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

[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.