Firebird
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 12:55:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,448
|
Post by Firebird on Jul 10, 2012 12:56:01 GMT -5
All the casinos I've been to in the past few years (which is a lot; DH loves the slots) have comped us drinks. Especially if you are playing on the machines at the bar. Of course you have to gamble the amount of the drink and usually you lose so it's basically like paying for your drink, but they do give it to you.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Jul 10, 2012 17:57:46 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. Stupidest thing I've ever heard. I haven't read the entire thread, but what's next? Refusing to have a salt shaker at the table of a customer with hypertension? Refusing to serve someone with a peanut allergy some cashew chicken? Refusing bread if someone with gluten allergies asks for it? It's ridiculous. People should know what they can, or cannot ingest, and should be responsible for what they're putting in their mouths. It's not up to the restaurant.
|
|
Firebird
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 12:55:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,448
|
Post by Firebird on Jul 10, 2012 18:01:49 GMT -5
weltschmerz, it's not to control what the customers eat/drink, it's to protect teh baybeez from their evil/clueless parents
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Jul 10, 2012 22:10:46 GMT -5
It's still ridiculous. Perhaps they should refuse to serve pregnant women fish, as well. The amount of fish consumed during pregnancy should be curtailed due to the mercury. Bad for the baybeez, dontcha know?
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,856
|
Post by happyhoix on Jul 11, 2012 6:50:29 GMT -5
OK, well we can't sell pregnant women nail polish or nail polish remover while they're pregnant, either, because of the toxic fumes.
And benzene comes off gasoline fumes, so we can't allow them to pump their own gas while they're pregnant. And air bags are horrible for pregnant women, but you can't ride in a car without air bags either, so let's just say women have to stay home all 9 months, then walk to the hospital when they're in labor.
Of course, then there are the formaldahyde odors from the carpets, so they have to get rid of those, and cats carry a disease that's harmful to the fetus, so kick the cats out of the house, and then of course what if she gets around someone's kids who have chickenpox? That would be a disaster. So lets just say she can't be exposed to other people at all, as they might be germy.
I think we need to make all pregnant women live in those big bubbles, just to be sure. As long as the bubbles don't contain that bad type of pastic....
|
|
NomoreDramaQ1015
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:26:32 GMT -5
Posts: 47,196
|
Post by NomoreDramaQ1015 on Jul 11, 2012 8:01:34 GMT -5
And benzene comes off gasoline fumes, so we can't allow them to pump their own gas while they're pregnant.I wouldn't mind that one. Make DH stand out in the -20 weather to fill up my car.
|
|
midjd
Administrator
Your Money Admin
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:09:23 GMT -5
Posts: 17,719
|
Post by midjd on Jul 11, 2012 8:12:48 GMT -5
Better yet, just start growing all babies in a lab instead. Too risky to let these pregnant women think they know what they're doing!
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,856
|
Post by happyhoix on Jul 11, 2012 8:38:13 GMT -5
Better yet, just start growing all babies in a lab instead. Too risky to let these pregnant women think they know what they're doing! Well, they could roll over on their bellies and squash them or something careless like that, so lab babies are a good idea. Then we should have robots raise them because once they're out of the womb the dangers jump up exponentially. Robots would be more careful. (There was a commercial a while back about a day care run by robots - it was awesome).
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 19, 2024 11:11:40 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2012 8:42:00 GMT -5
but robots can't love!
|
|
midjd
Administrator
Your Money Admin
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:09:23 GMT -5
Posts: 17,719
|
Post by midjd on Jul 11, 2012 8:54:35 GMT -5
Short Circuit could!
|
|
Firebird
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 12:55:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,448
|
Post by Firebird on Jul 11, 2012 10:12:26 GMT -5
OK, well we can't sell pregnant women nail polish or nail polish remover while they're pregnant, either, because of the toxic fumes. And benzene comes off gasoline fumes, so we can't allow them to pump their own gas while they're pregnant. And air bags are horrible for pregnant women, but you can't ride in a car without air bags either, so let's just say women have to stay home all 9 months, then walk to the hospital when they're in labor. Of course, then there are the formaldahyde odors from the carpets, so they have to get rid of those, and cats carry a disease that's harmful to the fetus, so kick the cats out of the house, and then of course what if she gets around someone's kids who have chickenpox? That would be a disaster. So lets just say she can't be exposed to other people at all, as they might be germy. I think we need to make all pregnant women live in those big bubbles, just to be sure. As long as the bubbles don't contain that bad type of pastic....
|
|