Little Tikes Not Welcome Here: Where’s the Lawsuit?

A version of the sign at Old Fisherman's Grotto, as seen on their website.

By Jennifer Hartline Published on May 15, 2018

Do businesses have the right to refuse service to a particular group of customers? For any reason?

Chris Shake, owner of Old Fisherman’s Grotto restaurant in California, says he has that right. There’s a specific clientele that Shake does not wish to serve.

Oddly enough, he has not yet been sued into bankruptcy or ordered by the state to submit to “retraining.”

Unlike Jack Phillips, owner of Masterpiece Cake Shop, Chris Shake has suffered no catastrophic legal or financial consequences for his decision, even though he isn’t making a principled decision to withhold his creative services based on faith or moral beliefs.

So just who is unwelcome in Chris Shake’s establishment? Children. Noisy, disruptive children, to be precise. Young children.

Not Welcome Here

Shake’s “Children’s Policy” reads like this:

No Strollers. No Highchairs. No Booster Chairs. Children crying or making loud noises are a distraction to other diners, and as such are not allowed in the dining room.

Says Shake, “We have never refused families with children but often times they do not come in because we are very clear about our policy. If their children become disruptive in the dining room, they will be asked to leave.”

Now, as far as I know it’s not illegal to be a jerk, so if Shake wants families with young children to feel they are not welcome in his restaurant, I suppose he can do that. He wants an atmosphere of undisturbed quiet, and a crying baby or a wound-up toddler or a merely lively family would shatter the desired vibe, so that’s it. No kids. Fine.

I thought it was discrimination to refuse to serve a particular group of people? Why is he not fighting his case at the Supreme Court right now?

Personally, I would do an about-face at his door and take my family of six somewhere else. I have no desire to patronize a restaurant that snarls at young children.

But I wouldn’t sue him for emotional distress or discrimination or call him a hateful bigot. I may think his policy makes him a jerk, but so what? He wants a perfectly quiet atmosphere, and I can allow him the freedom to make business decisions to that end. (Come to think of it, I wouldn’t go there with my adult family members either, since we tend to laugh and make joyful noise together.)

Still, he is openly stating that people meeting a particular criteria will be asked to leave his restaurant and will not be served. Drunkards? Vandals? Violent, threatening types? No, just “disruptive” children.

I thought it was discrimination to refuse to serve a particular group of people? Why is he not fighting his case at the Supreme Court right now? I guess because he picked on exactly the “right” group of people.

Children are People, Too

If he had a policy about asking loud women to leave his restaurant, or loud black men, or — gasp! — loud homosexuals, well, we all know how that story would end. He’d certainly be facing ginormous lawsuits already. He’d be undergoing his mandated “sensitivity training” by now.

But children are easy and acceptable to pick on.

Help us champion truth, freedom, limited government and human dignity. Support The Stream »

Let’s not be mistaken here: children are people. They deserve respect. They have behaviors that are typical and unique to them. It’s “who they are.” I’m not here to defend children behaving badly in public or parents who allow it. I’ll be the first to agree that children can and should learn to behave themselves appropriately in public, and there’s no reason a child of a certain age can’t sit still at a table and eat.

But guess what? Babies cry. Toddlers cry. They don’t have volume buttons, however much we might wish they did. They also don’t have an On/Off button. Then again, neither do you.

They are part of the human family, and their presence should not be considered undesirable.

Some Refusals are Perfectly Acceptable

Interestingly, many people support Shake’s policy and are even drawn to his restaurant for that very reason. One diner commented, “Just the thought that I would be able to have a peaceful meal with no kids yelling, sometimes it’s needed. In all seriousness, people need to not get so hurt by this.”

Shake says, “The policy has worked out very well for our guests and our employees. Many of our guests comment that our policy is the reason they dined with us.”

Phillips has been vilified and his livelihood severely threatened. Shake is free to refuse. Guess it’s all about who you refuse.

