're paying for everyone else's!

[PeaceNikki]

58. It's an interesting concept, for sure.

I'm with you in my eating out habits, but I would love to experience it if given the opportunity. I can't imagine ever being in the position to throw down that kind of cash, but I liken it more to attending the Super Bowl, or an amazing Broadway play than grabbing a Monte Cristo at the local Greek eatery.

[KittyWampus]

91. thanks for the education about this sort of restaurant. Really interesting. I bet the chef

is able to really pull things together with that sort of security in knowing a set number of patrons are eating.

[JI7]

19. since i consider all of this a luxury, i just view it as a risk people take

the restaurant business is not just about getting your meal and food. it's about an experience and that's why people are paying so much money .

it's not like they are going to go hungry now . plus they knew the policy.

be respectful to others . how would they have liked it if their sitter did not cancel and someone else brought in a crying baby ?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

26. Gosh! I hope they survived starvation or the horrors of eating...well..just food.

[Buns_of_Fire]

27. I'm sure glad I don't have such problems.

Unless Waffle House has changed their policy while I wasn't looking.

[dlwickham]

32. too soon

but I still laughed

[Rowdyboy]

34. Probably....

Actually, I'm sure it is. Think I'll self-delete just for decency's sake.

[dlwickham]

103. if only more people would self delete on here

it would be a much much better place

[Rowdyboy]

122. I've finally learned to think before I spout off in "real life" but its so easy to act like an ass

on-line. I knew when I posted that I shouldn't-thanks for the gentle reminder....

[AngryAmish]

29. next time bring the kid to schwa

Have the baby do shots with carlson.

[Xithras]

30. Did the baby have a ticket?

Seems like the solution to this conundrum was pretty trivial.

"Of course we seat babies! Where is his ticket?"

If they want to pay hundreds of dollars for a ticket to get their toddler in the door, then so be it. But it's a bit presumptuous for the parents to assume that they get to sneak another person in to an establishment like that without paying, simply based on the child's age.

I've never dined at Alinea and have no plans to, but I have dined at high end restaurants before. As an example...I took my wife to the similarly 3 Michelin-starred French Laundry in the Napa Valley for our 13th wedding anniversary. We're talking about a 9 course dining experience that cost us $700 out the door and had to be reserved two months in advance. And why did we do it for our 13th? Because we tried to get in on our 10th and failed, 11th and failed, 12th and failed, and didn't finally score a reservation until our fourth year of trying. The place is all but impossible to get into.

I'd have been pretty pissed off if I'd gone through all of that just to be seated next to a crying baby. I could have had THAT experience at the Olive Garden.

[MADem]

44. Bingo! nt

[pnwmom]

60. The baby can sit on a lap and drink a bottle. He shouldn't need a ticket. n/t

[REP]

102. But it didn't. It screamed loud enough to heard in the kitchen.

Most people find the sound of a howling infant to obnoxious and distracting. It was rude and self-entitled for the couple to spoil everyone else's evening - and make their child miserable - because they couldn't find another sitter or figure out how to exchange their tickets.

[pnwmom]

114. The restaurant had the option, which they chose not to exercise,

of explaining to the parents upon their arrival that the baby was unwelcome, and refunding their non-refundable tickets at the door.

The parents can't be blamed for not complying with a non-existent baby ban.

[Xithras]

142. The baby is a human being. Tickets are per-person

While some businesses choose to waive ticket requirements for small humans, it's a courtesy that isn't required and shouldn't be assumed. The restaurant created this problem when they allowed the child in without a ticket. The parents should have been turned away at the door.

[pnwmom]

145. Buying/selling the tickets constituted a contract between the restaurant and the parents.

The restaurant cannot legally add a new condition -- no babies -- after the tickets are purchased. Not unless they're willing to refund the purchase price and cancel the contract.

I agree that the restaurant created this problem. It should have attempted to turn them away at the door AND offered to refund their "non-refundable" tickets, which the restaurant of course had the power to do. In the future, if they don't want babies, they should institute a clear, public baby ban -- printed on their tickets -- so no one else with a baby will buy non-refundable tickets for a meal there.

By the way, a nursing baby is allowed (without cost) to accompany his or her mother in any location where she is allowed to be. You might need to know this in case you ever feel like complaining about a baby in a public place.

