So, some burgers and nachos joint in PA banned kids under six, and there is a predictable uproar. Given the clicky-clicky troll-troll nature of everything ever written on the internet about children and restaurants, the headline kind of writes itself:
Should more restaurants ban children?
So, too, does the response:
If we presume that TheYummyMummy (I KNOW, right?) means "minority or marginalized group" by "segment of the population," the argument is something like claiming that not allowing small children in your restaurant is akin to saying "You know what, I've had enough of those Mexicans running around with their stilettos/those WASPS with their mirthless, braying laughter/gays asking for different flatware, etc. - I'm gonna put up a sign and ban them." The difference is that being gay/WASP/Mexican or whatever is not something you grow out of. Being a child is. This resto in PA is not saying "you can't come here," it's saying "you can't come here until you are old enough that you have a reasonable chance of not having a negative impact on your fellow patrons." If the Cod ran a casual dining restaurant in PA*, I don't think I would ban kids under six. Baby humans do not become gracious and charming dining companions if you toss them a can of Vienna Franks and a church key and tell them to go watch Cinemax in the basement. But you can argue the case either way. However, arguing that banning kids is a form of racism is, itself, kind of racist.
*It would be "Amish Ramen," in Lancaster, PA.