Go figure. I thought a policy that intentionally declined to serve a certain group of people was supposed to be abhorrent. Yet people are applauding Shake’s policy and chiding those who might feel hurt by it.

So why again is Jack Phillips fighting for his right to decline to participate in a same-sex wedding? Why is he being sued into ruin and compelled by the State to undergo “sensitivity training”?

Phillips didn’t want to be forced to participate in something that violates his religious beliefs. He refused to promote a message that violates his conscience.

Shake is openly and proudly sending the message that children aren’t welcome and will be asked to leave. Not for reasons of conscience or faith. Just because they’re noisy.

Phillips has been vilified and his livelihood severely threatened. Shake is free to refuse. He’s cheered by many, and he’s battling no lawsuits.

Why is Shake’s atmosphere sacrosanct, but Phillips’ conscience and faith repugnant?

Guess it’s all about who you refuse.

Print Friendly
Comments ()
The Stream encourages comments, whether in agreement with the article or not. However, comments that violate our commenting rules or terms of use will be removed. Any commenter who repeatedly violates these rules and terms of use will be blocked from commenting. Comments on The Stream are hosted by Disqus, with logins available through Disqus, Facebook, Twitter or G+ accounts. You must log in to comment. Please flag any comments you see breaking the rules. More detail is available here.
  • Ken Abbott

    Check out the menu and the prices–this is what we call in my family an “event” restaurant, one reserved for special occasions such as anniversaries. And the pictures on the website certainly suggest an upscale, serious dining experience. Not the type of place small children are likely to enjoy–in fact, it’s the kind of restaurant to which parents go after securing a babysitter to stay at home with the wee ones.

  • Concerned Christian

    this is not apples to apples. As a matter of fact i went to a church where the pastor stated that young kids should be put in the nursery so as to not disrupt the service. If they did disrupt the service an usher would “politely” ask them to leave until the child calmed down or they were put into the nursery.

    • Jennifer Hartline

      Then I would politely suggest that pastor has his priorities mixed up. Children are part of the family, and part of the Body of Christ. They belong in Church. This idea that the adults can’t worship if children are around has got to go. Children are not to be “put away” until its convenient to have them around.

      • Concerned Christian

        here’s where i would disagree. Basically, the church is broken down into age groups.

        0 – 4 – Nursery
        5 – 9 – Children’s Church
        9 – up – regular church

        5 – 9 is actual interactive church for the children. My kids got a lot out of it. I remember how bored and how quiet I used to have to be in church so to me it was great.

        I understand what you’re saying but church is “BORING” for most kids and they get very little out of it. So to have something more tailored to their needs while allowing the parents to be able to fully engage to me is great.

        • Jennifer Hartline

          Church is not entertainment, nor should it be presented that way. It is WORSHIP. Children must not be brought up to think worship should entertain them. It’s not about what we get out of it. It’s about our obligation to God. My kids have been at Mass since they were born because that’s where they belong.

          • Lisa

            For years, I always missed my kids not being near me at church due to our pastor not liking to hear them during his sermons. Our church’s Youth Ministries were heavily promoted. Fortunately, now that they’re graduated, they are sitting with me.

            It is weird how people are fine with businesses discriminating against families with children but can’t extend that right to religious business owners. Seems our country’s values are screwed up.

          • Concerned Christian

            “Children must not be brought up to think worship should entertain them.”

            Entertainment is in the eye of the beholder. What you consider entertainment I consider edification. Was David wrong for dancing? Did Jesus not bring joy by healing, teaching, and performing miracles?

            In your city how many Mass services can you choose from? If you have multiple choices, you will eventually base your decision on the one you’re led to join, the one you feel most comfortable in, the one that does the most to edify your soul.

            The reason I like children’s church is because it allowed my kids, at a young age, to develop their own relationship with God and not piggy back on mine. Once they turned 9 and started coming into the adult service we would all take notes. After church, on our way home, the first thing we do starting with the youngest to the oldest is ask, what did you learn today at church? We also discuss anything that was confusing. We have a good discussion on our way home. Then I type up our Bible notes and they study those for the week.

