Is it right to ban a group of people solely based on their age? This has been a rising concern with some restaurants wanting to ban teenagers from their restaurant. One of the many restaurants taking up this ban is Munchy’s, who recently released an ad in the newspaper advertising a quiet lunch without teens. However, businesses do not have the right to ban teenagers because it isn’t just teens being disruptive, there aren’t many healthy food options, and this is discrimination on the basis of age. First of all, there are many people inside a restaurant, the absence of teenagers doesn’t guarantee a quiet, relaxing restaurant. Although some may dispute that teens are more immature and disruptive than other people, that’s not necessarily true.
…show more content…
Some believe that sense Munchy’s is a private business and therefore should have the right to do what they want, including banning teens. On the other hand, the student blog also explains that “Discrimination on the basis of age is an outrage and violation of our civil rights!” This explains that not allowing someone inside a restaurant because if their age seems wrong, along with just assuming that someone’s a bad person, disrespectful, and disruptive just because they’re a teenager. Additionally the blog included a call to action, encouraging readers to “... get together in front of Munchy’s next Wednesday and hand out leaflets to inform the public about this unfair regulation.” This reveals that the students are planning to protest their ban since they feel that they’re being treated unfairly. The way in which the teenagers are going about protesting seems very responsible and respectable, since they are handing out leaflets with information instead of handing this situation in an immature way. To sum things up, it shouldn’t be assumed that all teens are immature and disruptive. The rights of people should be protected. Teenagers shouldn’t be banned from restaurants because there’s more people than just teens being loud, there are sparse food options that are healthy, and this ban of teens is discrimination. It’s necessary for the rights of teenagers to be upheld. People should take action action against local restaurants which have placed this ban against
Some believe that sense Munchy’s is a private business and therefore should have the right to do what they want, including banning teens. On the other hand, the student blog also explains that “Discrimination on the basis of age is an outrage and violation of our civil rights!” This explains that not allowing someone inside a restaurant because if their age seems wrong, along with just assuming that someone’s a bad person, disrespectful, and disruptive just because they’re a teenager. Additionally the blog included a call to action, encouraging readers to “... get together in front of Munchy’s next Wednesday and hand out leaflets to inform the public about this unfair regulation.” This reveals that the students are planning to protest their ban since they feel that they’re being treated unfairly. The way in which the teenagers are going about protesting seems very responsible and respectable, since they are handing out leaflets with information instead of handing this situation in an immature way. To sum things up, it shouldn’t be assumed that all teens are immature and disruptive. The rights of people should be protected. Teenagers shouldn’t be banned from restaurants because there’s more people than just teens being loud, there are sparse food options that are healthy, and this ban of teens is discrimination. It’s necessary for the rights of teenagers to be upheld. People should take action action against local restaurants which have placed this ban against