[Xithras]

150. Yes, the restaurant and parents. Not the child.

The restaurant sold two tickets, permitting two people to enter. The baby is a third person. The baby had no ticket, and should have been denied entry on those grounds. If the parents declined to use the tickets they purchased because they were not willing to leave an unticketed third party out of the group, that's a cancellation of the contract by the parents and not the restaurant. Declining to allow the child into the facility wouldn't qualify as a new condition appended after the purchase, but is merely enforcing the original terms of the purchase set at the time of sale...one ticket per person.

As to your last statement, do you have a cite for that? I'm not aware of any federal or state laws that require ANY facilities, public OR private, to permit entry to babies and toddlers. I taught in California public colleges for years, and I know that we were pointedly told to eject young mothers with infants from classrooms because infants are a distraction to the learning environment. California law is very protective of mothers with young infants, guaranteeing everything from the right to express breastmilk in the workplace to the right to breastfeed anywhere you want, but there is no law that actually requires facilities to allow entry to infants. California has always been a trendsetter when it comes to maternal rights, and if we don't have a law protecting the ability of a mother to lug her kid wherever she wants, I find it hard to believe that many other states do.

[pnwmom]

152. No, the restaurant clearly permitted 3 people to enter and only required tickets of the 2

that were going to eat their food.

A ticket constitutes a contract and the terms cannot be changed (i.e., by adding a lap-baby ban) without voiding the contract. If they wanted the family to stay out, then should have offered to refund the ticket. But the restaurant did allow the family to come in. They’re just trying to decide now if they should change their policy for the future.

Whether a nursing baby must be accommodated depends on the state. If California doesn’t require nursing babies to be accommodated wherever the mom is allowed to be, then it isn’t as liberal a state as you think.

https://www.llli.org/llleaderweb/lv/lvjunjul05p51.html

Approximately 28 states have laws addressing breastfeeding in public that are not laws exempting breastfeeding from criminal statutes. There is some variety in the language of public breastfeeding statutes. Some states include the language that a mother may breastfeed where she has the right to be; others state that the mother and child must be authorized to be in the place. The latter is more restrictive as there are places where a child might not be permitted, such as a classroom party where siblings are not allowed, or some type of professional conference that does not allow children.

[Xithras]

165. Oh, I agree with you on that point.

The restaurant screwed the pooch when they allowed the child to enter. Once entry was permitted, there was little they could do. I'm not saying that the restaurant should have ejected them once the kid got noisy...I'm saying that the restaurant could have handled this less contentiously by denying them access to the restaurant in the first place.

As to the second bit, I believe that you and I interpret that very differently. I'd guessed that you were going to use breastfeeding laws for your argument, but I simply do not believe that they apply here. Yes, the law grants women the right to breastfeed wherever they want (and to be clear, I have ABSOLUTELY NO problem with that, and all three of my children were breastfed), but it does NOT grant them the right to actually bring their child ANYWHERE. It essentially says "If the mother is allowed to be there, she is allowed to breastfeed". Legally, that's not the same thing as saying "If the mother is allowed to be there, her infant is allowed to accompany her." There's an obvious relation between the two points, but they're not the same thing. Breastfeeding is a protected right here in California, but many workplaces (including my own) flat out prohibit children in the workplace. The laws seem pretty straightforward to me. If the business allows children inside, they have to allow breastfeeding. Any business that WANTS to ban children can still do so, if they're willing to suffer the potential business consequences that will result from that choice. A prohibition against children is NOT the same thing as a prohibition against breastfeeding.

[pnwmom]

167. Except if you were right there would be no difference between the laws of the states

that say breastfeeding is allowed wherever the mother is allowed to be; and laws that say it's allowed wherever the mother AND baby are allowed to be. But as the LLL league lawyer explains, the latter laws are more restrictive.

[JVS]

148. Outside beverages? With no corking fee?

[Squinch]

35. This situation is just crazy on every level, beginning with pre-paying for a restaurant.

Ending with $500 for a restaurant meal.

Bringing the baby is somewhere in the middle there.

I sure hope the mom breast fed him.

[PeaceNikki]

54. It's art. A performance and an experience. People pay that much for theater.

I certainly can't afford it, but I sure would love to experience it once if I could. My brother has been there twice so I can live vicariously through him.

[MADem]

36. Give the tickets to friends, if they can't find someone to watch the kid.

Always pay the sitter well--they're less likely to cancel if they aren't paid the very MINIMUM for the most work that a parent can squeeze out of them.

Say OUCH and learn a lesson.

