![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ron_newman posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
davis_squareThis week's Somerville News has an article about the Somerville Theatre's policy of banning children under 12 8* from entering the theatre after 6 pm, even if they are accompanied by adults.
Is the theatre's policy a service to its customers who want a peaceful movie experience, or is it unfair discrimination against families with young children?
I'm posting this because we can have a more civilized discussion here than on the Somerville News blog comments. Ian Judge, the theatre's manager, reads this community, so we may be able to provide useful feedback to him here.
* Edited 11:55 am to add: I have a serious factual issue with this article. It says the policy applies to children under 12, but the theatre's website and exterior signs say it's for children under 8. That's a significant difference -- maybe significant enough to change people's opinions.
Second edit, 3 pm: Ian Judge has clarified that the theatre's policy is to exclude children under 8, not 12, from entering after 6 pm. He had made an erroneous statement to the News reporter which very unfortunately made it into the published article. Also, here is Ian's response to the specific incident detailed in the News article.
Is the theatre's policy a service to its customers who want a peaceful movie experience, or is it unfair discrimination against families with young children?
I'm posting this because we can have a more civilized discussion here than on the Somerville News blog comments. Ian Judge, the theatre's manager, reads this community, so we may be able to provide useful feedback to him here.
* Edited 11:55 am to add: I have a serious factual issue with this article. It says the policy applies to children under 12, but the theatre's website and exterior signs say it's for children under 8. That's a significant difference -- maybe significant enough to change people's opinions.
Second edit, 3 pm: Ian Judge has clarified that the theatre's policy is to exclude children under 8, not 12, from entering after 6 pm. He had made an erroneous statement to the News reporter which very unfortunately made it into the published article. Also, here is Ian's response to the specific incident detailed in the News article.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-08-22 01:48 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-08-22 02:00 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-08-22 02:06 pm (UTC)I happen to think the 21 drinking age is stupid. I've seen, first hand, that it means less than nothing. People claim it's reduced drunk driving fatalities, but I'm not so sure about that. I want to see how enforcement has changed before I'll accept that argument.
no subject
Date: 2008-08-22 02:12 pm (UTC)I'm not surprised.
I saw someone publish an article about how not being allowed to join a private religious association which provided ZERO public accomodations or benefits was the same as Jim Crow.
I don't know how I feel about the 21 drinking age issue.
I know I drank underage in college in VT, but I didn't drink and drive.
Our university president banned drinking on campus because of DWI issues he'd seen while at Drexel. This just caused people to drink OFF campus, and may have contributed to increased driving while impaired issues.
I think enforcement of the laws, as they are written on the books, regarding identification, sucks - liquor sellers live in fear of the ABCC, and claim they can't sell to someone without any of the specific ID's mentioned - which isn't the case: if a liquor seller sells to someone who is underage, but they relied on the acceptable forms of ID's, the liquor seller is clear.