Firebird
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 12:55:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,448
|
Post by Firebird on Jun 29, 2012 11:41:07 GMT -5
Interesting discussion on WIR about this yesterday... what sayeth YM? Should a restaurant be allowed to create a company policy that they do not serve alcohol to visibly pregnant women (even though to do so is not illegal)? Should individual servers be permitted to deny alcohol if they have a moral issue with pregnant women drinking?
My personal answers - no and no. If a woman is over 21 and not already intoxicated, you have no legal standing not to serve her alcohol. And choosing not to do so based on a visible medical condition strikes me as discriminatory.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 25, 2024 21:41:23 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 29, 2012 11:44:39 GMT -5
It is an interesting question.
Personally, I prefer my pregnant women drunk and horny.
|
|
movingforward
Junior Associate
Joined: Sept 15, 2011 12:48:31 GMT -5
Posts: 8,358
|
Post by movingforward on Jun 29, 2012 11:44:52 GMT -5
No. Personally, I am disgusted when I see a pregnant woman drinking or smoking but that is her choice. Just as a doctor should not base his/her personal feelings on what a female does with her body nor should any restaurant or server.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 25, 2024 21:41:23 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 29, 2012 11:46:40 GMT -5
(minus the disgusted part. I don't care enough about strangers to have that strong of a reaction)
|
|
alabamagal
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 11:30:29 GMT -5
Posts: 8,117
|
Post by alabamagal on Jun 29, 2012 11:46:50 GMT -5
No. They should not be prohibited. Also recent evidence says that one drink per day will do no harm. Some people may choose to avoid alcohol altogether, but this is there choice. Others may chose to have a drink with dinner, this is their choice. Others may choose to get drunk every night, well that is a bad choice.
Anyway, you always here about the embarrassing moments of people asking "When is the baby due" to someone who is not pregnant. How can a resturant server make that determination. When I was young and in shape and pregnant, I was 7 months along before some even realized I was pregnant. Now that I am older and not so in shape, I look more "pregnant" than I did when I actually was.
|
|
NomoreDramaQ1015
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:26:32 GMT -5
Posts: 47,224
|
Post by NomoreDramaQ1015 on Jun 29, 2012 11:47:58 GMT -5
I just posted on WIR that I liken it to resturants that don't want kids to patronize their place. Yeah you are discriminating against parents who want to take their kids there but it is not illegal, they are breaking no laws doing so. You are free to go someplace else that does serve kids.
Depending on what kind of establishment he has, a no-kids policy is not going to hurt his bottom line. Unless an establishment's sole customer base is pregnant women it is not going to hurt them in any real fashion to deny a pregnant women alcohol.
|
|
greenstone
Established Member
Joined: Jan 8, 2011 13:57:20 GMT -5
Posts: 353
|
Post by greenstone on Jun 29, 2012 11:49:38 GMT -5
Yes, a restaurant should be allow to have determine their own policies. If a pregnant woman doesn't like it, she can take her money and business elsewhere. As long as they are discriminating against legally protected groups then a business owner should be able to run their business as they see fit.
If I were a business owner, I would expect my employees to follow my policies unless I approve otherwise.
ETA: Personally, I don't care if a pregnant woman wants to drink alcohol or not. I just see it as an infringement on rights of the business. If it hurts their business then they have no one but themselves to blame.
|
|
movingforward
Junior Associate
Joined: Sept 15, 2011 12:48:31 GMT -5
Posts: 8,358
|
Post by movingforward on Jun 29, 2012 11:50:04 GMT -5
I just posted on WIR that I liken it to resturants that don't want kids to patronize their place. Yeah you are discriminating against parents who want to take their kids there but it is not illegal, they are breaking no laws doing so. You are free to go someplace else that does serve kids. Depending on what kind of establishment he has, a no-kids policy is not going to hurt his bottom line. Unless an establishment's sole customer base is pregnant women it is not going to hurt them in any real fashion to deny a pregnant women alcohol. Interesting DQ. I never looked at it that way, but you have a good point
|
|
swamp
Community Leader
Don't be a fool. Call me!
