nothing that a pocket full of cockroaches and a call to you cities health department can't fix.
Why do restaurants have this policy?
This topic is locked from further discussion.
Maybe you can understand this it is not a hangout spot people go to eat food at restaurants. That is how the owner pays his bills the seats cost money and are used for paying customers. The waitress makes tips to pay her bills from the people sitting in her section ordering food and or drinks.I understand the not being able to take and eat outside food in another restaurant, but I've gone to restaurants with friends without ordering many times (food allergies) and have never been told that wasn't allowed. I don't understand that. I mean, if your entire table isn't ordering, yeah, but if everyone else but you is, I don't understand that.
IdioticIcarus
Ok I understand they can be liable. I understand they don't want me to bring food in, I accepted that, I already know that restaurants don't like it. Some don't care. I thought I might as well try considering they all wanted to eat there. I agreed and said fine I won't eat it in here. Still said no. So I finally went out and ate it.Surreal is correct. Institutions can be liable for anything that happens under their roof. Thank the trial lawyers for that. You may have brought in the food, but if they dont have policies against that sort of thing, they could be held liable for any possible adverse outcome.
That being said, I dont know of any restaraunt that would appreciate you bringing in outside food and attempting to dine on it. Restaraunts make their money by serving people food. They're not a public park where you can just waltz in and make a mess. They are for paying customers. If you owned a restaraunt, would you want someone to come in, sit at one of your tables taking up space, and provide no business?
sonicare
It's not like I was bringing a 3 course meal in there, making a mess and what not. I just brought a little sandwhich thing. I used to work at a restaurant, the one I worked at at least wouldn't care if there were 5 people, 4 ordering from my restaurant and 1 brought in food. I understand the policy for liability issues, but I don't see it as rude.
You can't expect every single person in the world to like what every single restaurant has to offer. It just happens I don't like sushi, but they all did. They did also have some other things, but I wanted costco.
Ok I understand they can be liable. I understand they don't want me to bring food in, I accepted that, I already know that restaurants don't like it. Some don't care. I thought I might as well try considering they all wanted to eat there. I agreed and said fine I won't eat it in here. Still said no. So I finally went out and ate it.[QUOTE="sonicare"]
Surreal is correct. Institutions can be liable for anything that happens under their roof. Thank the trial lawyers for that. You may have brought in the food, but if they dont have policies against that sort of thing, they could be held liable for any possible adverse outcome.
That being said, I dont know of any restaraunt that would appreciate you bringing in outside food and attempting to dine on it. Restaraunts make their money by serving people food. They're not a public park where you can just waltz in and make a mess. They are for paying customers. If you owned a restaraunt, would you want someone to come in, sit at one of your tables taking up space, and provide no business?
gotdangit
It's not like I was bringing a 3 course meal in there, making a mess and what not. I just brought a little sandwhich thing. I used to work at a restaurant, the one I worked at at least wouldn't care if there were 5 people, 4 ordering from my restaurant and 1 brought in food. I understand the policy for liability issues, but I don't see it as rude.
You can't expect every single person in the world to like what every single restaurant has to offer. It just happens I don't like sushi, but they all did. They did also have some other things, but I wanted costco.
You could've at least ordered a beer or a glass of wine, though.Maybe you can understand this it is not a hangout spot people go to eat food at restaurants. That is how the owner pays his bills the seats cost money and are used for paying customers. The waitress makes tips to pay her bills from the people sitting in her section ordering food and or drinks.[QUOTE="IdioticIcarus"]
I understand the not being able to take and eat outside food in another restaurant, but I've gone to restaurants with friends without ordering many times (food allergies) and have never been told that wasn't allowed. I don't understand that. I mean, if your entire table isn't ordering, yeah, but if everyone else but you is, I don't understand that.
noscope-ak47
The waitress will get the same tip from my friends whether I am there or not, but if I am there I might just contribute if I like the waitress enough. Plus she would definitely get less of a tip from my friends if she didn't let me go in with them. In fact they probably wouldn't even eat there if I was with them and denied access. We'd just go somewhere else. And at the restaurants we go to there is almost always seperate tables for seperate groups. So how is an empty chair/booth space at that table going to help at all? It's not like I'm sitting at my own table denying someone else entry.
Most restaurants don't allow outside food not because of money but because of liability; they are responsible for all of the food in the premises and everything that goes on in the premises. They like to have control over what is served and what is being consumed on their premises, as should anything go wrong they are held responsible.
Making your order to sit in the restaurant is kind of a dick move, but then again, could you not have ordered a drink or a side of fries or something at least? If i owned a restaurant i wouldn't want people sat in it who aren't giving me a penny of business.
[QUOTE="gotdangit"]Ok I understand they can be liable. I understand they don't want me to bring food in, I accepted that, I already know that restaurants don't like it. Some don't care. I thought I might as well try considering they all wanted to eat there. I agreed and said fine I won't eat it in here. Still said no. So I finally went out and ate it.[QUOTE="sonicare"]
MrPraline
It's not like I was bringing a 3 course meal in there, making a mess and what not. I just brought a little sandwhich thing. I used to work at a restaurant, the one I worked at at least wouldn't care if there were 5 people, 4 ordering from my restaurant and 1 brought in food. I understand the policy for liability issues, but I don't see it as rude.
You can't expect every single person in the world to like what every single restaurant has to offer. It just happens I don't like sushi, but they all did. They did also have some other things, but I wanted costco.