Hell, check into a high end hotel and have the concierge send up a babysitter, if you're spending that much.

It's not the job of the restaurant to go "Awwwwwwww....baby!!" and give a shit about a customer's parental status or child care difficulties. I just don't think it's their problem.

If it were me--and it wouldn't be, I don't have that kind of money to dump on a hoity-toity meal--I'd be Very Annoyed and I'd express my displeasure to the management. I'd ask them to --yes-- make a NO LOUD KIDS rule.

I don't think children belong in high-end dining situations if they can't control themselves. I don't find loud voices, running about, whining or any of that "heard" part of the "seen but not heard" stuff amusing in the slightest, never mind the
'whiny infant either teething or with the head cold constant wailing.'

Parents make sacrifices to have kids. One of the sacrifices is arranging for child care if you want to wander out into the adult world--either that, or eat at Applebee's.

The world is NOT universally child friendly, nor should it be.

[Vattel]

37. I am a parent and I cannot manage such situations.

I also cannot afford a baby-sitter. So I just take my kid with me and cross my fingers. One time my daughter started dancing like a crab when we were out at a seafood restaurant. Luckily it was cute enough not to cause anyone to shoot us.

[MADem]

47. If you can't afford a sitter you can't afford that restaurant.

Dinner for two costs more than the rent in a lot of areas of the USA.

It's one of those hoity-toity joints, with the little food (that the chef has poked and prodded with his fingers) on enormous plates, served with a lot of "Ooooh la la."

It's not "eating"--it's a "dining experience."

Very jazzy and high end, superb quality, and a tranquil ambiance.... but I wonder how many people are whipping through the Taco Bell drive-thru at two a.m. because they're feeling peckish?

[pnwmom]

65. If you don't want to be exposed to small humans, then eat at home. n/t

[MADem]

72. Sorry--I agree with the poster who says that if the price to eat at that restaurant

is a ticket, prepaid at two hundred a pop, then every human in the restaurant--including the kid(s)--need to have a ticket. That'll keep the "attachment parenters" at bay.

That isn't just a restaurant; it's one of those artsy-fartsy "dining experiences" where the ambiance and the mood/setting are part of the cost of the evening. It's performance art as much as it is food.

A shrieking child is not part of that ambiance.

The one who needs to stay home from the high end "event dining experience" is the parent/s with the kids. That's what Applebee's is for.

[alphafemale]

109. If you haven't trained your kids to not disturb the peace keep them home.

Or at a family restaurant at the very damn least.

My children knew what behavior was expected in a certain type of restaurant very young.

"Cloth napkin behavior."

[pnwmom]

113. I once took a baby to an upscale restaurant, and the waiter was so taken

with my child, she had the chef come out to say hello to us. And the last time I went out to a good restaurant, there was a baby sleeping in a carrier the whole time -- not a peep out of her.

Not every fine restaurant is unwelcoming, and most parents don't want to stress their children out in a place where they won't be able to manage.

But anyone is capable of having a bad evening. I would be more bothered by a drunk adult, however, than by a crying baby.

[nomorenomore08]

84. "I wonder how many people are whipping through the Taco Bell drive-thru at two a.m. because they're

feeling peckish?"

Which is why, if I'm paying a lot for a meal, I better be goddamn full afterwards! Hell, even if I had the dough I'd take a higher-end buffet type place over what I think of as "tiny food" restaurants.

[MADem]

87. I think it's more about the "performance art" than the food.

They do weird stuff with the food and everyone ooohs and aaaaahs over it, but it's less about getting a meal than seeing something different and strange...and being in the rarified air of a place that "average" folks with bills and working class paychecks don't get to see.

[Vattel]

100. yeah, I won't be dining there in the near future

[MADem]

163. I'd do it if someone gave me a ticket, or invited me!

But I don't think I'd spend that kind of money either, even if I had it to spare.

I could probably have just as much fun in an evening with some delicious food that is "bad" for us and a couple of movies outta the Redbox!

[hunter]

39. Never lived in that universe...

... probably never will.

When our kids were babies even fast food was a luxury.

I don't think I've ever been in a restaurant where fussy kids were unexpected. (I have been in bars and such that I wouldn't take kids into, sometimes the kinds of bars I shouldn't have taken myself into...)

Who is writing this that they think "fine dining restaurants" are a "universal experience???"