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 16:03:22 GMT -5
Posts: 45,309
|
Post by swamp on Jun 29, 2012 11:52:10 GMT -5
The ACOG has recently issued a statement that occasional alcohol consumption by a pregnant woman, and no more than one drink, is OK.
|
|
muttleynfelix
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:32:52 GMT -5
Posts: 9,406
|
Post by muttleynfelix on Jun 29, 2012 11:55:46 GMT -5
I just posted on WIR that I liken it to resturants that don't want kids to patronize their place. Yeah you are discriminating against parents who want to take their kids there but it is not illegal, they are breaking no laws doing so. You are free to go someplace else that does serve kids. Depending on what kind of establishment he has, a no-kids policy is not going to hurt his bottom line. Unless an establishment's sole customer base is pregnant women it is not going to hurt them in any real fashion to deny a pregnant women alcohol. Except that you typically know when you walk in if the establishment is child friendly or not. You may have waited 30 mintues for a table, gotten seated, and when you are ordered your drink told "no I'm not serving you". It is like if you go to an amusement park, you know ahead of time if you are pregnant, they aren't going to let you on the roller coasters. No big deal, you can plan accordingly. If this is your one night out, you have just been inconvienced big time - add in pregnancy hormones and yeah as a server, you just ruined my night out. I know I can take my business else where, but you have now wasted my time on something that is not a written policy.
|
|
midjd
Administrator
Your Money Admin
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:09:23 GMT -5
Posts: 17,719
|
Post by midjd on Jun 29, 2012 11:55:58 GMT -5
Yeah, I've heard the only reason they tell pregnant women not to drink is that if they touted "occasional" consumption as being OK, they'd be sued by some idiot who interpreted "occasional" as "a 12-pack a day."
I'm certainly not "disgusted" by seeing a pregnant woman drink, at least no more than I would be to see her eating lunchmeat, drinking a Coke, or any of the other 10000000 things they put a blanket prohibition on because some people don't know the meaning of moderation.
I suppose restaurants have the right to refuse to serve alcohol to pregnant women, but I'd be annoyed by such a policy (and I'm not even pregnant).
|
|
greenstone
Established Member
Joined: Jan 8, 2011 13:57:20 GMT -5
Posts: 353
|
Post by greenstone on Jun 29, 2012 11:56:52 GMT -5
The ACOG has recently issued a statement that occasional alcohol consumption by a pregnant woman, and no more than one drink, is OK. So the real question is: Should a business owner be allowed to make arbitrary policies based on misinformation or their owned biased views? Sadly, I have to say yes.
|
|
NomoreDramaQ1015
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:26:32 GMT -5
Posts: 47,224
|
Post by NomoreDramaQ1015 on Jun 29, 2012 11:57:09 GMT -5
What if she is drinking coke and eating lunch meat she took out of a non-BPA free plastic container?
|
|
swamp
Community Leader
Don't be a fool. Call me!
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 16:03:22 GMT -5
Posts: 45,309
|
Post by swamp on Jun 29, 2012 11:58:46 GMT -5
The ACOG has recently issued a statement that occasional alcohol consumption by a pregnant woman, and no more than one drink, is OK. So the real question is: Should a business owner be allowed to make arbitrary policies based on misinformation or their owned biased views? Sadly, I have to say yes. A business owner has a right to do it. He has as right to be stupid.
|
|
swamp
Community Leader
Don't be a fool. Call me!