            Worship is only for entertainment if you treat it like a concert or sporting event. I.e. we went, we shouted, we had fun, and now we will not discuss it again. Regardless of where your children sit, if the only time they hear about God is at Church/Mass, then it probably doesn’t matter all that much whether they’re entertained or not.

          • Tim H

            I think you may have missed Miss Hartline’s point. For most Catholics mass is for worship. It’s not like school. It’s not like work. It’s not like a concert. It’s not like a peaceful time of pure contemplation. Its where we go to worship God by participating in the re – presentation of the sacrifice of his only begotten Son. I don’t want anyone excluded from that.

          • Concerned Christian

            Just keep in mind that this form of worship is not part of evangelical Christianity for the most part. Certainly, I’ve never experienced it. The only thing comparable would be the taking of Communion which is not done every Sunday.

            A typical Church service for all the churches I’ve been to consist of:

            1. Praise and Worship
            2. Announcements
            3. Praying for the sick or those that have lost love ones.
            4. Offering
            5. Sermon
            6. Prayer of Salvation
            7. Recognizing new members
            8. Benediction

            All in all, we’re talking roughly 2 hours in total.

            How long does Mass actually last?

    • tz1

      Agreed. Children are only tolerated because they are not mature, not because the disruption itself should be tolerated.
      If an adult screamed at the top of their lungs during the service? Should that be tolerated? If they did something more disruptive?
      If children aren’t being controlled – and I’m sympathetic to parents attemptig to instill discipline in their offspring – they need to take the child somewhere it isn’t ruining things for everyone else.

      Imagine if this were a library, museum, music concert (think classical), or similar venue and the child was destroying the experience for everyone within 100 feet.

  • Bojaws Dubois

    Ignorant. The civil rights act of 1964 specifies the groups against which discrimination is prohibited. The groups include race, national origin, sex and others. Age is not one of them.

    I recommend that the author research subjects about which she writes.

    • Paul

      Homosexual desires and cross dressing aren’t part of the civil rights act either.

      • Concerned Christian
        • Paul

          Like I said, homosexual desires and cross dressing aren’t in the civil rights act.

          • Concerned Christian

            are anyone’s desires included? Religion is certainly a choice and it’s included.

          • Paul

            So? It says what it says. And for the record I disagree with how the civil rights act impacted private business. I think people should be free to discriminate as a business no different than they do as customers.

          • Concerned Christian

            well, i remember an older black man telling how he was refused service on his way to basic training in the sixties. Guess where he could find food? Nowhere because every restaurant did the same thing.

            You should check out:

            The Negro Motorist Green Book
            https://en(dot)wikipedia(dot)org/wiki/The_Negro_Motorist_Green_Book

            here’s an excerpt:

            “African-American travelers faced hardships such as white-owned businesses refusing to serve them or repair their vehicles, being refused accommodation or food by white-owned hotels, and threats of physical violence and forcible expulsion from whites-only “sundown towns”. Green founded and published the Green Book to avoid such problems, compiling resources “to give the Negro traveler information that will keep him from running into difficulties, embarrassments and to make his trip more enjoyable.”

            Think about how dangerous it was to travel for blacks prior to the Civil Rights Act? Yes, the civil rights act impacted private business. Speaking as a black man, thank God it did!

          • Paul

            The difficult part of liberty is that it means people have the liberty to be their ugly selves. Lots of folks give lip service to liberty until they encounter something they want to force other people to do. On a personal note I could care less what color skin a person was born with, the civil rights act had nothing to do with it, rather it is due to my faith.

          • Concerned Christian

            “The difficult part of liberty is that it means people have the liberty to be their ugly selves”

            So Group A (the Ugly) uses their liberty to pass a law, Jim Crow, to deprive Group B (the Oppressed) of it’s rights.

            Group C (the hypocrites) believes that Group B (the oppressed) should not be treated as such but since their liberty is not at stake they do absolutely nothing.

