Like a lot of signs in bars, this one is probably a policy masquerading as a law; they may even fondly believe it's a right enshrined in law. Lot of inertia in that biz.
But the sign, and the bathroom sign, and the "Your kid can't sit at the bar" signs are all firmly based on intimidation. If you plan to defy them, you better be ready to escalate quickly.
Not saying it's right, or that it's wrong, just how it is. Me, I'm with the guy in Chicago who says if people are going to bring kids into his coffeeshop, said kids have to behave.
I meant if you're an asshole, or drunk, or both, they can have you escorted off the premises, if you don't go willingly. Or if you've shoplifted from them in the past, or passed a bad check at their establishment, or dined and dashed...
Right, we aren't talking about the mall. But if I run a bar, I can prevent you from coming in and using my bathroom. In NYC, that just makes sense - I've been bartending and let a homeless guy use the pisser. He locked himself in and wouldn't leave until I threatened to get a police officer.
From experience, most places, like Lew says, are merely talking about intimidation. If you've got the balls, and the bursting bladder, to go on into a place, use the bathroom, and leave, they're not going to get on your case. Though there are McDonald's in the city which post security guards who make sure you actually bought something before they'll let you use the toilet. Maybe that's a bit over the line.
"Lew Bryson" wrote in news:2_Gjf.2747$ snipped-for-privacy@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com:
Policy is all fine and well. But what's the law? I don't give a f*ck what your "policy" is. I need to pee. "Restrooms for Customers Only"? Plenty of signs, but not the law.
Them: Excuse me! Sir? Me: Yes? Them: Restrooms are for customers only. Me: I'm going to pee and then I want to talk to your manager. Them: OK. +3min... Me: Can I speak with your manager? Them: S/he's not here right now. Me: Roger.
Well said.
Dunno about the stinking shithole of a state you live in, but in CA a child at the bar is an instant violation. The good folks at the Rathskellar in Huntington Beach can tell you how close they got to not being in business anymore. Some places here are more lax, but I think they are taking chances.
Dave Witzel wrote in news:Xns9722884902A76djwitzelnycroadrunne@24.168.128.90:
Again I said: "Behaviour (current or previous) - that's another issue entirely."
Apologies, I (again) spoke poorly. In CA the stated reason (at least as I believe it to be) is that there are no/few public restrooms *because* businesses are supposed to take up the slack. Find me a public restroom on Montana Ave or Rodeo Dr. Or even Sunset, Wilshire, SM Blvd... As someone with a penis, I'll find a way. As someone without...
Funnily enough, I was getting a sandwich at Subway in downtown Long Beach yesterday, and they had a sign posted, complete with a code citation, that California state law does not require establishments below a certain size to offer public restrooms, and that's why they didn't have one. I'm guessing other states have similar regulations.
Huh. Didn't know that. Wasn't the case in the upper Midwest when I was a kid. Of course, I'm basing that in part on hanging around the one bar in one small town in North Dakota while my grnadfather played cards with his buddies and gave me quarters for the pool table. But it seems like it was the same way elsewhere, and in Minnesota and Wisconsin, too.
"A Taste of Heaven" in Chicago. NYT did a story about a month back on them, on how they have a sign posted that says, " children of all ages have to behave and use their indoor voices when coming to A Taste of Heaven."
Predictably, parents cried discrimination, talked of boycott, etc. I don't know about you, but when I was growing up, I was taught just that: use inside voices when inside. But that seems to be the exception with parents these days. I'm with Lew, I applaud the guy.
Wisconsin, yes. Illinois and Indiana, that's a great big no. And you know I know that from personal experience. You you can add Washington to the personal experience list, as well. Actually, it's not quite that simple-- sitting at bars is right out, while in some merely being in the "bar area" is enough to get the place fined. Illinois allows children in a place if they serve food, but at least here in Champagain bars that serve food generally prohibit children after 7pm even then.
I remember in Indiana, the bar had to be very much physically separate from the rest of the place if children were to be allowed in. Big, high railings or low walls seemed to pass muster, but you could tell that in a lot of older places, the bar area was in a more or less separate room.
Not sure what the rules are in California. I know that in places the serve food and have a bar, there doesn't need to be any separation, that I've noticed anyway. I'm guessing serving food is a requirement, though.
I found that out when the kids came with me to the bar at Lafayette Brewing Company to get a few growlers filled after we dined. I was politely but firmly informed they had to wait in the dining area.
I wouldn't even want to guess how they'd handle it there. California is a muddle of laid-backness and uptightness when it comes to laws.
snipped-for-privacy@see.headers (Joel) wrote in news:dnmn0v$69t$ snipped-for-privacy@badger.ncsa.uiuc.edu:
Well-said.
But that's governing by Proposition for ya. Didja know that selling a horse for food (whether in state or, get this, out of state) is illegal in CA? Because of all the "spend this much money here" props that have passed, the CA govt is left with something like 5% discretionary funds from the budget? WTF?
Still the 5th or 6th or, hell, 40th largest economy in the world.
DrinksForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.