You could've at least ordered a beer or a glass of wine, though.Not 21 yet.I could have, but if they had not tried to kick me out, don't you think I would be more inclined to go there in the future with my friends and order things? I didn't order this time, but maybe next time I would have ordered, or tried my friends food and realized it was good then order something.Most restaurants don't allow outside food not because of money but because of liability; they are responsible for all of the food in the premises and everything that goes on in the premises. They like to have control over what is served and what is being consumed on their premises, as should anything go wrong they are held responsible.
Making your order to sit in the restaurant is kind of a dick move, but then again, could you not have ordered a drink or a side of fries or something at least? If i owned a restaurant i wouldn't want people sat in it who aren't giving me a penny of business.
Ninja-Hippo
I'm definitely not going back to that place after this. The food wasn't even that good. But maybe if they weren't so uptight I wouldn't mind going back with my friends.
As I see it, they made a couple bucks for making me order. But in the long run they missed out on what could have been a lot more.
Maybe you can understand this it is not a hangout spot people go to eat food at restaurants. That is how the owner pays his bills the seats cost money and are used for paying customers. The waitress makes tips to pay her bills from the people sitting in her section ordering food and or drinks.God you're dense.[QUOTE="IdioticIcarus"]
I understand the not being able to take and eat outside food in another restaurant, but I've gone to restaurants with friends without ordering many times (food allergies) and have never been told that wasn't allowed. I don't understand that. I mean, if your entire table isn't ordering, yeah, but if everyone else but you is, I don't understand that.
noscope-ak47
Even if he was thrown out, his seat wouldnt be taken by some other customer. It would just be an empty seat/empty sitting space next to the group of people that have ordered and werent thrown out.
So it makes no difference to the ower's income or the waitress' income.
They can "push" him a little to try to get some money from him but throwing him out wont change anything. Unless the only line of reasoning your mind operates on is "if everyone else was doing that...", which is a completely different scenario.
Licensing, insurance, sales. Pick one as they are all just as valid as the next. If you were there with someone who was ordering food then the rest of it is bogus on their part.
Only stupid restaurants do this. Mostly small places that act as if they're rules reign supreme on what is acceptable of everyone. Pretty much any chain restaurant wouldn't have gone past the first statement they said, if anything at all. I've waited on tables that brought in their own kids meals, chips and salsa, and burgers at different times. I was a little put off, but I really didn't fully care and never said a word. I'm there to make tips, not tick off my customers. Stupid restaurants like this without common sense should deserve to barely scrape by. Dumba** people.
[QUOTE="gotdangit"]you're taking a seat, and that seat doesn't belong to you, it's for customers. I can see their POV.Fightingfan
What? Are they gonna seat some random stranger at your table while you're eating so that the chair doesn't go empty?! LooooooooooL Best post of the day.
Maybe you can understand this it is not a hangout spot people go to eat food at restaurants. That is how the owner pays his bills the seats cost money and are used for paying customers. The waitress makes tips to pay her bills from the people sitting in her section ordering food and or drinks.God you're dense.[QUOTE="noscope-ak47"]
[QUOTE="IdioticIcarus"]
I understand the not being able to take and eat outside food in another restaurant, but I've gone to restaurants with friends without ordering many times (food allergies) and have never been told that wasn't allowed. I don't understand that. I mean, if your entire table isn't ordering, yeah, but if everyone else but you is, I don't understand that.
Teenaged
Even if he was thrown out, his seat wouldnt be taken by some other customer. It would just be an empty seat/empty sitting space next to the group of people that have ordered and werent thrown out.
So it makes no difference to the ower's income or the waitress' income.
They can "push" him a little to try to get some money from him but throwing him out wont change anything. Unless the only line of reasoning your mind operates on is "if everyone else was doing that...", which is a completely different scenario.
He could still, say, use the restroom while there. Thus using up the restaraunt's resources (however slight), while at the same time providing no income to them. The same reason why many gas stations don't like you using their restrooms unless you're buying something. It might seem petty, but I can understand it. The business is there to make money, not to provide a place for people to hang out with their buds. TC, you could have at least ordered a drink if nothing else.
Maybe you can understand this it is not a hangout spot people go to eat food at restaurants. That is how the owner pays his bills the seats cost money and are used for paying customers. The waitress makes tips to pay her bills from the people sitting in her section ordering food and or drinks.God you're dense.[QUOTE="noscope-ak47"]
[QUOTE="IdioticIcarus"]
I understand the not being able to take and eat outside food in another restaurant, but I've gone to restaurants with friends without ordering many times (food allergies) and have never been told that wasn't allowed. I don't understand that. I mean, if your entire table isn't ordering, yeah, but if everyone else but you is, I don't understand that.
Teenaged
Even if he was thrown out, his seat wouldnt be taken by some other customer. It would just be an empty seat/empty sitting space next to the group of people that have ordered and werent thrown out.
So it makes no difference to the ower's income or the waitress' income.
They can "push" him a little to try to get some money from him but throwing him out wont change anything. Unless the only line of reasoning your mind operates on is "if everyone else was doing that...", which is a completely different scenario.
What kind of idiot logic is that. So the owner should let people take up space as long as they are with a group??Now everybody does it how many seats will be taken by people hanging out in a rush. It standard practice for people who go to a eatery to at least order a drink. However not only did he not order anything he brought in outside food. He then makes a fuss when they tell him the obvious and comes here to cry about it. Now unless you can see the future your a moron for saying that nobody else is going to come in the place, Guess he is special and the rules that everybody else follows should not apply to him. Now idiots are saying it is okay and making excuses for him. Hell I cancel my reservation and I get billed 15 bucks but I guess the owner should let me slide if I have a good excuse right smdh.
