Good to know that the Israelis and Palestinians are getting along, Iraq's enjoying bucolic peace, and spinach is safe to eat, because it frees us all (esp. the Cod, evidently) up to bloviate about trendy restaurants on the Lower East Side. Megnut gets in the act with an account of a recent dinner at Freemans, infants in tow, where the service left something to be desired. Babies in restaurants (esp. in NY) brings out the commenters like no other, with a fairly even split between the banning-children-under-35-from-the-island-of-Manhattan camp, and the insisting-on-the-right-to-change-a-toddler-in-the-Per Se-dining-room camp. You can get some sense of both positions trawling the comments. I've tried here and there to stake out some middle ground on this issue, but the specific case of Freemans raises a different, and more complicated question.*
The service described seems bad, but not Amnesty International bad. Certainly it was bad enough that it seems it will discourage the members of this party from returning to Freemans. I do not know if this is the case, but what if that was exactly what it was supposed to do? It may well be, as some commenters suggested, a server having a bad day, but it is also at least possible that a restaurant that relies heavily on a certain je ne sais quoi might prefer not to have the custom of parents with infants in tow. Might the management of a place like Freemans wonder if having four adults and two kids come in at 6:30 would convey the impression to the diners rolling in at 8:00 that it was no longer the Hernando's Hideaway of the oughts?
I do not know if this is the case, but if it is, it raises the larger question what restaurants can do to encourage the kind of patrons consistent with their vision, and discourage those who are not. Certainly, it would be illegal (though not unprecedented) for patrons of one race to get deliberately bad service -- if you see your establishment as catering to a certain crowd, and parents are not part of that crowd, and you feel that your regulars will decamp to the next spot if they see Cheerios on the floor -- is it justifiable to discourage those patrons?

Conversely , if Hary Dean Stanton and Grace Jones walked into Freemans (without babies) they still might find something to complain about with the service. Good food/terrible service seems to be par for the course.Thus, beyond the freezeout hypothesis, it is also entirely possible that the usual Freemans experience might stimulate a persecution complex in parents/diners who are ready to attribute any perceived deficit in service to anti-breeder bias.
Megnut concludes:
In my experience, and as Mr. Bruni's review demonstrates, a great
restaurant is more than just its food. It's a welcoming environment
that sets you at ease. It's a place that treats each and every guest
with respect, whether they're a big-time restaurant critic or a few
friends stopping in for an early dinner with babies in tow.
This maybe Ms. Hourihan's definition of a great restaurant, but it is a definition that is her own. Le Bernardin, for instance, is not known for offering a "welcoming environment that sets you at ease" unless perhaps if you are Henry Kissinger, and Sirio Maccioni has made an entire career out of treating each and every guest with a different amount of respect. In its own way, Freemans is snooty and exclusive, and it has flourished because of this approach -- if you don't want to be part of this peculiar scrum, there are bunch of other spots to eat in the area.
*Thanks to the Hav for pointing out this thread.
Recent Comments