            Group B (the oppressed) complains and Group C (the hypocrites) sides with Group A (the Ugly) to continue the oppression of Group B (the oppressed).

            You see Group C (the hypocrites) have the best of both words. They get to blame Group A (the ugly) for being oppressive, while at the same time enjoy the benefits of not having to compete with Group B (the oppressed).

            The only time that Group C (the hypocrites) gets involved is when Group D (the judge) steps in and says that we obviously need to pass laws guaranteeing the liberty of Group B (the oppressed) since neither Group A (the ugly) or Group C (the hypocrites) will.

            The effect of Jim Crow was to deprive blacks of their liberty. If you don’t have liberty than you are being oppressed. A lot of “Good” whites could care less because it didn’t impact them. They could say with a clear conscience, I don’t care about the color of your skin and argue that Jim Crow isn’t fair, while at the same time doing absolutely nothing to change it.

            The difficult part of liberty is not that people get to be their ugly selves. The difficult part is simply not fighting just for your own liberty!

            Civil Rights legislation is a direct result of the failure of people that fall into the category Group C (the hypocrites). That includes private citizens, churches, and yes even private business!

          • Paul

            I’ve made no statement in support of Jim Crow laws, a legal requirement to discriminate based on skin color similarly violates liberty.

            IMO the typical debate between Jim Crow laws or the Civil Rights act as written presents a false dilemma, there are other options. Removing legal requirements to discriminate was the right thing to do, as well as ensuring equal access to govt. But compelling private citizens to partially not discriminate set in motion a can of worms that has resulted in a confusing mess of contradictory and hypocritical laws and rulings.

            For example at this point the law prohibits a business from discriminating against customers and employees based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin. That has been extended to homosexual choices and cross dressing, and yet it is still OK in some instances to discriminate based on age, and in all cases against people exercising their rights under the second amendment that are explicitly stated should not be infringed.

          • Concerned Christian

            “IMO the typical debate between Jim Crow laws or the Civil Rights act as written presents a false dilemma, there are other options”

            you know there are always other options. But those with power never choose them until forced to. This country had over 100 years to deal with this problem and never did. So it’s a little late to complain about the solution.

            It’s the same with gay marriage. Prior to 2004, gays would have accepted civil unions but conservatives declared that this was to close to marriage. Well now we have full blown gay marriage.

            Also, a lesson in life to always remember is that in order for oppressed groups to have power they have to form coalitions. In this case gay has morphed into LGBTQ.

            For women it’s the same issue. There’s always another way but those with power never seem to find it.

            “and in all cases against people exercising their rights under the second amendment that are explicitly stated should not be infringed.”

            The only reason that gun rights are under attack is because since trump has been in office, we’ve had fifty-eight casualties in Las Vegas, twenty-six in Sutherland Springs. Seventeen in Parkland, Florida. In all, 101 people dead, in just three attacks.

            People who don’t own guns do not differentiate when they see people legally purchasing guns and then killing mass numbers of people with them. So they don’t care about your right to bear arms, they care about their right not to get shot. So as with Civil Rights, if you don’t like their solution you have to do more than give lip service to the argument there’s always a better option.

          • Paul

            “So it’s a little late to complain about the solution.”

            That’s like saying it was too late to complain about the 3/5 compromise. Bad law is bad law no matter how long or short it has been in place, and is never too late to address.

            “. Prior to 2004, gays would have accepted civil unions…”

            Sheer delusion. The homosexual agenda would not have ended there, not by a long shot.

            “The only reason that gun rights are under attack is because since trump has been in office…”

            More delusion. The second amendment has been under attack for decades.

            “So they don’t care about your right to bear arms, they care about their right not to get shot.”

            So it would also be OK to infringe the rights of all purple people because a few of them commit crimes? Yea I didn’t think so, but that’s what you want regarding the second amendment. At least be consistent in your reasoning.