Every restaurant I've been to have that policy of not allowing outside food inside. Not just that, but it's the same with their parking lot as well which is for customers only.
Someone already mentioned about gas stations allowing only paying customers to use their restrooms which is the same premise as the above.
No if the parking lot is empty and nobody is using it then some idiot thinks it is ok to park there. Some of these guys here only think about what they want and are some selfish bastards with no home training.Every restaurant I've been to have that policy of not allowing outside food inside. Not just that, but it's the same with their parking lot as well which is for customers only.
Someone already mentioned about gas stations allowing only paying customers to use their restrooms which is the same premise as the above.
jun_aka_pekto
Maybe you can understand this it is not a hangout spot people go to eat food at restaurants. That is how the owner pays his bills the seats cost money and are used for paying customers. The waitress makes tips to pay her bills from the people sitting in her section ordering food and or drinks. They're not going to seat a stranger at a table with his friends in place of him, so no it doesn't make a difference.[QUOTE="IdioticIcarus"]
I understand the not being able to take and eat outside food in another restaurant, but I've gone to restaurants with friends without ordering many times (food allergies) and have never been told that wasn't allowed. I don't understand that. I mean, if your entire table isn't ordering, yeah, but if everyone else but you is, I don't understand that.
noscope-ak47
No if the parking lot is empty and nobody is using it then some idiot thinks it is ok to park there. Some of these guys here only think about what they want and are some selfish bastards with no home training.[QUOTE="jun_aka_pekto"]
Every restaurant I've been to have that policy of not allowing outside food inside. Not just that, but it's the same with their parking lot as well which is for customers only.
Someone already mentioned about gas stations allowing only paying customers to use their restrooms which is the same premise as the above.
noscope-ak47
I guess the parking lot is more flexible. I just remembered one time when I was single and driving from coast to coast. I spent the night in my car parked at a mall parking lot. The mall security kind of looked me over, asked a few questions, wished me a good night, and then left me alone.
God you're dense.[QUOTE="Teenaged"]
[QUOTE="noscope-ak47"]Maybe you can understand this it is not a hangout spot people go to eat food at restaurants. That is how the owner pays his bills the seats cost money and are used for paying customers. The waitress makes tips to pay her bills from the people sitting in her section ordering food and or drinks.
noscope-ak47
Even if he was thrown out, his seat wouldnt be taken by some other customer. It would just be an empty seat/empty sitting space next to the group of people that have ordered and werent thrown out.
So it makes no difference to the ower's income or the waitress' income.
They can "push" him a little to try to get some money from him but throwing him out wont change anything. Unless the only line of reasoning your mind operates on is "if everyone else was doing that...", which is a completely different scenario.
What kind of idiot logic is that. So the owner should let people take up space as long as they are with a group??Now everybody does it how many seats will be taken by people hanging out in a rush. It standard practice for people who go to a eatery to at least order a drink. However not only did he not order anything he brought in outside food. He then makes a fuss when they tell him the obvious and comes here to cry about it. Now unless you can see the future your a moron for saying that nobody else is going to come in the place, Guess he is special and the rules that everybody else follows should not apply to him. Now idiots are saying it is okay and making excuses for him. Hell I cancel my reservation and I get billed 15 bucks but I guess the owner should let me slide if I have a good excuse right smdh.
How is it possible to be as stupid as you are?No if the parking lot is empty and nobody is using it then some idiot thinks it is ok to park there. Some of these guys here only think about what they want and are some selfish bastards with no home training.[QUOTE="noscope-ak47"]
[QUOTE="jun_aka_pekto"]
Every restaurant I've been to have that policy of not allowing outside food inside. Not just that, but it's the same with their parking lot as well which is for customers only.
Someone already mentioned about gas stations allowing only paying customers to use their restrooms which is the same premise as the above.
jun_aka_pekto
I guess the parking lot is more flexible. I just remembered one time when I was single and driving from coast to coast. I spent the night in my car parked at a mall parking lot. The mall security kind of looked me over, asked a few questions, wished me a good night, and then left me alone.
The mall is alot more flexible it is almost impossible to know who is going into the mall.God you're dense.[QUOTE="Teenaged"]
[QUOTE="noscope-ak47"]Maybe you can understand this it is not a hangout spot people go to eat food at restaurants. That is how the owner pays his bills the seats cost money and are used for paying customers. The waitress makes tips to pay her bills from the people sitting in her section ordering food and or drinks.
worlock77
Even if he was thrown out, his seat wouldnt be taken by some other customer. It would just be an empty seat/empty sitting space next to the group of people that have ordered and werent thrown out.
So it makes no difference to the ower's income or the waitress' income.
They can "push" him a little to try to get some money from him but throwing him out wont change anything. Unless the only line of reasoning your mind operates on is "if everyone else was doing that...", which is a completely different scenario.
He could still, say, use the restroom while there. Thus using up the restaraunt's resources (however slight), while at the same time providing no income to them. The same reason why many gas stations don't like you using their restrooms unless you're buying something. It might seem petty, but I can understand it. The business is there to make money, not to provide a place for people to hang out with their buds. TC, you could have at least ordered a drink if nothing else.
It may not be there to provide space for people to hang out with their buds but usually people want to go out with certain people to enjoy their stay wherever they are going.If for instance I want to go out somewhere and one of my friends is told to leave, I might leave as well. I dont go out just to eat/drink; I go out to hang out with people. And many establishments recognise that and do what they can to keep the company together. For instance in bars, they might offer you rounds of shots if you're a big group and you are making the place cheer up. Indirectly, a group of people, depending on what kind of establishment it is, actually brings more people in.