Frankly, I'd feel guilty spending that much for a meal. If I gave the same amount of money to the food bank they could feed near a hundred people. Our food bank does pretty well with food donations and they use cash donations to buy in bulk whatever else is needed to put together nutritious meals.

It's shocking to me how the disparity of wealth in this nation continues to deepen.

[beachbum bob]

40. I never would have thought

To take disruptive kids which include babies out to restaurants and ruin other diners meals. We had a perfectly good dinner ruined by a 20 something and there 6 month old baby. I complained loudly to the manager so people around and the couple could clear hear what I thought about the selfishness of the couple. You could see I was saying exactly what everyone else was think inking. Our dinner was camp's and now we make it a habit to ask for new table if any babies our seated near us. I'm not paying good money to have our meal ruined by selfish parents with crying or fussy children. If you can't afford a babysitter don't ruin our dinners. That's why you can do take out.

[JI7]

43. has anyone tried the food there ?

i'm sure it is good and i guess if people have money the entire experience can be worth it.

but in itself is it THAT good ? i think i'm the type that would prefer a good burger or pizza to some of the gourmet stuff even when it comes to just taste.

[Xithras]

49. In places like that, it's not so much "food" as "art"..."food" is merely the medium.

That's the real reason that people pay so much for destination restaurants. The chef's are artists, the plate is their canvas, and food is their paint. It's not about eating something to quench your hunger and fill your stomach, but to try new foods that in many cases have never been tried before, or may never be tried again. Many of the top chefs aren't merely cooks, but are chemists and painters who can spend days or weeks planning and prepping a single course, to be served in a single meal among many other courses, for one night, which will never be repeated again.

And yes, it can be THAT good. Mind-blowingly good. "I'll never look at food the same way again" good.

Is it expensive? Sure. But most people don't think twice about dropping a few hundred dollars to drive to some tacky vacation destination and spend a couple of nights in a cheap hotel and walk on the same beach or enjoy the same view as hundreds of thousands of others have visited. Destination dining is simply a vacation of a different kind, and a more unique one at that.

[JI7]

147. yeah, i would rather spend on something like this than on jewelry, bags, shoes ,

and any number of other things people spend more than they have to on.

[frazzled]

50. No, but here are 2 videos

Second one shows 24 hours in the day of the restaurant. If you prefer a good burger, you probably wouldn't like it.

http://www.youtube.com/user/AlineaRestaurant

[PeaceNikki]

55. It's art. A performance and an experience. People pay that much for theater.

I certainly can't afford it, but I sure would love to experience it once if I could. My brother has been there twice so I can live vicariously through him. He loved every moment and every bite.

[Chan790]

92. Not there, but at Grant Achatz's other restaurant, Next.

It's a life-experience. It's deconstructivist molecular gastronomy, as much science and art as food. It is admittedly small-portion fancy dining.

This picture, from Wikipedia, is of one recent meal, Chef Grant Achatz's presentation of the night's lamb entree. I'd suggest if you ever get the chance to go. I'd also suggest ordering a pizza to be waiting for you when you get home. (Given his was one of 7 courses that night...but I've had amuse bouche)

[seveneyes]

46. Pretentious and craven

It sounds like you pay up front for the food art and there is no tip involved, yet they add a 20% "Service Charge". Why not just set the price of the ticket and be done with it?

From the faq: https://www.alinearestaurant.com/website/faq

Why is a service charge added?
Since we are not billing our patrons at the time of the dinner we are adding a 20% service charge at the time of purchase.

[Skittles]

51. I would not eat in a place with "non-refundable tickets"

so I don't care who goes there

[demwing]

52. There is no such thing as an "ill-behaved baby"

Babies cry. Its neither good nor bad behavior.

[reddread]

61. bingo

its like listening to a bunch of would be texter shooting advocates.
On the other hand, when the parents of screaming babies permit the
sucking of salt shakers, Im going low sodium. forever.

[demwing]

94. Yes, there are most certainly ill behaved parents. /nt

[Egalitarian Thug]

73. But there are such things as places where it is inappropriate to bring them.

This is just another example of clueless parents feeling entitled to impose their problems on others.

Their dinner experience is much more important than the other patron's.

[demwing]

96. Agreed. See my post #94 /nt

[MADem]

77. Yes, they do--and they don't need to be crying in the midst of theater performances, or

movies, bars, or at other places where adults gather to enjoy adult activities.

One doesn't take infants to a climb of Mount Everest, either.

Some places are just NOT appropriate for kids. This joint is one of 'em.