          • Concerned Christian

            “. Prior to 2004, gays would have accepted civil unions…” Sheer delusion”

            So you blame them and accuse them of some secret agenda. Then of course you don’t propose any type of solution. Then complain about the solution that’s put in place.

            “The only reason that gun rights are under attack is because since trump has been in office…”

            I’ve heard gun rights activist complaining about getting their guns taken away my whole life. I was pointing out that since trump became president the incidence of mass shootings has not changed. Also, with each incident gun rights activist propose nothing and complain that someone is attempting to take their guns away.

            “So it would also be OK to infringe the rights of all purple people because a few of them commit crimes? ”

            isn’t that exactly what conservatives want to do with Muslims?
            Isn’t that the argument with banning certain drugs?
            Isn’t that the argument with controlling certain medications?
            Isn’t that the argument with speeding?

            There are plenty of things that we control or out right ban not because all people do the wrong thing but because of the number of things that go wrong.

          • Paul

            “So you blame them and accuse them of some secret agenda.”

            There is nothing secret about it, it has been in plain sight and painfully obvious for anyone to open their eyes and see.

            “Then of course you don’t propose any type of solution.”

            Once again, simply not true. There are many who have sought to call the deviance exactly what it is, just because you don’t want to hear it is your problem.

            “Then complain about the solution that’s put in place.”

            Of course people will complain, why sit around and let deviants reorder my life in their image?

            “Also, with each incident gun rights activist propose nothing…”

            Have you been pulling talking points from the DNC Website? Second amendment supporters have been calling for the current laws to actually be enforced for a long time, still rarely happens. Parkland is a perfect example.

            “isn’t that exactly what conservatives want to do with Muslims? ”

            No

            “Isn’t that the argument with banning certain drugs?”

            Hows that working out?

            “Isn’t that the argument with controlling certain medications?”

            No, not really.

            “Isn’t that the argument with speeding?”

            No, not really. The analogy would be to ban cars due to traffic deaths.

            “There are plenty of things that we control or out right ban not because all people do the wrong thing but because of the number of things that go wrong.”

            Which ones of those are rights enumerated in the Constitution?

          • Concerned Christian

            “Once again, simply not true. There are many who have sought to call the deviance exactly what it is, just because you don’t want to hear it is your problem.”

            Your solution is similar to Strom Thurmond’s:

            “I wanna tell you, ladies and gentlemen, that there’s not enough troops in the army to force the Southern people to break down segregation and admit the Nigra race into our theaters, into our swimming pools, into our homes, and into our churches.”

            This country was filled with people who HATED blacks. Hated the idea of blacks. Any argument that you can now make about gays was made about blacks. This is why Civil Rights legislation was necessary. If you can’t find common ground then common ground will be found for you.

            “Second amendment supporters have been calling for the current laws to actually be enforced for a long time, still rarely happens.”

            Outside of saying that, what concrete steps has trump, the republican congress, or the NRA taken to make sure that it happens? Nothing! Talk, talk, talk, lip service, lip service, lip service, wait for the next shooting to occur.

            “Which ones of those are rights enumerated in the Constitution?”

            The right to bear arms is not an unlimited right!

            Supreme Court shoots down gun cases, upholds ban on assault weapons and open-carry
            https://www(dot)washingtontimes(dot)com/news/2017/nov/27/scotus-upholds-ban-assault-weapons-open-carry/

          • Paul

            “Your solution is similar to Strom Thurmond’s:”

            Oh boy, next up I’ll be like Adolf.

            “This country was filled with people who HATED blacks.”

            Your comment begs the question, do people have the freedom to not like something or someone?

            “Outside of saying that, what concrete steps has trump, the republican congress, or the NRA taken to make sure that it happens? ”

            Well the NRA isn’t govt so they don’t enforce laws. As for Trump et al, that is a good question, even Ds suck at enforcing their own laws, I see it here in Cali, they just keep piling on more laws and complain they need more money to enforce them. Until govt employees can be held personally accountable for their inaction and/or incompetence this stuff will keep going on. But neither party has an appetite to go the distance on that.