Now as for the example of this thread, by letting him stick around there is a possibility that he would order something in the end. Throwing him out and saving the costs of a possible restroom visit is kinda silly. Many times I've been out and at first I had told the waitress/waiter I dont want anything but later on I decided I'd order something.
Or what if two people that go out order one dish to share? Is there a pre-determined quantity each person has to consume and pay for? That sounds utterly ridiculous and I dont care if some establishments do it. That's not a rationalisation.
God you're dense.[QUOTE="Teenaged"]
[QUOTE="noscope-ak47"]Maybe you can understand this it is not a hangout spot people go to eat food at restaurants. That is how the owner pays his bills the seats cost money and are used for paying customers. The waitress makes tips to pay her bills from the people sitting in her section ordering food and or drinks.
noscope-ak47
Even if he was thrown out, his seat wouldnt be taken by some other customer. It would just be an empty seat/empty sitting space next to the group of people that have ordered and werent thrown out.
So it makes no difference to the ower's income or the waitress' income.
They can "push" him a little to try to get some money from him but throwing him out wont change anything. Unless the only line of reasoning your mind operates on is "if everyone else was doing that...", which is a completely different scenario.
What kind of idiot logic is that. So the owner should let people take up space as long as they are with a group??Now everybody does it how many seats will be taken by people hanging out in a rush. It standard practice for people who go to a eatery to at least order a drink. However not only did he not order anything he brought in outside food. He then makes a fuss when they tell him the obvious and comes here to cry about it. Now unless you can see the future your a moron for saying that nobody else is going to come in the place, Guess he is special and the rules that everybody else follows should not apply to him. Now idiots are saying it is okay and making excuses for him. Hell I cancel my reservation and I get billed 15 bucks but I guess the owner should let me slide if I have a good excuse right smdh.
So long as the space they take up isnt the space some other customer could take up, yes. I thought I already explained that.There we go with the "what if everyone was doing that" logic. And then you call my logic idiotic? Get a grip...
The fact that he brought in food is irrevelant since I didnt defend hthe TC on that.
The rest of what you're telling me isnt something I was talking about, so.... ramble on!
Sushi places always have food on the menu that is cooked, TC.
:lol:
If you knew you would be going to a restauarant with friends, then why didn't you just wait and spend money on food at the restaurant? Probably would have been tastier than costco.
Do you not like sushi? If so could you not ask your friends if another eatery with food you do like would be an option? And if your friends refused that then maybe you should have just not bothered and hang out with them soome other time at some other place? Or you could just order a small drink or even just a small meal for all your frineds to share (you did do this part kind of).
As for the restaurant's policies, they do make sense. Like any customer, there is liability for you and have to monitor you to make sure things are fine, and like any other customer you may be consuming other resources that are not food, like say if you go to the bathroom. Really, you are making them have to deal with you without them getting anything from you in return, which is not fair for them.
[QUOTE="jun_aka_pekto"]
[QUOTE="noscope-ak47"] No if the parking lot is empty and nobody is using it then some idiot thinks it is ok to park there. Some of these guys here only think about what they want and are some selfish bastards with no home training.
noscope-ak47
I guess the parking lot is more flexible. I just remembered one time when I was single and driving from coast to coast. I spent the night in my car parked at a mall parking lot. The mall security kind of looked me over, asked a few questions, wished me a good night, and then left me alone.
The mall is alot more flexible it is almost impossible to know who is going into the mall.Yeah. But, this was like 1 am. My car was the only one in that section of the parking lot. I told them I've been driving since before daybreak the previous day. I simply couldn't keep my eyes open long enough to reach the next motel or rest area. I just needed to take a snooze for a couple of hours.
to get money off you
[QUOTE="worlock77"]
[QUOTE="Teenaged"]God you're dense.
Even if he was thrown out, his seat wouldnt be taken by some other customer. It would just be an empty seat/empty sitting space next to the group of people that have ordered and werent thrown out.
So it makes no difference to the ower's income or the waitress' income.
They can "push" him a little to try to get some money from him but throwing him out wont change anything. Unless the only line of reasoning your mind operates on is "if everyone else was doing that...", which is a completely different scenario.
Teenaged
He could still, say, use the restroom while there. Thus using up the restaraunt's resources (however slight), while at the same time providing no income to them. The same reason why many gas stations don't like you using their restrooms unless you're buying something. It might seem petty, but I can understand it. The business is there to make money, not to provide a place for people to hang out with their buds. TC, you could have at least ordered a drink if nothing else.
It may not be there to provide space for people to hang out with their buds but usually people want to go out with certain people to enjoy their stay wherever they are going.If for instance I want to go out somewhere and one of my friends is told to leave, I might leave as well. I dont go out just to eat/drink; I go out to hang out with people. And many establishments recognise that and do what they can to keep the company together. For instance in bars, they might offer you rounds of shots if you're a big group and you are making the place cheer up. Indirectly, a group of people, depending on what kind of establishment it is, actually brings more people in.
Now as for the example of this thread, by letting him stick around there is a possibility that he would order something in the end. Throwing him out and saving the costs of a possible restroom visit is kinda silly. Many times I've been out and at first I had told the waitress/waiter I dont want anything but later on I decided I'd order something.
Or what if two people that go out order one dish to share? Is there a pre-determined quantity each person has to consume and pay for? That sounds utterly ridiculous and I dont care if some establishments do it. That's not a rationalisation.
