Thursday, August 6, 2009

Missouri, The Baby-Hatin' State

Well, we were on the national news again this morning. Virginia is for lovers. New Mexico is the land of enchantment. Montana is big sky country. Illinois is the land of Lincoln. Some of you might think that Missouri is the show-me state. Think again. We're the baby-hatin' state.

In Missouri, we kick a six-month-old baby out of Burger King for not wearing shoes. That is wrong on OH SO MANY levels. Here's the deal: a lady took her baby daughter and her mother to lunch at Burger King in Sunset Hills, Missouri. The baby was not wearing shoes. That's because it's MISSOURI, people, in the SUMMER, and the temperature is in the 90s, and six-month-old babies are not tortured with shoes. Why would she need shoes? Is she a horse pulling a wagon up I-44 during the annual Boy's Town Wagon Train? Is she Mike Rowe slopping hogs on Dirty Jobs? NO. She's a six-month-old infant who doesn't even walk. Why does she need shoes?

A Burger King employee told the mom she would have to leave, because no shoes on that baby meant a health code violation. WTF? The baby wasn't working in the restaurant (and I use that term loosely), flipping burgers with her unfettered tootsies. How is that violating the health code? AND, the No Shoes, No Shirt, No Service thingy says plainly, NO SERVICE. So why did the employees at the counter take the money and serve the food? That is service, by cracky! Then they try to kick out two women and a baby after they have already paid for their food? It's a darn conspiracy, I tell you. Some kind of scam to get money without giving people what they paid for. They could have told them at the counter that they would have to take it to go.

Missouri. The Show Me Your Baby's Shoes Or Get Out State.

4 comments:

DeadpanAnn said...

5 points for Missouri. Mississippi is slackin' off lately. Either that or the redneckery is so common that it doesn't get reported.

This story makes me want to slap some sense into a pimply faced Burger King manager. I mean, what the hell? I can count on 1 hand the number of times I bothered to put shoes on Charlie in his first 7-8 months. He always had socks on, but no shoes. Putting them on was a pain and he would always manage to kick one off somehow, and BABIES DON'T NEED THEM. I just now started putting shoes on him when we leave the house, and still don't do it every time.

I guess this is what you get when an 18 year old is left to run a business.

Chickadee said...

OMG.Really? REALLY??? At a fracking Burger King of all places. It's not like it's a hoitee toitee place like PF Changs or even Olive Garden (which probably wouldn't even care if a baby had no shoes on. They'd probably squeeze those little piddies and exclaim how cute the baby was)

That Burger King chick needs to stop taking her frustrations out on the customers. That sounds personal to me.

Hillbilly Mom said...

Miss Ann,
WooHoo! Missouri is in the lead! Don't worry. Your time will come.

The lady even put socks on her baby, but the Burger King decreed that socks were not shoes, and still kicked them out.

Chick,
Of course it was in the city. Down here, they're lucky that the parents are wearing shoes.

Stewed Hamm said...

Huzzah, the State of Misery is on a roll this week! So is Burger King for that matter.