            “The right to bear arms is not an unlimited right!”

            Seems you and all those judges have a reading and comprehension problem… what part of “shall not be infringed” do you all fail to understand? It really is pathetic how people will flat out ignore what the Constitution actually says, pretend it isn’t there, say things completely contrary to what is written and then expect everyone to think they are correct. I guess with enough long legal words packed into the opinion people fall for it. Or maybe just repeating the same bull often enough people fall for it, just like ‘separation of church and state”.

          • Concerned Christian

            “Your comment begs the question, do people have the freedom to not like something or someone?”

            if that freedom extends to using your liberty to deprive someone you don’t like of their liberties, then no. For instance, you may not like gay marriage, but you don’t have the right to arbitrarily deprive them of their rights because you don’t like it. Before you say it’s not in the Constitution:

            9th Amendment:

            “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

            “Well the NRA isn’t govt so they don’t enforce laws. ”

            again, if republicans don’t figure it out, you will have another piece of legislation i.e “Civil Rights” that you don’t like. Dems already know the direction that they want to go in. I’m not saying that they’re right but I am saying eventually if these shootings are not stopped, the Dems will get what they want.

            “Seems you and all those judges have a reading and comprehension problem… what part of “shall not be infringed”

            Here’s your answer:

            Deadliest U.S. mass shootings, 1984-2017
            http://timelines(dot)latimes(dot)com/deadliest-shooting-rampages/

            This list does not include the shootings in Texas and Florida.

            This is just mass shootings. It doesn’t include gun violence in general.

            What do you think is going to happen if they find a terrorist group that legally purchased guns and go on a shooting spree in NY City, LA, Houston, Miami, etc.?

          • Paul

            “if that freedom extends to using your liberty to deprive someone you don’t like of their liberties, then no.”

            You mean like depriving a Christian of their freedom of religion by forcing them to act contrary to their beliefs?

            “What do you think is going to happen if they find a terrorist group that legally purchased guns and go on a shooting spree in NY City, LA, Houston, Miami, etc.?”

            That has already happened, do you pay attention to the news? They are perfect examples of how the gun laws that have been advocated by liberals are ineffective.

          • Concerned Christian

            “You mean like depriving a Christian of their freedom of religion by forcing them to act contrary to their beliefs?

            Exactly how has that happened? Gay marriage has been legal for a few years now. From my understanding Christians can still get married. Churches can still refuse to marry gays or provide employment to them.

            If you run a public business you can’t hide behind not liking gays as a religious right anymore so than refusing service to blacks, Jews, Muslims, or women for the same reason.

            “That has already happened, do you pay attention to the news? ”

            Please give me an example of what I’m missing?

            “how the gun laws that have been advocated by liberals are ineffective.”

            Apparently that applies to the ones advocated by republicans (do nothing) as well.

          • Paul

            “Exactly how has that happened?”

            Oh please, do you live under a rock?

            “Please give me an example of what I’m missing?”

            Fort Hood, Orlando and San Bernadino come to mind.

          • Concerned Christian

            “if they find a TERRORIST GROUP that legally purchased guns and go on a shooting spree”

            I said “terrorist group”, not individual “terrorist”. Clearly an individual, for any reason, can kill as many people as they like and nothing will be done.

          • Paul

            No doubt your distinction gives great comfort to the victims. But since it matters so much to you, San Bernadino was a group effort. And it happened in gun control crazy California. The irony is painful.

          • Concerned Christian

            “No doubt your distinction gives great comfort to the victims. ”

            Certainly more than what they will get from the NRA and republicans.

            btw, the last three mass shootings occurred in gun crazy Vegas, Texas, and Florida. With two of the three being a school and a church. Yes, irony is painful.

            Let’s see what happens if a “Group of Terrorist” is brazen enough to do that. Only Americans in gun crazy states can get away with that level of carnage.