In you bar example the bar may on occaision offer a free round of drinks, but the people they are offering it to are there buying drinks in the first place. They're not going to offer free rounds to a group who are just sitting there buying nothing.
Sure he might have ordered something eventually. Or he might not have. But if the person is sitting there insisting that they're not interested in buying anything (as our TC was, and after trying to bring someone else's food in) then the establishment has to assume that he's not going to offer them any business. The TC could have easily avoided this by simply splurging for even a small drink.
The couple sharing in one dish are, most likely, sharing in a larger dish, or perhaps an appetizer (which are, by intention, to make you want to eat more). Ether way they are providing the establishment with business. Plus there's more to consider than just income. When you're running a business and someone is just sitting there, not partaking of what you offer, it doesn't present a good image.
It may not be there to provide space for people to hang out with their buds but usually people want to go out with certain people to enjoy their stay wherever they are going.[QUOTE="Teenaged"]
[QUOTE="worlock77"]
He could still, say, use the restroom while there. Thus using up the restaraunt's resources (however slight), while at the same time providing no income to them. The same reason why many gas stations don't like you using their restrooms unless you're buying something. It might seem petty, but I can understand it. The business is there to make money, not to provide a place for people to hang out with their buds. TC, you could have at least ordered a drink if nothing else.
worlock77
If for instance I want to go out somewhere and one of my friends is told to leave, I might leave as well. I dont go out just to eat/drink; I go out to hang out with people. And many establishments recognise that and do what they can to keep the company together. For instance in bars, they might offer you rounds of shots if you're a big group and you are making the place cheer up. Indirectly, a group of people, depending on what kind of establishment it is, actually brings more people in.
Now as for the example of this thread, by letting him stick around there is a possibility that he would order something in the end. Throwing him out and saving the costs of a possible restroom visit is kinda silly. Many times I've been out and at first I had told the waitress/waiter I dont want anything but later on I decided I'd order something.
Or what if two people that go out order one dish to share? Is there a pre-determined quantity each person has to consume and pay for? That sounds utterly ridiculous and I dont care if some establishments do it. That's not a rationalisation.
In you bar example the bar may on occaision offer a free round of drinks, but the people they are offering it to are there buying drinks in the first place. They're not going to offer free rounds to a group who are just sitting there buying nothing.
Sure he might have ordered something eventually. Or he might not have. But if the person is sitting there insisting that they're not interested in buying anything (as our TC was, and after trying to bring someone else's food in) then the establishment has to assume that he's not going to offer them any business. The TC could have easily avoided this by simply splurging for even a small drink.
The couple sharing in one dish are, most likely, sharing in a larger dish, or perhaps an appetizer (which are, by intention, to make you want to eat more). Ether way they are providing the establishment with business. Plus there's more to consider than just income. When you're running a business and someone is just sitting there, not partaking of what you offer, it doesn't present a good image.
Not not if all of them have ordered nothing. I'm talking about if say one or two of the people in the group havent. And that shows how at least some establishments want large groups to stay. My example show how its not a simple "oh you're not buying anything ergo you're offering me nothing" sort of mentality. Now if say in a group of 5 people only one has ordered something that is understandable.He is offering them business by being in the group of friends that decided to go there as a group. Like I said, if I was in a group and one of the people in my group was told to leave, the rest of us would probably want to leave as well because we went out to hang out as well as eat and/or drink.
This isnt about what the TC could have done. I would have done the same (I would have ordered something cheap unless the place was very pricey). The point is whether or not he should.
You cant know about the couple. They may have ordered just one regular dish for both of them. Maybe they're not particularly hungry. My example of the couple is that you cant know how and by whom whatever is ordered will be consumed by the people that have ordered. A group of, say, 5 can easily make an arrangement of ordering 4 dishes which they will share among them. Will the waiter make sure that each person gets a dish? Or some item?
That example doesnt apply to the TC's case because the waiter already knew he wouldnt be eating anything because he had brought in food, but I didnt defend him on that.
[QUOTE="worlock77"]
[QUOTE="Teenaged"]It may not be there to provide space for people to hang out with their buds but usually people want to go out with certain people to enjoy their stay wherever they are going.
If for instance I want to go out somewhere and one of my friends is told to leave, I might leave as well. I dont go out just to eat/drink; I go out to hang out with people. And many establishments recognise that and do what they can to keep the company together. For instance in bars, they might offer you rounds of shots if you're a big group and you are making the place cheer up. Indirectly, a group of people, depending on what kind of establishment it is, actually brings more people in.
Now as for the example of this thread, by letting him stick around there is a possibility that he would order something in the end. Throwing him out and saving the costs of a possible restroom visit is kinda silly. Many times I've been out and at first I had told the waitress/waiter I dont want anything but later on I decided I'd order something.
Or what if two people that go out order one dish to share? Is there a pre-determined quantity each person has to consume and pay for? That sounds utterly ridiculous and I dont care if some establishments do it. That's not a rationalisation.
Teenaged
In you bar example the bar may on occaision offer a free round of drinks, but the people they are offering it to are there buying drinks in the first place. They're not going to offer free rounds to a group who are just sitting there buying nothing.
Sure he might have ordered something eventually. Or he might not have. But if the person is sitting there insisting that they're not interested in buying anything (as our TC was, and after trying to bring someone else's food in) then the establishment has to assume that he's not going to offer them any business. The TC could have easily avoided this by simply splurging for even a small drink.
The couple sharing in one dish are, most likely, sharing in a larger dish, or perhaps an appetizer (which are, by intention, to make you want to eat more). Ether way they are providing the establishment with business. Plus there's more to consider than just income. When you're running a business and someone is just sitting there, not partaking of what you offer, it doesn't present a good image.
