Would you like #1 adult only restaurant?

[Don Haynes]

" I believe its unconstitutional as I said before."

 

NO, that is not what you said before. You did not state it was your belief. You asked whether any of us had read the 14th ammendment. Obviously, one of us had, posted it, and pointed out that it did NOT say what you had claimed.

 

If its constitutional, name me one restaurant that bans 17 year olds. Just name one. Why?

 

Who's next? Singles? Married couples? Senior citizens?

 

I called my attorney, he would love to take this case. It would win millions....

[BIG_Steve]

If its constitutional, name me one restaurant that bans 17 year olds. Just name one. Why?

 

Who's next? Singles? Married couples? Senior citizens?

 

I called my attorney, he would love to take this case. It would win millions....

 

Called your lawyer about a discussion board poll????? Why do you have a constituional lawyer on retainer?

 

On and off over the years, the Bellagio resort in Las Vegas has turned away families with kids under 18 from various resturants, and non casino areas of the property. When they loosen or tighten up, it's strictly a business decision. They have always allowed famlies to STAY there, but they don't always allow families with chidren to come in off the street.

[luddite]

Man, is this a hoot or what?

Dragging the US Constitution into the possible activities of a foreign-flagged vessel in international waters? That is rich!

 

A bunch of us are waiting for NCL to take another bold step-a la Freesyle- and have an adult-only restaurant. Personally, I can't wait.

[CanadaFour]

Could you kindly amplify HOW it is biased in the statistical sense?

 

Do you really want an answer? If you do, I can certainly give you one, but would rather not bore people with a mini stats class, if you weren't serious........ I will, however, support NoPiratesPlease in stating that while this poll produces interesting findings, these findings are useful only for the purpose of stimulating discussion and have no validity or reliability for decision making purposes by NCL or others......... (and, yes, I actually am an expert on this kindof thing).

 

I assume that the OP posted the poll to stimulate discussion, and not to gather data to support policy change by NCL. If this is indeed the case, s/he was very successful in generating a lively (and often intense) discussion.

[Don Haynes]

I have noticed that Disney has what they call an adult restaurant. They draw the line at 10 years of age. Not 18.

 

And no one would want to bring any children to some of the Bellagio's restaurants, or should I say bars. Those waitresses there wear less than what Hooters waitresses wear, calling them bikinis would be too nice, how about G-strings.

[beachcruise]

:) Yes I would like an adult only restaurant and an adult only pool just like Disney has. It gives you the option if you want to spend time with your family or just relax.

[beachcruise]

Disney's restaurant is called Palo's and they only allow 18 years or older to dine. I have never seen any kids there.

[CanadaFour]

I have noticed that Disney has what they call an adult restaurant. They draw the line at 10 years of age. Not 18.

 

Don- you sound like an interesting soul.

 

I think that the adult only restaurant on Disney (Palo) works because so much on the ship is kid-oriented/dominated and the disney theme is quite overwhelming at times. Palo is an escape from "all-things Disney" more than it is an escape from children. I do not find mainstream cruises (including NCL) to be nearly as child-centric and often find that there is little to do on sea days for kids-- especially teens and tweens. (Interestingly, when we were on DCL this winter, I escaped to the adult pool one afternoon only to find it wayyyyyy too noisy and went back to the more quiet kid pool). I find it odd that so many posters find the presence of children problematic as much of the NCL ship is off limits to kids most or all of the time-- the casinos, many shows with adult humour, the strippers at the white hot party and I have yet to see any children in the restaurants later in the evening. There are many ways and many places to escape children.

 

It seems that there is more of a sense of fear that children will show up and spoil things than lived experience of this......

[BIG_Steve]

And no one would want to bring any children to some of the Bellagio's restaurants, or should I say bars. Those waitresses there wear less than what Hooters waitresses wear, calling them bikinis would be too nice, how about G-strings.

 

I've eaten in some of Bellagios resturants. Never had a waitress in a bikini or G string.

 

Back on subject, why isn't you lawyer suing them?

 

And you still haven't answered me or others as to why a ship registered to another country has to be concerned with the 14th amendment.

[fin]

If its constitutional, name me one restaurant that bans 17 year olds. Just name one. Why?

 

Who's next? Singles? Married couples? Senior citizens?

 

I called my attorney, he would love to take this case. It would win millions....

 

Presumably he will not base his case on the 14th ammendment.

 

Which, as has been pointed out, is not applicable on a foreign flagged ship in international waters.

 

So I hope you haven't spent the millions yet.

[CanadaFour]

 

And you still haven't answered me or others as to why a ship registered to another country has to be concerned with the 14th amendment.