          • Paul

            who got away with anything? Perps are either dead or in custody

          • Bryan

            You forgot about Maryland where the guy with the gun likely deterred the shooter from continuing. Maryland has some of the strictest gun laws in the country. “Gun crazy states” have nothing to do with the “level of carnage”. The issue is a heart issue not a gun issue.

          • Concerned Christian

            I said “Gun Crazy States” in reference to the Paul’s previous comment of “gun control crazy California”.

            “The issue is a heart issue not a gun issue.”

            A heart issue is not walking in love.

            Walking into a church, a school, or shooting people running is well beyond a heart issue. That’s a rage issue. Someone full of rage with access to weapons that give them the ability to kill hundreds in a matter of minutes.

          • Andrew Mason

            So how do you respond to an account I heard a while back? A couple with their young son were tired and hungry so stopped when they saw a restaurant. Upon going in to order they were told sorry but we can’t accept your business – they were Whites in a Black only establishment.

            If I recall the account correctly, the elderly Black who refused them service, after taking note of the son’s distress, may have said something about Christian charity and it not being right to force them to leave, despite refusing them service. I don’t recall if the gentleman who told the story, and who was the little boy in it, said whether they where permitted to order or simply given something to eat. I do recall that his father left an exceedingly large ‘tip’ for the free food.

          • Concerned Christian

            I would think that even in the 1950’s, plenty of white owned restaurants would have responded the same way if it were a black couple in the same situation.

            Also, Jim Crow didn’t work both ways. I seriously doubt that many black owned business turned away whites for services. The ramifications for that decision could cause them to be harassed or even lose their business.

            For the story above, what do you think the Klan would have done to that black owned business turning away that family?

          • Andrew Mason

            All I can do is retell the story as best I can recall it. Since I’ve heard about Black only fountains and facilities, with some folk getting rather antsy when White folk tried to use them, I can easily believe Jim Crow worked both ways irrespective of what laws in any particular jurisdiction may have said.

          • Concerned Christian

            I’m not challenging the story just saying that I’m not surprised that someone would assist someone in distress.

            However, this statement:

            “I can easily believe Jim Crow worked both ways irrespective of what laws”

            Maybe I’m misreading this but are you saying that blacks had the ability to enforce Jim Crow the same as whites? That the ramification of violating that law applied equally to both blacks and whites?

            That from schools to businesses to restaurants, the facilities themselves were equal in nature? Such that a white person would even want to go to a black establishment?

          • Andrew Mason

            Commenting on what I’ve heard. For instance where there were 2 drinking fountains – 1 for Blacks, 1 for Whites, a White would be … discouraged from using the Black fountain. Seemed to be a matter of pride or something for some that particular facilities were exclusive to Blacks, and so Whites could go jump.

          • Concerned Christian

            Where did you hear it from? To be honest these stories sound like something from a white supremacist site..

            do you really believe there was some type of equality between blacks and whites during segregation?

            This is the experience of blacks under segregation:

            The Negro Motorist Green Book
            https://en(dot)wikipedia(dot)org/wiki/The_Negro_Motorist_Green_Book

            HISTORY OF LYNCHINGS
            http://www(dot)naacp(dot)org/history-of-lynchings/

            Freedom Riders: Freedom Riders Challenge Segregation
            https://unctv(dot)pbslearningmedia(dot)org/resource/fr11(dot)soc(dot)civil(dot)tactics(dot)frgoals/freedom-riders-freedom-riders-challenge-segregation/#(dot)WwDK-kgvyM8

            Why the Woolworth’s Sit-In Worked
            http://time(dot)com/3691383/woolworths-sit-in-history/

            There’s a reason why whites fought for it and blacks fought against it. It wasn’t because both thought the system was fair.

          • Andrew Mason

            From a handful of people who’ve shared the odd observation about life during the period.

    • Jennifer Hartline

      So if a restaurant declined to serve the elderly, that would be okay?

      • Paul

        I’d be fine with that.