Not not if all of them have ordered nothing. I'm talking about if say one or two of the people in the group havent. And that shows how at least some establishments want large groups to stay. My example show how its not a simple "oh you're not buying anything ergo you're offering me nothing" sort of mentality. Now if say in a group of 5 people only one has ordered something that is understandable.He is offering them business by being in the group of friends that decided to go there as a group. Like I said, if I was in a group and one of the people in my group was told to leave, the rest of us would probably want to leave as well because we went out to hang out as well as eat and/or drink.
This isnt about what the TC could have done. I would have done the same (I would have ordered something cheap unless the place was very pricey). The point is whether or not he should.
You cant know about the couple. They may have ordered just one regular dish for both of them. Maybe they're not particularly hungry. My example of the couple is that you cant know how and by whom whatever is ordered will be consumed by the people that have ordered. A group of, say, 5 can easily make an arrangement of ordering 4 dishes which they will share among them. Will the waiter make sure that each person gets a dish? Or some item?
That example doesnt apply to the TC's case because the waiter already knew he wouldnt be eating anything because he had brought in food, but I didnt defend him on that.
Again, your bar example is poor. One person in the group isn't ordering drinks. The assumption then is that that person is the designated driver. In such cases many bars offer the desiganted driver free soft drinks. That also goes back to migitating liability, as bars can, and have been held liable for allowing people to get too intoxicated and then to drive away. So allowing one person out of that group to stay without ordering drinks (and even, perhaps, giving them free non-alcoholic drinks) can fall under the "cover your ass" catagory.
And did you miss or ignore my other point about the couple (or group)?
The round of shots though is alcoholic so I doubt the assumption is that one is the driver.Again, your bar example is poor. One person in the group isn't ordering drinks. The assumption then is that that person is the designated driver. In such cases many bars offer the desiganted driver free soft drinks. That also goes back to migitating liability, as bars can, and have been held liable for allowing people to get too intoxicated and then to drive away. So allowing one person out of that group to stay without ordering drinks (and even, perhaps, giving them free non-alcoholic drinks) can fall under the "cover your ass" catagory.
And did you miss or ignore my other point about the couple (or group)?
worlock77
The other points about the couple are true assuming they are indeed sharing. Like I clarified with my previous post, my example was just to illustrate that you cant know who is consuming what of that which is ordered. Just like a group of people can share (a couple was one specific example of a company of 2 or more people), you cant know whether the person that sits silently ordering nothing is actually going to consume something of what is ordered. Unless the waiter/waitress has to be explicitely told that what is ordered will be shared.
Only in the case of the TC the example doesnt apply, because he was caught bringing in food. But I'm not defending the TC.
The round of shots though is alcoholic so I doubt the assumption is that one is the driver.[QUOTE="worlock77"]
Again, your bar example is poor. One person in the group isn't ordering drinks. The assumption then is that that person is the designated driver. In such cases many bars offer the desiganted driver free soft drinks. That also goes back to migitating liability, as bars can, and have been held liable for allowing people to get too intoxicated and then to drive away. So allowing one person out of that group to stay without ordering drinks (and even, perhaps, giving them free non-alcoholic drinks) can fall under the "cover your ass" catagory.
And did you miss or ignore my other point about the couple (or group)?
Teenaged
The other points about the couple are true assuming they are indeed sharing. Like I clarified with my previous post, my example was just to illustrate that you cant know who is consuming what of that which is ordered. Just like a group of people can share (a couple was one specific example of a company of 2 or more people), you cant know whether the person that sits silently ordering nothing is actually going to consume something of what is ordered. Unless the waiter/waitress has to be explicitely told that what is ordered will be shared.
Only in the case of the TC the example doesnt apply, because he was caught bringing in food. But I'm not defending the TC.
The bar isn't going to offer shots to the designated driver. That would be flagrantly stupid. The bar may, however, offer the round to everyone else in the group.
The round of shots though is alcoholic so I doubt the assumption is that one is the driver.[QUOTE="Teenaged"]
[QUOTE="worlock77"]
Again, your bar example is poor. One person in the group isn't ordering drinks. The assumption then is that that person is the designated driver. In such cases many bars offer the desiganted driver free soft drinks. That also goes back to migitating liability, as bars can, and have been held liable for allowing people to get too intoxicated and then to drive away. So allowing one person out of that group to stay without ordering drinks (and even, perhaps, giving them free non-alcoholic drinks) can fall under the "cover your ass" catagory.
And did you miss or ignore my other point about the couple (or group)?
worlock77
The other points about the couple are true assuming they are indeed sharing. Like I clarified with my previous post, my example was just to illustrate that you cant know who is consuming what of that which is ordered. Just like a group of people can share (a couple was one specific example of a company of 2 or more people), you cant know whether the person that sits silently ordering nothing is actually going to consume something of what is ordered. Unless the waiter/waitress has to be explicitely told that what is ordered will be shared.
Only in the case of the TC the example doesnt apply, because he was caught bringing in food. But I'm not defending the TC.
The bar isn't going to offer shots to the designated driver. That would be flagrantly stupid. The bar may, however, offer the round to everyone else in the group.
Maybe in the case there is a driver. My example doesnt even assume there is one. You mentioned that scenario.I just said that one or two people in the group dont order anything. They arent thrown out to my exeprience. Depending on the dynamic of the group (how joyful they are for instance) they might be given shots. Again and again sometimes. That shows what I said earlier. That it doesnt only matter what you directly bring to the establishment.