[LadyHawkAZ]

57. For something like that I'd have had a backup sitter on hand. n/t

[JVS]

151. Seriously. If you have a few hundred bucks tied into dinner, then letting the babysitter...

be the weak link in your chain is really stupid. Certainly there must be some expensive babysitting service that will take your kid at a moment's notice if you're willing to spend enough.

[dembotoz]

59. I could eat off the dollar menu for a long time on that kind of money

and with my food allergies i would prob just cramp up half way thru anyway


sadly burgers are just safer for me

[pipi_k]

63. Well if it costs that much

for a meal there...or maybe that's just the reservation cost without the meal...I certainly hope that anyone who dines there has his turds bronzed for posterity.

Yeah...keep those babies in a locked box to show the grandkids someday. "Hey kids, look at this! A two hundred dollar hunk of shit!"


Anyway, IMO, it's just plain STUPID to pay a non-refundable fee for something if you don't have to.

What would those people have done if the babysitter hadn't cancelled but the kid was sick? Go out and have fun anyway? Or grandpa is in the hospital dying? "Hey, grandpa is on his way out, but let's go have a great time at this outrageously priced restaurant!"

What if one of THEM had been ill? Go out anyway and spread the flu around?

And that's not even addressing the issue of kids being in expensive restaurants.

I'm a mom and grandmom. Youngest will be 3 in May. Last few family dinners/holidays have been extremely unpleasant due to horrendous child disruption. Can't blame the kid. It's the result of dragging a kid around to four or five relatives' homes starting early in the day on a holiday, then getting to the last stop and she is now in total meltdown mode and the parents are doing one of two things:

1. Ignoring all of it and letting the kid throw food, scream, kick, bang metal utensils on her aunt's nice hardwood dining table (leaving some visible holes/dents) or...

2. Yelling at the kid every two seconds to "stop that", "don't touch that", "no, don't go in there", "come here...no, don't touch it...come HERE I said!!" Etc., etc. So now it's not just a kid in meltdown, it's a stressed out parent making things worse and getting pissed off when someone tries to give advice.

It's getting to the point where I don't even want to go to these things.

If there's any chance at all that your kid is going to have a meltdown (sickness, lack of nap, or too much sugar from earlier in the day), stay the hell home.

[Fumesucker]

131. ^^^^THIS^^^^

[Luminous Animal]

149. OR, you could do what I do. Help the parents out by taking the kids for a walk.

Melt down averted. And you get the added bonus of of great kid conversation!

[pnwmom]

66. I'm way past that stage, but I don't mind babies anywhere I go, whether in a restaurant

or on a plane.

If you don't like small humans, you can be the one to stay home.

[rebecca_herman]

78. I love babies

I'm having my first next month. I prefer very plain food so most of the places I eat out at do have children. I draw the line at loud children or babies in PG-13 and R movies, though - that pisses me off.

[pnwmom]

81. In a movie, play, or show, a baby could interrupt the proceedings. I agree.

But people in a restaurant who are interrupted by a baby's cry can easily resume their conversation.

[demwing]

99. +100% /nt

[Scout]

164. you do realize that the cry of a human baby is SUPPOSED to be annoying, right?

i mean, the whole purpose of the cry is to draw attention to a problem, right? to cause someone to solve the problem, to stop the crying, right? if the cry was pleasant and peaceful, baby wouldn't last long, now would it?

so you must also realize, that when people are annoyed, aggravated, irked, upset by a baby crying, that they are reacting as nature has intended them to do, right?

it has NOTHING to do with liking or not liking "small humans."

so you can come down off your high horse

[pnwmom]

176. And I've never seen parents in public NOT try to deal with their baby's cries,

unless they're in the process of trying to get them out the door.

Those cries make me feel more compassionate both toward the babies and their stressed parents. Apparently experiences differ.

[Scout]

185. still on that high horse i see LOL.

"Those cries make me feel more compassionate both toward the babies and their stressed parents. Apparently experiences differ. "

no one said anything about whether or not the parents try to deal with the crying.

no one said anything about lack of compassion either, except you. people can feel compassion for others, while simultaneously finding the crying annoying, distressing, aggravating, or irksome.

Apparently experiences differ though, and some people are rather limited in their emotional range -- or so you say.

[Glassunion]

74. Everyone is missing the obvious.

Just leave the little troublemaker in the car. Problem solved.