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 16:03:22 GMT -5
Posts: 45,309
|
Post by swamp on Jun 29, 2012 11:59:01 GMT -5
What if she is drinking coke and eating lunch meat she took out of a non-BPA free plastic container? I think that was me..........
|
|
greenstone
Established Member
Joined: Jan 8, 2011 13:57:20 GMT -5
Posts: 353
|
Post by greenstone on Jun 29, 2012 12:00:42 GMT -5
So the real question is: Should a business owner be allowed to make arbitrary policies based on misinformation or their owned biased views? Sadly, I have to say yes. A business owner has a right to do it. He has as right to be stupid. Absolutely! That was the point I was trying to make.
|
|
travelnut11
Familiar Member
Joined: Feb 12, 2011 22:17:14 GMT -5
Posts: 639
|
Post by travelnut11 on Jun 29, 2012 12:02:51 GMT -5
Tough question that I don't know the answer to honestly. Having said that, I was out to dinner with an 8 months pregnant friend who was eating sushi and drinking wine. The server was clearly distraught about serving her but did it anyway. It was uncomfortable to say the least and I could see she didn't know what to do. Interestingly, DBF and I were talking to his mom a few months ago and she said when she was pregnant in the 60s and 70s they recommended pregnant women limit their drinking to two martinis per day.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Jun 29, 2012 12:10:03 GMT -5
I just posted on WIR that I liken it to resturants that don't want kids to patronize their place. Yeah you are discriminating against parents who want to take their kids there but it is not illegal, they are breaking no laws doing so. You are free to go someplace else that does serve kids. Depending on what kind of establishment he has, a no-kids policy is not going to hurt his bottom line. Unless an establishment's sole customer base is pregnant women it is not going to hurt them in any real fashion to deny a pregnant women alcohol. With the exceptions that who is a kid should be much more apparent than who is pregnant (depending on how you define "kid" i suppose, if you go with under 18 or a relatively high age you can always ask for proof of age). And I think refusing to serve a group makes a lot more sense than being accepting and willing to serve a group but then refusing them certain items. I think the biggest difference is that one is a business decision and another is a moral decision. You're not refusing to serve kids because it's immoral to you. But that's really the reason you're refusing to serve alcohol to women you deem as pregnant.
|
|
movingforward
Junior Associate
Joined: Sept 15, 2011 12:48:31 GMT -5
Posts: 8,358
|
Post by movingforward on Jun 29, 2012 12:13:08 GMT -5
My city banned smoking in all restaurants and bars a couple of years ago. It passed by 53% or something like that I think. The biggest argument from the owners was that they should be able to decide if they want to allow people to smoke in their establishment or not. There was a lot of concern about the smoking ban affecting business. Doesn't seem to have done anything. There are still hoards of people downtown on the weekends and I love being able to have a drink without smoke being blown in my face. Still, I guess I do get the argument of the owner being able make their own personal rules for their business.
|
|
NomoreDramaQ1015
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:26:32 GMT -5
Posts: 47,224
|
Post by NomoreDramaQ1015 on Jun 29, 2012 12:21:13 GMT -5
A business owner has a right to do it. He has as right to be stupid.
Exactly.
|
|
greenstone
Established Member
Joined: Jan 8, 2011 13:57:20 GMT -5
Posts: 353
|
Post by greenstone on Jun 29, 2012 12:27:20 GMT -5
Banning smoking I can understand because it is a health risk to others.
I sure hope pregnancy isn't contagious. ;D
I think the business owner in the OP is an asshat or woefully misinformed, but my stance is that we don't need a new regulation every time someone encounters something they don't like or agree with or is plainly a bad idea. Just like kids being barred from a establishment, let the free market system determine whether or not the policy is sustainable. Regulation is not always the answer, which if I read it correctly was the question in the OP. Saving stupid people from themselves is a losing battle and lawmakers/city councils have bigger fish to fry.
|
|
mandyms
Established Member
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 12:31:11 GMT -5
Posts: 416
|
Post by mandyms on Jun 29, 2012 12:33:52 GMT -5
I would vote "no" on this issues, although I don't agree with pregnant women drinking alcohol. I would liken this issue to "let's refuse buffet service to fat people."
We know overeating is not good; despite what studies have said about alcohol and pregnancy, I tend to err on the side of caution. But I think we still need to expect people to take on some accountability for their own actions.
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,393
|
Post by thyme4change on Jun 29, 2012 12:37:22 GMT -5
The sign will now say "No shirt, no shoes, up the duff = no service."