It may not be there to provide space for people to hang out with their buds but usually people want to go out with certain people to enjoy their stay wherever they are going.[QUOTE="Teenaged"]
[QUOTE="worlock77"]
He could still, say, use the restroom while there. Thus using up the restaraunt's resources (however slight), while at the same time providing no income to them. The same reason why many gas stations don't like you using their restrooms unless you're buying something. It might seem petty, but I can understand it. The business is there to make money, not to provide a place for people to hang out with their buds. TC, you could have at least ordered a drink if nothing else.
worlock77
If for instance I want to go out somewhere and one of my friends is told to leave, I might leave as well. I dont go out just to eat/drink; I go out to hang out with people. And many establishments recognise that and do what they can to keep the company together. For instance in bars, they might offer you rounds of shots if you're a big group and you are making the place cheer up. Indirectly, a group of people, depending on what kind of establishment it is, actually brings more people in.
Now as for the example of this thread, by letting him stick around there is a possibility that he would order something in the end. Throwing him out and saving the costs of a possible restroom visit is kinda silly. Many times I've been out and at first I had told the waitress/waiter I dont want anything but later on I decided I'd order something.
Or what if two people that go out order one dish to share? Is there a pre-determined quantity each person has to consume and pay for? That sounds utterly ridiculous and I dont care if some establishments do it. That's not a rationalisation.
In you bar example the bar may on occaision offer a free round of drinks, but the people they are offering it to are there buying drinks in the first place. They're not going to offer free rounds to a group who are just sitting there buying nothing.
Sure he might have ordered something eventually. Or he might not have. But if the person is sitting there insisting that they're not interested in buying anything (as our TC was, and after trying to bring someone else's food in) then the establishment has to assume that he's not going to offer them any business. The TC could have easily avoided this by simply splurging for even a small drink.
The couple sharing in one dish are, most likely, sharing in a larger dish, or perhaps an appetizer (which are, by intention, to make you want to eat more). Ether way they are providing the establishment with business. Plus there's more to consider than just income. When you're running a business and someone is just sitting there, not partaking of what you offer, it doesn't present a good image.
That's fallacious. If a group is there and one of them isn't consuming anything, it can mean anything, or nothing. But it certainly means that it may be a place that you want to bring a group to. If that member of the group that isn't consuming at that time - regardless of what they insist at that moment - is told to leave, then that person has a true story that they can express that would say that the place is not somewhere a group would want to go because they have exclusive business practices.
You are right, image means everything, but one pi$$ed customer means you'll have to make another thousand happy to cover the potential loss it can cause. You need to understand that while the customer is not always right, many business "policies" are too ignorant and draconian for their own good. No reasonable establishment would ever reject a member of a group that does not order, because it alienates the group. Plain and simple. If a restaurant did that to one of my friends, I'd cancel my order. If I'm in a good mood, I would speak to the manager. If not, I would tell my friends and family. And businesses are aware of this - which is why they try to avoid the latter situation by not behaving like douchebags.
What kind of idiot logic is that. So the owner should let people take up space as long as they are with a group??noscope-ak47Yeah, actually. I mean, imagine that you were meeting some friends for dinner before going to see a movie or something. So you walk into the restaurant and sit down, and everyone orders. That is, all except for one guy who really doesn't want anything. What do you think is going to happen if the manager tells that guy to leave? The rest of the group isn't going to ditch that one guy, they're ALL going to leave and go somewhere that will let them remain as a group. Yeah, if the entire table is just sitting there not buying anything, then by all means kick them out. But if it's just one person, you let him stay there in order to get money from the group at large.
What kind of idiot logic is that. So the owner should let people take up space as long as they are with a group??[QUOTE="noscope-ak47"]
[QUOTE="Teenaged"]God you're dense.
Even if he was thrown out, his seat wouldnt be taken by some other customer. It would just be an empty seat/empty sitting space next to the group of people that have ordered and werent thrown out.
So it makes no difference to the ower's income or the waitress' income.
They can "push" him a little to try to get some money from him but throwing him out wont change anything. Unless the only line of reasoning your mind operates on is "if everyone else was doing that...", which is a completely different scenario.
gotdangit
Now everybody does it how many seats will be taken by people hanging out in a rush. It standard practice for people who go to a eatery to at least order a drink. However not only did he not order anything he brought in outside food. He then makes a fuss when they tell him the obvious and comes here to cry about it. Now unless you can see the future your a moron for saying that nobody else is going to come in the place, Guess he is special and the rules that everybody else follows should not apply to him. Now idiots are saying it is okay and making excuses for him. Hell I cancel my reservation and I get billed 15 bucks but I guess the owner should let me slide if I have a good excuse right smdh.
How is it possible to be as stupid as you are?If your friends are smart they will drop your no class broke ass like a hot rock.Like I said, if I was in a group and one of the people in my group was told to leave, the rest of us would probably want to leave as well because we went out to hang out as well as eat and/or drink.TeenagedExactly. Most people typically don't eat out at restaurants JUST for the food and drink. If all they wanted was food or drink, then they'd usually either not go to the restaurant at all, or get a takeout order and then eat that stuff at home in front of the tv. By and large, people eating at restaurants are part of a group. They ARE there to hang out. It's friends and families and couples socializing together. You tell one of the party members to leave because he's not ordering anything, then you've just broken up the group. At that point, it's likely for EVERYONE in the group to leave. Granted, it's rude to sit there and not order anything. Still, it's stupid for management to tell that person to leave. I mean, they can kick the dude out, that's well within their rights. But it's sort of a dumb thing to do when the rest of the group is buying stuff.