[MADem]

79. Gaaaaaah!!!!!!!!!!!

I like my idea better--anyone who is rich enough to drop five hundred on dinner for two is rich enough to check into a high end hotel and tell the concierge to get them a qualified sitter for the child.

Or hell, call a nursing service and have them send out an RN or LPN. Might as well go to town! Nothing but the best for Little Fauntleroy!

[tammywammy]

82. Baby didn't belong there. They should have used the restaurant's FB to sell the tickets. n/t

[pnwmom]

83. The restaurant should have refunded the couple their ticket money at the door

if they didn't want the baby in there. It's not like the parents snuck the baby in unannounced.

They didn't have a baby ban, so they allowed the baby in with the parents. This wouldn't have happened if they had.

[REP]

104. Why should the business lose money because of patron's inability to plan?

The restaurant has a system in place to exchange tickets online. The parents didn't bother using it; they just inflicted their screaming child on everyone else. They're the ones who needed to take responsibility for the $500 they spent - not the restaurant.

[pnwmom]

111. It was the restaurant's fault for not having a baby ban in place.

They took the tickets and allowed the family in. They knew that any baby might cry, but they wanted their money.

If they don't want to take a chance on baby noise,they need to have a clear policy in place so no one will buy tickets with the expectation they could bring a child there.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

110. There are two concepts you are failing to grasp:

1) The meaning of non-refundable

2) Why this discussion is taking place. The owner started it to get feed back on whether he SHOULD have a baby ban or not.

[pnwmom]

112. There is a bigger concept you are failing to grasp.

The owner did NOT have a baby plan in place. If they had notified the parents of a ban at the point of the ticket sale, the parents would have realized they were taking a risk buying those non-refundable tickets. As it is, they did not. If the restaurant wanted to turn them away when they showed up with the baby, the restaurant had the choice to override their non-refundable policy.

The owner will have to decide which of his customers he is willing to alienate.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

116. "The owner did NOT have a baby plan in place"

DUH!

Did you READ the tweet that started this? The conversation isn't about those specific people. He is asking if he SHOULD ban future kids.

[pnwmom]

119. He should if he wants to. He will alienate some customers and please others,

including some of the younger adult customers who might be important for his future business.

His choice.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

136. I promise you. He isn't going to alienate any of his customers.

The fact that this was an isolated incident they weren't prepared to deal with should be a hint that the vast majority of their customers wouldn't THINK of bringing their kids.

My downstairs neighbors, two couples from my building, went last year with some other friends. They all have kids and wouldn't even think of bringing their kids for a night out like that. It just isn't done.

Me. I prefer an Irish pub, a burger and a big martini.

My "foodie" friends can be a bit annoying. Every time we try a new place I have to listen to their review as if they are a food critic for the Tribune. I'm like "can I finish my fucking meal before you tell me how much it sucks?" Fucking tedious.

They tease me and my boyfriend because we always eat at the same two places. A buddy of mine owns two nice Irish restaurants. Well at least I'm not bitching that my food was this or that.

http://www.wildechicago.com

And

http://ladygregorys.com

[pnwmom]

140. When we had small children, we especially liked some ethnic restaurants.

Chinese, Korean, Mexican, Indian, etc. -- they were very child friendly. Sometimes they had paper tablecloths we could draw on. And there was always plain rice to eat, which they would bring right away. We never had an unhappy child there.

So we still like going to those places, where everyone can be comfortable. The two of us went to a "foodie" restaurant a few years ago, because it was so highly regarded -- the kind of restaurant people actually travel to visit -- and it was in the next town. I think there were nine small courses, presented as if we were at a King's banquet. In the beginning, we got to hear all about the staff, and where they'd gone to cooking school. At the end, they all came out for a bow.

It just wasn't for us.

I still think the restaurant in the OP should have just quietly refunded the money to this couple, and told them it wasn't the right place for a baby. I know they didn't have to because they had this non-refundable policy, but they really didn't want a baby there, so that's what they should have done.

[TBF]

85. I must be able to work in Olive Garden here somehow ... nt

[Glassunion]

88. If I'm dropping a couple hundred bucks for dinner. I expect a nice quiet dining experience.

If someone is crying be they 8 months or 80 years, they should go. If you're paying that much money, you are paying for an experience: fine food, fine drink and fine ambiance. It is quite selfish and rude to expect that everyone else put up with the outbursts from a crying baby.