      • tz1

        If they insisted on screaming profanity and vulgarity at the top of their lungs because they didn’t get a cupcake or something, yes, that would not merely be okay, but a righteous act.

  • Paul

    I understand the comparison you’re drawing here. But if you’re serious about your opinion of the restaurant policy then on that we disagree. Yes there are times and places that screaming kids don’t belong. If that makes me a jerk so be it. I’ll add it to deplorable bitter clinger.

    • Jennifer Hartline

      Shake has the right to keep his restaurant a more upscale, adult-only place. He can discourage families with young children if he wants. He should not be forced to cater to families with little ones. And his choice isn’t even based on faith or beliefs.
      See how easy that was? Neither should bakers and florists and photographers be mandated by law to provide creative services for a same-sex wedding, since their conscience tells them marriage is only between a man and a woman.
      The freedom has to go both ways.
      As for your reference to “screaming kids”, I’ll paraphrase what I already wrote: Babies sometimes cry. That’s life. Kids can behave themselves in public. Children are people, too.

      • Paul

        I disagree with the ivil rights act in how it impacted private business. I’m of the opinion that a private business should be able to refuse service to anyone.

        • Concerned Christian

          i am too now that they can’t do it to me because I’m black.

  • Albert T. Tappman

    Economics 101 and free enterprise. The point is lawsuits are being used to attack those who disagree with the progressive body politic.

  • daisy

    He’s not a jerk. This is a fine restaurant. People pay a lot of money to dine here. It’s not for tots.

  • Grasshopper

    The elephant in the room here is parents who refuse to correct or control their children. I cannot count how many times my family’s meals were paid for by people who admired how our four children exhibited politeness and self control in restaurants. Grandparents coming over to compliment us on how well behaved our children were and wishing their grandchildren could control themselves wasn’t unusual.

    Sit next to a self-centered “prince or princess” (usually found somewhere on their clothing) on a plane, in church, or any space where you cannot easily move away and you will understand the owner’s intention.

    Sadly, we will see more signs like this as snowflakes start having children.

  • tz1

    What happened to disciplining children? Saying “No!” instead of indulging them?

    I fully expect that if I went into any of those restaurats and was disruptive, screaming, shouting, and maybe worse, I would be told to leave and arrested for trespassing if I didn’t.

    Being a child needs some tolerance because they can’t always IMMEDIATELY control themselves, but that is where the parents and discipline comes in.

    Today, the parents refuse to control “the little darlings” so they make things unpleasant for all.

  • tz1

    I will also add that we NEED TOLERANCE BECAUSE children are children, but there is a line. I remember a priest that complained that children were disrupting HIS MASS by crying during the music, and apparently the parents inability to immediately teleport was a point to be condemned. NO!.

    We need to tolerate the small and beginning disruptions because we all are fallen, but then if they don’t stop when asked, greater action must be taken.

  • 281commenter

    I don’t mind anti-discrimination laws as long as they are applied uniformly. People acquiesced to them because the idea makes us queasy that someone could be hungry and not be able to use their green dollar bills to buy food same as anyone else. (Also they create predictability in commerce which allows people to move fluidly around our large country, which makes our lives very efficient and probably cheaper too). But when you hear of people refusing to allow police officers to buy food because they hate the police, or refusing to let a guy wearing a MAGA hat buy food, or refusing to serve children, etcetera, then to me that is immoral and hateful and discriminatory. The usual defense is, oh, well a police officer or a guy in a MAGA hat, or a famous conservative made notorious in the mainstream media for doing something liberals dislike, is not a protected class. But that is a failing argument to me. Protected classes only exist because of the moral argument that it is wrong to discriminate against people who need to buy essential services (especially food) that allow them to live and conduct their life. So to take advantage of that moral argument to create a privileged group of people to whom everyone must cater by force of law, and then to exclude other people, is to be a hypocrite.

Inspiration
A Case for Fear
Austin Roscoe
More from The Stream
Connect with Us