 

US Constitutional Law and the 14th amendment... I don't have a clue. I do know, however, that the US Supreme Court has held that the Americans with Disabilities Act DOES apply to foreign flagged cruise ships that sail in US waters. I believe that the cruise line identified in this case was indeed NCL-- I think the decision was in 2005. I recognize (of course) that this decision isn't relevant to this particular thread, but it does point out that the US does have at least measured jurisdiction over the cruise lines. I am sure that there are other exemplars.....

[fin]

I've eaten in some of Bellagios resturants. Never had a waitress in a bikini or G string.

 

Back on subject, why isn't you lawyer suing them?

 

And you still haven't answered me or others as to why a ship registered to another country has to be concerned with the 14th amendment.

 

If you look back a page or two, you may wonder why ANY of us should be concerned with it either, in this context anyhow. It is quoted verbatim a few posts back.

[Arwenmark]

So Don, when do you and your lawyer instigate the Lawsuit against Disney Cruise lines?

It is age 12 on Celebrity, are you suing them as well?

 

Honestly because many here would like a quiet adults only eating environment as a choice on OUR vacation you are talking about Lawsuits.

 

Really is amazing.

[Arwenmark]

US Constitutional Law and the 14th amendment... I don't have a clue. I do know, however, that the US Supreme Court has held that the Americans with Disabilities Act DOES apply to foreign flagged cruise ships that sail in US waters. I believe that the cruise line identified in this case was indeed NCL-- I think the decision was in 2005. I recognize (of course) that this decision isn't relevant to this particular thread, but it does point out that the US does have at least measured jurisdiction over the cruise lines. I am sure that there are other exemplars.....

 

Here is what is CURRENTLY says about the Supreme Court decision from the NCL website:

 

Statement On The U.S. Supreme Court Case

Monday, February 28, 2005 -- Accessibility issues are very important to both the traveling public and to cruise vacation providers. Conflicting court decisions around the country have been confusing both to cruise lines and to their guests.

 

We are grateful that the United States Supreme Court accepted this matter for review to provide everyone a clear understanding of the legal obligations regarding accessibility on cruise ships.

 

NCL is a leader in providing safe and enjoyable cruise vacations to guests with special needs. This case has never been about NCL's commitment to the special needs community. Instead, this case will answer the question: Did Congress, without ever mentioning foreign-flagged ships, intend the ADA to apply extra-territorially across the oceans of the world and into every part in every foreign nation these ships visit? We are pleased with today's events and look forward to the Court's decision.

[nyflush]

it would not be one of the main dinning rooms,that would be dumb

:confused:

 

Ya think? That is my point.

[CanadaFour]

Here is what is CURRENTLY says about the Supreme Court decision from the NCL website:

 

Statement On The U.S. Supreme Court Case

Monday, February 28, 2005 -- Accessibility issues are very important to both the traveling public and to cruise vacation providers. Conflicting court decisions around the country have been confusing both to cruise lines and to their guests.

 

We are grateful that the United States Supreme Court accepted this matter for review to provide everyone a clear understanding of the legal obligations regarding accessibility on cruise ships.

 

NCL is a leader in providing safe and enjoyable cruise vacations to guests with special needs. This case has never been about NCL's commitment to the special needs community. Instead, this case will answer the question: Did Congress, without ever mentioning foreign-flagged ships, intend the ADA to apply extra-territorially across the oceans of the world and into every part in every foreign nation these ships visit? We are pleased with today's events and look forward to the Court's decision.

 

I absolutely love this kindof thing. So... NCL spent thousands of dollars (likely more) defending this suit for years because it was interested in addressing extra-territoriality, not because it didn't want to take on the burden of responding to disability needs. How generous. Also, it clearly distracts NCL consumers from the claim made by the justices that this only applies to ships that are in US waters sailing from or arriving at US ports. Many US (or Canadian) laws apply to vessels in domestic water (or airspace for that matter). I do not know whether this applies to discrimination based on age (which is often handled very differently than discrimination on other matters, such as sex or disability-- hence the upholding of mandatory retirement) in terms of access to eating establishments.

 

Maybe someone needs to post a new controversial poll, so we all have something else to focus on....... How about the discussion about the stripping during the White Hot Parties?????

[nyflush]

Called your lawyer about a discussion board poll????? Why do you have a constituional lawyer on retainer?

 

On and off over the years, the Bellagio resort in Las Vegas has turned away families with kids under 18 from various resturants, and non casino areas of the property. When they loosen or tighten up, it's strictly a business decision. They have always allowed famlies to STAY there, but they don't always allow families with chidren to come in off the street.

 

Sorry steve but that is not correct. I thought maybe they tried this in a restaurant, so I called twice here is who I spoke to on my second call Isela 702-693-7111. She said what my husband already told me is a few restaurants will not offer booster seats for children, so over 5 years old no problem. She said it has never been 18 and over to dine in any of the restaurants with an adult. Feel free to call yourself.