If Boehner wants to have one of his drunken crying fits a few tables away, he should be shown the door just as fast as a couple with a crying baby.

[demwing]

98. No reflection on anyone here, but if I ever pay that much for a meal

then please fucking slap me, because I'm part of the problem.

Kids are going to bed hungry in America, while poor little fools are paying more for a plate of food than some people get in food stamps for a whole month, and they're upset that a baby interrupted their moment of pristine elitism?

Really?

[neverforget]

108. yeah pretty much.

And whining about a kid crying......Oh the humanity!

[pipi_k]

127. Maybe some of them

Whined about a kid crying because they left their own kid(s) home with a sitter who DID show up.

Maybe they wanted to get away from their screaming, crying kids for a couple of hours and figured other people would have some consideration for fellow patrons by leaving their little darlings home as well

Maybe some of them were celebrating landmark anniversaries. Or perhaps guys were getting ready to propose marriage. They probably figured they would get a nice romantic ambiance, when in reality they got a virtual bucket of cold urine dumped on their heads

So yeah, spending that much for dinner is ridiculous, but that doesn't mean they should have to be subjected to rudeness from other people...and then mocked for rightfully complaining

[neverforget]

128. if I ever become so shallow and self absorbed that the sound of a crying baby

disrupts my dinner and angers me, please put me out to pasture. My humanity is gone.

[pipi_k]

178. It's not about being

"shallow and self absorbed".

As I told someone else below, we are programmed to feel a visceral response to the sound of a crying baby.

A baby cries for what reason? Because it's in distress of some kind. To be immune to the distress cries of another human being is, IMO, the real loss of humanity.

Here is a link to an article that explains it.


http://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/oct/17/crying-babies-hard-ignore


If the publication is not acceptable for some reason, I suggest doing a google search for the science behind why many humans cannot tolerate the sound of a crying baby.

It's not shallow and self absorbed. It's biology.


Also, as I noted in that same post, there are people who have sensory processing disorders. Neurological defects. Those aren't selfish/self-absorbed either.

[pnwmom]

117. LOL

That was kind of my thinking, too.

[Glassunion]

121. So having a very nice dinner out with your wife = part of the problem?

got it... I forgot... We aren't allowed to have nice things.

[Nevernose]

124. If you care about poor people, you must live like a monk/nun

Just like how there's no global warming because Al Gore has a big house.

[Vashta Nerada]

90. Babies should NOT be allowed in fine dining restaurants.

The last thing I need when I drop $210 on a meal is Junior Son of a Bitch whining throughout the hour or two I'm out trying to enjoy my night. If you have a kid and you must bring them with, go to a pizza place or other child-friendly establishment. Fine dining establishments aren't one of those child-friendly places.

[Warren DeMontague]

135. Sez You.

[HockeyMom]

101. Done that 30 years ago

Threw a blanket over her. She ate while I ate, and then she fell asleep. Oh, my, what a GOOD BABY other people said. I wonder if they really knew WHY?

[FreeJoe]

105. My opinion

I have no opinion. The concept of a nonrefundable restaurant reservation or a $200 meal are both totally alien to me. You may as will ask me if astronauts should leave the lid up or down on the toilet in the space station.

[Coyotl]

125. Don't have two good friends, but can eat at these prices?

Gotta feel sorry for the kid!

[Turbineguy]

126. It's the little people that make life worth living.

Sure, they don't always behave the way you like, but that's the way it is.

[Gravitycollapse]

143. Maybe to you. Others, like myself, couldn't care less about children.

Life is worth living for a vast number of reasons unique to each person. Many see no joy in raising or being around children. They should be allowed to exist in peace.

[bunnies]

166. Im with you.

And anyone who would bring an infant to an establishment like that is incredibly rude and self absorbed. Of course the diners were mad. Who wants to listen to a screaming child at a $200 a plate dinner? No one. Not even the parents, hence the sitter. Jerks.

[Warren DeMontague]

133. "Kids in Restaurants Thread.... Okay, I'm going in!"

[Skip Intro]

134. There should be an age limit, and rules of conduct.

The atmosphere of a restaurant is oftentimes its identity and crucial to the brand and business.

Much along the lines of the "no smoking" arguments, one guest should not be allowed to ruin the dining experience of the others there. Keep the baby at home until he/she can behave in a way that is respectful of others.

[ecstatic]

139. Why do some people find it so hard to ignore/tune out others?

I think this is about control. There are people who, for whatever reason, feel they need to control what other people do.