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Jun 29, 2012 12:38:20 GMT -5
No alcohol to good looking people, you'll end up going home with someone fugly.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Jun 29, 2012 12:39:01 GMT -5
www.acog.org/About_ACOG/News_Room/News_Releases/2008/Alcohol_and_Pregnancy_Know_the_FactsSwamp...according to their website, ACOG says that woman should avoid all alcohol during pregnancy.....unless they have updated their website but not their articles. I have a serious issue with pregnant women drinking but I am not the morality police...besides, the biggest risk I would think would be earlier in the pregnancy when people aren't even showing.
|
|
Firebird
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 12:55:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,448
|
Post by Firebird on Jun 29, 2012 12:40:00 GMT -5
I think the biggest difference is that one is a business decision and another is a moral decision. You're not refusing to serve kids because it's immoral to you. But that's really the reason you're refusing to serve alcohol to women you deem as pregnant. As I said on WIR, I can grudgingly accept that people should be allowed to have whatever stupid policies in place that they want, but I find this one senseless and stupid. Yeah, I know, I can choose not to go back to that restaurant. But, pregnancy is such a personal and private thing. Why should MY eating choices be controlled by a random stranger just because I have a belly on me? I liken it to not serving an obese person dessert because you consider it unhealthy. That slope can get mighty slippery pretty fast.
|
|
Firebird
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 12:55:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,448
|
Post by Firebird on Jun 29, 2012 12:41:22 GMT -5
Also. I do find it quite hypocritical to say "businesses should be able to discriminate against whoever they want... as long as it's not illegal!" WTF? So it's fine to discriminate against a group of people as long as you're not breaking the law because people can always choose not to patronize your business if they don't like it, God bless America, but NO you can't discriminate against CERTAIN PEOPLE because there's a law against it."
Either business owners should be allowed to discriminate against whoever the hell they want or they shouldn't. Pick one. It's ridiculous to say that it's okay to discriminate against ugly people because they're not a protected class but it's not okay to discriminate against Native Americans because they are.
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,393
|
Post by thyme4change on Jun 29, 2012 12:43:38 GMT -5
Honestly, to me the biggest risk are those ladies that carry their fat in the front. I've known several people that look pregnant, but are really just fat (or have an unusally long gestation period - you know, years and years.) Do you really want your servers going around asking people if they are fat or pregnant? It seems like a good way to just piss everyone off.
Unless of course, you run one of those clubs where you are trying to shame the fat ugo's out. Then, I think it is an excellent policy.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Jun 29, 2012 12:45:59 GMT -5
I think the biggest difference is that one is a business decision and another is a moral decision. You're not refusing to serve kids because it's immoral to you. But that's really the reason you're refusing to serve alcohol to women you deem as pregnant. As I said on WIR, I can grudgingly accept that people should be allowed to have whatever stupid policies in place that they want, but I find this one senseless and stupid. Yeah, I know, I can choose not to go back to that restaurant. But, pregnancy is such a personal and private thing. Why should MY eating choices be controlled by a random stranger just because I have a belly on me? I liken it to not serving an obese person dessert because you consider it unhealthy. That slope can get mighty slippery pretty fast. Because an obese person is damaging themselves...and pregnant woman is harming her innocent baby...I have a major issue with that.
|
|
Sum Dum Gai
Senior Associate
Joined: Aug 15, 2011 15:39:24 GMT -5
Posts: 19,892
|
Post by Sum Dum Gai on Jun 29, 2012 12:47:00 GMT -5
Should a restaurant be allowed to create a company policy that they do not serve alcohol to visibly pregnant women (even though to do so is not illegal)? Should individual servers be permitted to deny alcohol if they have a moral issue with pregnant women drinking? Yes, and yes. It's a free country, and that applies to business owners too. They're free to run their businesses how they see fit as long as they aren't breaking the law in doing so. I liken it to not serving an obese person dessert because you consider it unhealthy. That slope can get mighty slippery pretty fast. I'd be fine with that one too. I don't think obesity is a protected class yet. If you don't like it, take your business elsewhere.
|
|