Peter Aitken wrote:

> Some people think only of themselves. "I want dinner at this restaurant and
> if my noisy baby annoys other people then **** them." Other people are more
> considerate. "I want dinner at this restaurant but my noisy baby might annoy
> other people so I will make other plans."


The way I look at it, babies are like cigarettes.


Some people like to smoke in restaurants. The people who don't smoke
find the smell offensive. Some smokers are considerate of non-smokers
and find a way to smoke and not bother anybody (in their rooms). Others
aren't nice about it. As far as I'm concerned, it is up to the
restaurant to make rules about whether or not they allow smoking.
(Local laws apply too, but for the sake of my analogy, skip that part.)
If the restaurant management allows smoking, they may lose business on
the part of the patrons who hate smoke. If they don't allow smoking,
they may lose business from the smokers. One thing the management can't
do is tell a party that they're allowed to smoke and then change their
minds when someone complains. I wouldn't blame the smokers for lighting
up their cigarettes in a restaurant that has said that it allows
smoking. Instead, I'd point out to management that they'd get more
business from me if they could provide me a place where I could eat
without the stench of cigarette smoke.


Same with babies. Some people have babies. Babies cry. Some people
are bothered by crying babies. Some people with babies manage to have
their crying babies where they're not bothering anybody (in their
rooms). Others disingenuously maintain that crying babies shouldn't
bother others. Here's what I don't get: Why don't people blame the
restaurant management for allowing babies the same as they blame the
management for allowing smoking? It is practically the same thing! If
the management makes the rules, they're going to lose some business on
the part of either the baby parents or those who don't want to eat
around crying babies. Ideally, restaurants could have noisy sections
the same as they have smoking sections where they'd throw all the babies
and cell phone users together (along with the folks who dine while
operating jackhammers), but that's not likely to happen. In the mean
time, it makes sense, when making the reservation, to ask about the
restaurant's policy about babies and decide accordingly.


When I read the original post, I assumed that the restaurant was fairly
fancy and free-standing. I didn't picture a place attached to a hotel.
I've never been in a free-standing restaurant that had space for parents
to quiet babies until they fall asleep. (Churches often have
comfortable "cry-rooms" where parents can walk back and forth with the
babies until they're quiet.) Now that I'm picturing a restaurant with a
hotel attached, I do think it should have been possible for the manager
gently to insist that the parents take the babies upstairs to their room
and have room service deliver the meals-- UNLESS the parents had been
promised that the baby would be allowed. If that was the case, the
management was in no position to change their minds mid-stream.


--Lia