I grew up without any contact with babies or little kids and not once do I recall getting worked up about someone's baby crying while at a restaurant. I don't even hear it because I'm focused on the people I'm with.

Also, I'm not bothered by someone texting in the theater. Look at the movie screen, problem solved.

[yellowcanine]

170. Baby crying vs someone texting? Yeah, that's comparable.

[pipi_k]

172. Two reasons...

1. Some people have neurological abnormalities that prevent them from processing sensory input. It's unpleasant at best, and hellish at worst.

2. I'm not sure that it's so great to be proud of being able to ignore a crying baby. Crying is a baby's way of expressing distress. We are biologically programmed to feel visceral response to distress cries, especially those of our own species. Even a zoo gorilla would feel upset at the distress cries of an infant human, FGS.


I honestly don't know how some people can think they're so special or better than others just because they can ignore the cries of distress from another human being.

[Glassunion]

175. Hehe...

"I honestly don't know how some people can think they're so special or better than others just because they can ignore the cries of distress from another human being."

Isn't that what republicans do for a living?

[ecstatic]

182. I'm sorry if you got the impression

that I ignore people in distress. I didn't think I needed to add that context matters. If the baby/child isn't abandoned or in distress, then I have no problem tuning the noise out after that.

[LeftyMom]

141. They should have had their pit bull babysit or stayed home and ordered fried chicken.

Seriously though, I think it's interesting that places where the plebs go permit children and elite spaces are adults only. It only works because the wealthy outsource their child rearing to the poors.

[Warren DeMontague]

155. The restaurant should have explicit rules around it, if they think it will be a problem.

Particularly if they've got explicit rules around everything else, like paying for your meal beforehand.

One great thing about where I live is, even a lot of "nicer" restaurants are kid-friendly. Lots of people have kids, it's just the way it is.

I'd imagine for people who are bugged by kids, it sort of sucks. And that said, we've been to a few places where we for sure wouldn't have brought kids.

[KansDem]

157. Solution: Give the parents their food in "to go" containers.

Problem solved!

[ejpoeta]

158. sorry, but if they sell NON REFUNDABLE tickets, then screw them.

I would bring my kids if I spent all that money and the sitter flaked. If they want people to leave their kids at home then they need to let people change the date. Hell, make them wait six months, but let them reschedule.

[Travis_0004]

183. Or you could not buy a ticket if you don't like their policy.

I bought NFL tickets this year, and they were non refundable. It was too cold to bring a kid, and he didn't have a ticket, and the event was sold out. If I couldn't go, I would have to waste the ticket, or attempt to sell it myself/give it away.

This place is no different. They knew up front the ticket was non refundable, and they chose to take that risk when they bought it.

[hobbit709]

159. If a meal cost me that much I shouldn't have to eat again for a month.

[ejpoeta]

160. I have an idea!!!

The restaurant should have a standby list. People could pay a small amount to be on the standby list. If someone needs to cancel, the tickets can go to someone on the standby list and the person who had to cancel can get their money back!! And the restaurant can make money on the people who want to be on the standby list. win win.

[pipi_k]

173. Nahhh....

Would never work.

It makes too much sense.

[Glassunion]

177. That's really hard with how they operate.

Unlike most restaurants that can turn a single table 3 to 4 times a night, this place turns a single table once. They follow a very strict schedule of courses to make that turn. Having dinner at this place is about a 4 hour affair. So if your ticket is for 5pm, you will be finishing up at about 9, where that same table has to be turned for the next guest who will be there until after midnight. A last minute cancel is gone, as it will screw the schedule.

[yellowcanine]

168. These parents were thoughtless and careless.

Sorry, my sympathy is with the restaurant. Parents should know how their 8 month old baby will do in this situation and in most cases, not well. It is going to go past their bed time, for one thing (at least what should be the bed time). Frankly I am not buying the "baby sitter cancelled" excuse. You invest $500 in non refundable tickets and you don't have a back up plan for the baby? Sorry, I have very little sympathy for you. Other diners have rights also. This is just basic courtesy. And yes I have had kids and know what it is like to take a kid to a restaurant. And I would not have ever considered taking an 8 month old to a place like this.

Having said all that - the restaurant should make a gesture to smooth things over and win some points by offering them a voucher for a future date, for example. It would be the nice - and smart thing to do.

[B Calm]

186. Hard for me to defend some rich couple blowing over $200 for a meal!