…Because Butchart Gardens is a private organisation which makes money out of period costumed staff and therefore seeks to reserve the activity that it monetises, for itself?
Citation needed. I’ve not seen anyone post photos of Butchart staff in Victorian garb.
On that note, though, they have Japanese, Italian and Mediterranean gardens, so, based on your logic, looking Japanese, Italian or Mediterranean would equally confuse visitors and deprive Butchart of making money.
11 Likes
Yeah, I was being a bit snarky. The only time I’ve ever been there was with an unhappy toddler. We paid a lot to get in, no one was happy, so we left in less than an hour. And I am not a garden person. YMMV.
1 Like
Oh well yeah I wouldn’t go there with a toddler it just isn’t the sort of place they are going to enjoy and when toddlers get cranky it tends to ruin things for everyone.
1 Like
Watch for new rule; No Toddlers Allowed!
6 Likes
You are apparently under the misapprehension that Butchart Gardens is obligated to explain their rules. They are not.
Quite right. They can do what they want to as long as it’s legal.
Equally, we are allowed to form our own opinion of whether we want to visit their Gardens or not. And we can discuss our opinions of their rules.
10 Likes
No it isn’t, as my previous posts will attest to. You can complain, you can write letters to the editor, you can tweet about it, you can post a nasty review on Yelp! But what you can’t do, is pretend that the property owner doesn’t have the right to set rules.
Could you point to a single post in this thread where someone claimed that it was illegal to refuse entry to this couple?
Sounds to me like you’re making a straw argument, which is to say that you are making up an argument that nobody has made and then knocking it down because it’s easier to do that than actually arguing against what we’re really saying here in this thread.
5 Likes
I didn’t ask Butchart Gardens to explain their rules.
I asked you to complete a sentence.
3 Likes
Okay then.
And
and many more, but the search facility on the board sucks so I’ll leave it at that.
Not at all. Bowling shoes are for bowling. Street shoes would damage the floor. therefore, that is a sensible rule. Objections as to the style of said bowler’s trousers however, would be a stupid rule.
4 Likes
My obligation to complete your sentence, is the same as Butchart Gardens obligation to explain their rules - nonexistent.
I only asked for one, so you win that. But only with the second quote. The first one doesn’t qualify.
So a business can’t have a “no saggy pants” rule? (I know several that do.)
Well, yeah, clearly they can. Personally, I’d think it was a fucking stupid rule however, and I wouldn’t go there. A bit like the case in point.
(I own no saggy pants, for the record)
3 Likes
That could be construed as a hygiene or even safety issue. Most people don’t want strangers rubbing their barely-insulated ass cracks on their furniture, and you don’t want customers suing you because they went bowling or ice skating in counterfunctional pants and broke their necks as a result.
3 Likes
So where’s the ‘illegal’ part in the quotes you listed?
5 Likes
Words mean what they are understood to mean. I also think that you’re wrong in the first place, even if the usage you take exception to wasn’t common parlance; in addition to the definition you gave, is another; “To adapt something to trade.”
I thought that this had already been established up-thread. Must’ve got confused.
