Thrown out of restaurant for bringing newborn baby

[toddlermom]

Hi all,

Just need to vent and wondering if I should complain and if so who to. We went to one of my (ex) favourite London restaurants (Amaya) last night (wearing 5 week old baby in cloth sling, as I often do).

Walked in, got to our table, I took off my jacket and went to sit down but the waitress stopped me and said I couldn't sit down and had to leave the restaurant as she could now see (that I had taken off jacket) that I had a baby and 'children aren't allowed in the restaurant". I said it was a baby - who was asleep - and unlikely to wakeup - and she said it didn't matter, they don't let any children in the restaurant.

The manager came over, said the same thing, they were really, really rude and unfriendly. Didn't say sorry or sympathise, empathise in any way.

They don't have any social media presence so I can't even tweet them and vent on social. I could write a letter to the owner? Or is there anything else I should do? Or AIBU and just not go there again? Any advice welcome!! Thank you!

And part of the deal when you have children is there are certain things you can’t do any more.

Term time holidays.
Spontaneous sex on the living room floor.
Going out to eat with your children wherever you fancy.

You will not be the mother of a newborn for the rest of your life.

It's a no infants policy that only effects women, not a no children policy and this was perfectly clear.

I don't know any men who would stay and eat while baby and mum looked for an alternative. Do gay couples not eat out either?

Kids are allowed at lunchtime and early in the evening.

@FlamingoAndJohn
Age is not a protected characteristic in law, not yet anyway.

I know men who are more than capable of looking after babies.
I didn't say that they weren't, however they do lack the apparatus to feed a baby.

@marush, you'll no doubt be rather disappointed to find that that bakery in the end was backed up by the Supreme Court (and Peter Tatchell, interestingly enough).

If one is going to cite legal precedent, one should really ensure that the ruling in supporting your argument first.

Oh yea I forgot the bakery won

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-32065233

I'd definitely go to a restaurant that allowed baby goats in, though.

Newborn humans, not so much. That cry still rips me apart nearly thirty years later.

I have a dream of a pet pigmy goat. I'd love it more than my kids. I know it.

I'm up for a restaurant with goats, like those cat cafes you get but goats. Now that would be amazing.



Well that didn't work 😂😂

Age is not a protected characteristic in law, not yet anyway.

Well you’ve rather disputed your own point there.
The bakery refusing to bake a cake for a gay couple sued on the grounds that sexuality is a protected characteristic. Age is not so the two are not comparable.

they do lack the apparatus to feed a baby

Please do not assume that all babies are breastfed. Please do not assume that all those who are breastfeeding identify as women.

Congrats on your baby. I understand that getting yourself and a 5-weeker out to a restaurant can be for some of us, an achievement. However, the establishment is a private business and has a clear policy concerning children. After all that effort, I can see why you're miffed at the policy but there it is, possibly one of the lesser known "joys" of parenthood. There are plenty of other places to eat.

possibly one of the lesser known "joys" of parenthood

The op is a mum of three. She isn’t new to parenthood.

I took my mum to Amaya for her 70th birthday, it was utterly amazing and they couldnt do enough for us. I will definitely be going back when i have sold a bodily organ or two!

PS. To anyone else planning to go there, make sure you have the creamed spinach thing. It is phenomenal.

I'd definitely go to a restaurant that allowed baby goats in, though

Oh please, what an amazing idea! I'd go there - as someone who avoids anything that is child friendly!

So our of interest OP why didn't you take your other two children? Was it because you thought they would disturb your meal, because you thought a small baby trumped the restaurant rules, or because you thought that you'd wing it and they would give in.

You were told immediately that they realised that you were wearing a baby to,leave, you didn't like it so another member of staff had to tell you the same, you were not thrown out.

I'd definitely go to a restaurant that allowed baby goats in, though

You're kidding me!

If I've got the right place, that's a Michelin star restaurant, even if they didn't specify a child policy I wouldn't expect to be dining somewhere like that with kids. People pay alot of money to eat at establishments like that and you can bet the child policy was created out of necessity to stop people ruining others' dining experience. I think you're being quite entitled tbh.

So our of interest OP why didn't you take your other two children?

Good point. If you’ve been eating there for a while and have children I’m surprised you didn’t noticed their policy before.

The OP sounds to me like one of those people who write indignant screeds on FB about how they were charged extra to bring their cute little wheelie case on Ryanair..... not bothering to point out that the rules are actually very clear and easily checked in advance. And that they DO apply to them.

@marush I am a discrimination lawyer. Age is a protected characteristic - see section 5 of the Equality Act.

As for your argument this is indirect discrimination, the restaurant would be able to justify it as being a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

Sorry OP but in this instance it does sound like you're entitled and thick in the wrong

The bakery won the gay cake case, not because they were allowed not to serve the customers on account of them being gay (which would have been illegal) but because the customers were trying to compel them to ice a message on the cake which went against their political and religious beliefs (which are also protected under the human rights act).

@StrawberryGoo given that the restaurant does serve families with older children at lunchtimes and early sittings on week nights, do you think they could argue they'd made a reasonable attempt to balance the needs of varying parts of their client base (families wanting to dine with children can, early on in the evening, adults wanting to dine without children can, later on in the evening)?