[QUOTE="noscope-ak47"]What kind of idiot logic is that. So the owner should let people take up space as long as they are with a group??MrGeezerYeah, actually. I mean, imagine that you were meeting some friends for dinner before going to see a movie or something. So you walk into the restaurant and sit down, and everyone orders. That is, all except for one guy who really doesn't want anything. What do you think is going to happen if the manager tells that guy to leave? The rest of the group isn't going to ditch that one guy, they're ALL going to leave and go somewhere that will let them remain as a group. Yeah, if the entire table is just sitting there not buying anything, then by all means kick them out. But if it's just one person, you let him stay there in order to get money from the group at large.
Ok clearly your friends are different if you embarrass us your done. We are not going to leave cause one person is acting like a idiot.
[QUOTE="worlock77"]
[QUOTE="Teenaged"]The round of shots though is alcoholic so I doubt the assumption is that one is the driver.
The other points about the couple are true assuming they are indeed sharing. Like I clarified with my previous post, my example was just to illustrate that you cant know who is consuming what of that which is ordered. Just like a group of people can share (a couple was one specific example of a company of 2 or more people), you cant know whether the person that sits silently ordering nothing is actually going to consume something of what is ordered. Unless the waiter/waitress has to be explicitely told that what is ordered will be shared.
Only in the case of the TC the example doesnt apply, because he was caught bringing in food. But I'm not defending the TC.
Teenaged
The bar isn't going to offer shots to the designated driver. That would be flagrantly stupid. The bar may, however, offer the round to everyone else in the group.
Maybe in the case there is a driver. My example doesnt even assume there is one. You mentioned that scenario.I just said that one or two people in the group dont order anything. They arent thrown out to my exeprience. Depending on the dynamic of the group (how joyful they are for instance) they might be given shots. Again and again sometimes. That shows what I said earlier. That it doesnt only matter what you directly bring to the establishment.
Your example only mentioned that there's one or two not ordering after I had countered your initial post. You're not trying to move the goalposts as you go along are you?
[QUOTE="Teenaged"]Like I said, if I was in a group and one of the people in my group was told to leave, the rest of us would probably want to leave as well because we went out to hang out as well as eat and/or drink.MrGeezerExactly. Most people typically don't eat out at restaurants JUST for the food and drink. If all they wanted was food or drink, then they'd usually either not go to the restaurant at all, or get a takeout order and then eat that stuff at home in front of the tv. By and large, people eating at restaurants are part of a group. They ARE there to hang out. It's friends and families and couples socializing together. You tell one of the party members to leave because he's not ordering anything, then you've just broken up the group. At that point, it's likely for EVERYONE in the group to leave. Granted, it's rude to sit there and not order anything. Still, it's stupid for management to tell that person to leave. I mean, they can kick the dude out, that's well within their rights. But it's sort of a dumb thing to do when the rest of the group is buying stuff.
The friend can order a drink if nothing else. I'm certainly not going to up and leave simply because my friend's being too much of a stubborn ass to even offer that much.
your going to bring your own food into a restaurant? I don't see how the management is wrong in asking you to leave, you could have ordered water "which should be free" also I think if you didn't have your own food they would have been cool with you just chilling there but its pretty messed up if your bringing in outside food and eating it in the restaurant.
Maybe in the case there is a driver. My example doesnt even assume there is one. You mentioned that scenario.[QUOTE="Teenaged"]
[QUOTE="worlock77"]
The bar isn't going to offer shots to the designated driver. That would be flagrantly stupid. The bar may, however, offer the round to everyone else in the group.
worlock77
I just said that one or two people in the group dont order anything. They arent thrown out to my exeprience. Depending on the dynamic of the group (how joyful they are for instance) they might be given shots. Again and again sometimes. That shows what I said earlier. That it doesnt only matter what you directly bring to the establishment.
Your example only mentioned that there's one or two not ordering after I had countered your initial post. You're not trying to move the goalposts as you go along are you?
What exactly did I change? I didnt add anything new to my post. For the last couple posts I'm repeating the same things over and over.[QUOTE="worlock77"]
[QUOTE="Teenaged"]Maybe in the case there is a driver. My example doesnt even assume there is one. You mentioned that scenario.
I just said that one or two people in the group dont order anything. They arent thrown out to my exeprience. Depending on the dynamic of the group (how joyful they are for instance) they might be given shots. Again and again sometimes. That shows what I said earlier. That it doesnt only matter what you directly bring to the establishment.
Teenaged
Your example only mentioned that there's one or two not ordering after I had countered your initial post. You're not trying to move the goalposts as you go along are you?
What exactly did I change? I didnt add anything new to my post. For the last couple posts I'm repeating the same things over and over.Initially you only mentioned a big group of people in a bar being offered free rounds. It was only later that you added one or two aren't buying anything.
I clarified that the second time I replied to you.Initially you only mentioned a big group of people in a bar being offered free rounds. It was only later that you added one or two aren't buying anything.
worlock77
Not not if all of them have ordered nothing. I'm talking about if say one or two of the people in the group havent. Teenaged
I clarified that the second time I replied to you.[QUOTE="worlock77"]
Initially you only mentioned a big group of people in a bar being offered free rounds. It was only later that you added one or two aren't buying anything.
Teenaged
Not not if all of them have ordered nothing. I'm talking about if say one or two of the people in the group havent. Teenaged
Hence "initially". But anywho. This is getting tedious. Bottom line is the TC was kind of a dick and it's not unreasonable for the restaraunt to not allow someone who isn't providing to their business to just hang around.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment