No shoes, no service...for a baby?

[LeChatNoir]

http://www.fox2now.com/ktvi-baby-no-...,5070606.story

This happened near me. Basically a woman was asked to leave a Burger King because her 6 month old baby was not wearing shoes.

I think it's silly!

[Greenday]

"Everybody loves baby feet," she said.

Wtf? Since when? I sure as hell don't!

[Flyndaran]

"Everybody loves baby feet," she said.

Wtf? Since when? I sure as hell don't!

You just haven't tried my pickled baby's feet.
I think the alteraction was silly, but the employees shouldn't get in trouble for following health codes.
Too many consider them at best guidlines.

[Lace Neil Singer]

Health and Safety. If the child had stepped on a piece of glass say, or a sharp edge of plastic, there would have been hell to pay. I bet Mommy Dearest would have sued the Burger King.

Where I work, no-one is allowed to come inside without shoes, regardless of age. Altho we make sure that all glass from breakages for example is swept up, there's always a chance that a tiny grain might be left on the floor, as anyone who's ever dropped a glass knows. Don't bitch at us cuz we're following H&S rules that are put in place to save your ungrateful arse from injury. -.- (directed at that mother)

[violetyoshi]

I applaud them for standing up to the notion you have a baby, you don't have to obey rules. Of course the parent came up with a childish response like, "Gooo but evwhewan wuvs baba feet!"

Being a parent means just that being a parent, not a child.

[powerboy]

About the comment about "everyone loves baby feet".

I sure as hell don't. In fact, I think all feet are ugly.


I think that it is great that the place told them to leave. If someone doesn't have shoes on, then go through the drive thru

[alogram]

Health and Safety. If the child had stepped on a piece of glass say, or a sharp edge of plastic, there would have been hell to pay. I bet Mommy Dearest would have sued the Burger King.

The baby is 6 months old! I don't know too many 6 month old babies who walk...

[DesignFox]

Huh. Never heard of a restaurant doing that before...

[Lace Neil Singer]

The baby is 6 months old! I don't know too many 6 month old babies who walk...

Rules apply to everyone; no exceptions. Besides, the fact that the child doesn't walk doesn't mean his feet won't touch the ground. I've seen on countless occasions parents holding their kids in such a way that they look like they're walking.

In any case, H&S rules are rigidly applied to every situation cuz of people who've sued indiscrimintarily. It's like people moaning about having to show ID.

[AdminAssistant]

And it's not exactly hard to make sure a baby's feet are covered. Shoes, booties, little socks with pads on them...and yes, I know shoes are expensive, babies are expensive, which is why you shouldn't have them if you can't afford them.

[LeChatNoir]

Health and Safety. If the child had stepped on a piece of glass say, or a sharp edge of plastic, there would have been hell to pay. I bet Mommy Dearest would have sued the Burger King.

Except the child was 6 months old, and was not walking, nor even to the point of wearing shoes. I dunno...I have never batted an eye at a baby not wearing shoes. Now, if the child was over 1 or 2, was walking around in their bare feet...yeah, I'd say something too. When I worked at the mall, I saw babies all the time either being carried or pushed in a stroller, bare footed. IMO, I think the manager just wanted to be a dick about something.

[BroomJockey]

Except the child was 6 months old, and was not walking, nor even to the point of wearing shoes.

There are still foot-coverings available. And last I checked, H&S rules don't say "shoes are required for everyone, unless they're really really young," or even "unless they're not walking." At worst it's a manager being overzealous. The mother's response of "everyone loves baby feet" leads me to the conclusion she's a self-centred bitch who will raise a spoiled brat, however.

[AFPheonix]

And it's not exactly hard to make sure a baby's feet are covered. Shoes, booties, little socks with pads on them...and yes, I know shoes are expensive, babies are expensive, which is why you shouldn't have them if you can't afford them.

The article said that the manager was threatening to call the cops on them even though she had put socks on the kid's feet.
She also mentioned that the baby's feet are still too small for shoes, which considering it's still too young to even crawl yet, does not surprise me.
The manager frankly was being an ass in my opinion. I can appreciate health code and all, but this is ridiculous.

[Greenday]

Forcing them to cover the kid's feet for health code = good

Threatening to call 911 even when they cover the kid's feet = bad

[Flyndaran]

Forcing them to cover the kid's feet for health code = good

Threatening to call 911 even when they cover the kid's feet = bad

What should they do when a beligerant customer refuses to leave? They have the right to kick out anyone they want.