 

We have been there and have never seen a problem but I needed to call myself as we did not eat in every restaurant and things could always change :)

[nyflush]

I absolutely love this kindof thing. So... NCL spent thousands of dollars (likely more) defending this suit for years because it was interested in addressing extra-territoriality, not because it didn't want to take on the burden of responding to disability needs. How generous. Also, it clearly distracts NCL consumers from the claim made by the justices that this only applies to ships that are in US waters sailing from or arriving at US ports. Many US (or Canadian) laws apply to vessels in domestic water (or airspace for that matter). I do not know whether this applies to discrimination based on age (which is often handled very differently than discrimination on other matters, such as sex or disability-- hence the upholding of mandatory retirement) in terms of access to eating establishments.

 

Maybe someone needs to post a new controversial poll, so we all have something else to focus on....... How about the discussion about the stripping during the White Hot Parties?????

 

Oh wow I never went to that party. Does someone strip?

[beachchick]

Oh for crying out loud! If it was "unconstitutional" to discriminate based on age, then parents could demand that their 4 week old child be allowed to cruise (oops, the cruise lines are allowed to say no to that), and 5 y/os could insist on swimming in the Solarium pools (RCI) and equivalent (oops, the cruise lines can set restrictions for age for the pools, the spa, the gym, and various other places onboard), and 18 y/os could demand to be allowed to rent cars (oops, car rental companies are allowed to set age restrictions), and so on. Come to think of it, I could demand to be allowed into the children's clubs onboard because to do otherwise would be a violation of my perceived 14th Amendment "constitutional" right of non-discrimination based on age. Interesting interpretation of that amendment, IMO. A business owner can decide that their restaurant is for adults only. It's a business decision that doesn't relate to the 14th Amendment. I've just read it again and I see nowhere that it says children must be allowed into every venue on earth and that business owners cannot create age restrictions where they see fit.

 

You'd think people were asking "Who would be in favor of rounding up all the children and banishing them to an island somewhere?" No, the question is whether people would be interested in one--one, everyone gets that right?--restaurant--not large main dining room, everyone also gets that, right?--to be designated as an adult venue. (Yes, I am a parent and grandparent.)

 

beachchick

[theshortchef]

Palo, the adult only restaurant on the Disney ships has a limit of age 18, same as their adult only pool, hot tub, and club section. The club section is limited in age only in the evening. It works extremely well and Palo is so popular that it is nearly impossible to get a reservation at Palo after day one and the waitlist is long with hope in short supply! The kid's clubs on NCL and Disney also have age restrictions that are strictly adhered to; I would think other ships do as well but I have not been on any others. I doubt that there is a constitutional threat on that either :)

[Ladder55]

Wholey smokes Batmam========

 

ok peeps this was supposed to be a simple poll, a very simple question.

for those that do not like the idea of an aduly only (18 an up) you might want to think about arguing about why are children can't play bingo, or gamble in the casino or even buy you ciggaretes, either.

 

Now I understand some people are on a family vacation and thats fine, i agree that you wan to take your kids everywhere you go on vacation, but I personally can take a family vacation for 7 days and leave my kids one night for 2 hours in the kids crew so myself and wife can enjoy a quite relaxing, distraction free environment for a few hours.

I would not agree with having more than one adult only restuarant because then I could see where people might get upset, but to have ONE as an option seems very REASONABLE to me.

Lad

[tjaker11]

I would make it a yes vote for 2-3 nights a week adult only venue. We have had the "pleasure" of being seated next to a table with children whose parents ignored the tantrum on continued on with the meal.

Let's face it children get bored when it takes 2-3 hours to have a meal, they get cranky just like some adults do :). So having adult only would solve the problem a couple of times per week IMHO

[Ladder55]

I would make it a yes vote for 2-3 nights a week adult only venue. We have had the "pleasure" of being seated next to a table with children whose parents ignored the tantrum on continued on with the meal.

Let's face it children get bored when it takes 2-3 hours to have a meal, they get cranky just like some adults do :). So having adult only would solve the problem a couple of times per week IMHO

 

Hallelujah

 

great dog!!

I had a yellow Lab, would like to get another one, he was my buddy.

[veggie59]

Wow.....I have been away fromt the board for a few days.....and wow. It is a simple poll and too many people are over thinking it. In favor, not in favor. :) In favor here!!! Oh......I voted days ago......can I vote again?? :D

[luddite]

Wow.....I have been away fromt the board for a few days.....and wow. It is a simple poll and too many people are over thinking it. In favor, not in favor. :) In favor here!!! Oh......I voted days ago......can I vote again?? :D

 

 

You may vote again if you're from Illinois.