West Seattle Blog...

WSB Forum » West Seattle Food

(38 posts)

The Buddha Ruksa Bouncer

Started 2 years ago by MJ171
Latest reply from WSB

MJ171
Member Profile

We were at Buddha Ruksa tonight and encountered an individual we'd never seen there in the four plus years we've been patrons, co-owner Michael Hootman (whom we've dubbed the Buddha Ruksa Bouncer). Sadly, after that encounter, we will no longer set foot in Buddha Ruksa. Here's what happened:

My mother, father, sister and 14 month old daughter had just finished a delicious (as always) Buddha Ruksa meal and were in the process of paying the bill. While we were waiting, the baby began to play with my father's empty beer bottle - as babies will do. She put the bottle in her mouth and began to chew on it. Within seconds, out of no where, this large boor of a man appears at our table and barks at my 68 year old father, "If you do that again I'm going to have to ask you to leave!" We thought he was joking, so we laughed. Who would give beer to a baby?! The bouncer repeated, more loudly, "If you do that again, I'm going to ask you to leave." Enough said, we left. On our way out my father asked why the baby couldn't play with the empty beer bottle. This angered the bouncer who spat out in response, "I'll lose my liquor license!"

That, of course, is rediculous! Nonetheless, it's not his absurdity that we found offensive. It was his confrontational tone and demeanor. He was rude. We were not in a bar, we were at a restaurant; there was no belligerent drunk, it was a grandpa and his grandaughter. I can't and won't tolerate that type of disrespectfulness. So, we won't be going back to Buddha Ruksa. For those of you who will be going there,

BEWARE OF THE BUDDHA RUKSA BOUNCER!!!

Posted 2 years ago #
SarahScoot
Member Profile

Actually, yes, what you described is a violation of the establishment's liquor license.
"It is unlawful for any person to sell, give, or otherwise supply liquor to any person under the age of twenty-one years or permit any person under that age to consume liquor on his or her premises or on any premises under his or her control" (RCW 66.44.270).
It doesn't matter if you know the bottle is empty (which it probably wasn't; in my experience it's pretty impossible to drink absolutely every drop from a beer bottle) - the fact remains that the beer was sold to someone over the age of 21, and was essentially then given to a minor. I'm not saying there's anything morally or ethically wrong in allowing a baby to gnaw the mouth of an empty bottle, but I do think the owner (or "bouncer") was correct in asking you to not allow the behavior in his restaurant.

Posted 2 years ago #
HunterG
Member Profile

Here here. Even though babies will be babies, he has every right to protect his business - eloquence of delivery is always appreciated though.

Posted 2 years ago #
todd_
Member Profile

I wasn't there but it appears Buddha could have handled this better. It is a customer service thing in my opinion.. sure what the baby did/Grampa allowed was technically illegal whether he knew it or not but there is no need to act that way in general in a civilized society to a paying customer and those other paying customers who witnessed it. The restaurant may have lost more than one paying family. Also, I don't know any "ATF" enforcers but it seems like they wouldn't be too prosecutorial in this baby "playing" with an empty/near empty (save a couple of drops) beer bottle scenario. I could be wrong, maybe there is no agent discretion allowed.. it appears that way by the way the co-owner reacted.

Posted 2 years ago #
WesCAddle
Member Profile

Letting your baby suck on a glass beer bottle is sort of "rediculous".

Posted 2 years ago #
KBear
Member Profile

You were both in the wrong. Liquor law violations are serious business, and loss of a liquor license can mean financial ruin to a restaurant. You should not have allowed your child to touch the beer bottle. Nonetheless, the owner could have politely said, "Are you finished with that? Let me take it from you..." or some such. There was no need to overreact or embarrass his patrons. Speaking of overreacting, are you really going to let this single misunderstanding keep you away from your Crack Chicken?

Posted 2 years ago #
manolita
Member Profile

I agree with KBear. He could have handled the situation in a polite way. Most importantly, a child should never play with a glass bottle. Period. And believe me, I am a pretty relaxed parent (with four little ones running around you NEED to be relaxed) but playing with glass bottles is not only "rediculous" but totally out of limits.

Posted 2 years ago #
k
Member Profile

is it necessary to mock a misspelled word?

Posted 2 years ago #
johnnyblegs
Member Profile

Yes, the "bouncer" could have handled the situation better. He could have been more polite, but as a business owner he had every right to react the way he did. Liquor violations are serious business. He should have politely asked for the bottle.
.
There is no problem allowing a baby to play with a glass beer bottle. Calling it ridiculous is "absturd". Have you ever tried biting through a glass bottle with or without teeth? It's not easy. Besides, kids play with worse things. You parents just need to RELAX.
.
Besides, KBear is right. That crack chicken is to die for.

Posted 2 years ago #
jellyfish
Member Profile

He should have handled this situation more tactfully. I'm sure he panicked, since this could definitely jeopardize his license.

I understand your viewpoint, but since there are parents who give their children beer, you could also get in serious trouble with CPS if this were viewed by the wrong person. That's just the type of society we live in today.

Posted 2 years ago #
Garden_nymph
Member Profile

We are living in a difficult economy and you and your family were jeopardizing Buddha Ruksa's livelihood. While I agree, it could have been handled better, we don't know if the restaurant has been given a warning or citation and this incident, had it been witnessed by someone and reported, could have cost them dearly. Do you realize that bottles can sometimes get chipped when their caps are removed? Did you not have any better option for your child to gum on and play with? I hear your embarrassment, but I believe you also should assume some of the responsibility for what happened. I find it sad that your first post in this forum is such a negative one.

Posted 2 years ago #
MousePotato
Member Profile

MJ171, Buddha Ruksa is MUCH better off without your patronage. You are very lucky that I was not there. As jellyfish put it, I would have been the WRONG person to view this. I would have embarrassed you and your family quite audibly in the restaurant and called the proper authorities. Letting a 14 month old suck on a beer bottle?!?!

Empty or not, that is just all kinds of wrong....

Posted 2 years ago #
johnnyblegs
Member Profile

Please explain the all kinds of wrong MousePotato

Posted 2 years ago #
MousePotato
Member Profile

Well, if exposing your infant to alcohol, letting her 'teeth' on a glass bottle, and risking the financial livelihood of the restaurant aren't enough 'all kinds of wrong' for you then I really don't think there is much I can explain to you...

Posted 2 years ago #
johnnyblegs
Member Profile

There is nothing wrong with letting your infant suck on the end of a beer bottle, empty or with the last teaspoon of beer in it. You're not going to make them drunk. You expose them more to alcohol when you drink in front of them. So if that's a concern of yours then maybe you should think about that the next time you have a beer or wine in front of your child.
.
I am writing this while enjoying a bottle of an ice cold Pike Pale Ale, and I'm biting it. Hard. It's not a choking hazard (way too big), so if I can't crack this thick bottle with my experience of eating and 30+ years of strengthening those muscles, explain to me how this would be dangerous to an infant?
.
The only good point you had was that it was maybe risking the livelihood of the restaurant. Too bad the "bouncer" felt he had to yell at the OP. Could have asked for the bottle politely, but he was in the right to protect his business. If I was there when this happened and you made a scene to call the "proper authorities" - I would have told you to RELAX, it's none of your business.

Posted 2 years ago #
PDieter
Member Profile

wow, nannies amok.

Posted 2 years ago #
Garden_nymph
Member Profile

The safety of children should be everybody's business! Sometimes the lip of a glass bottle chips when the cap is removed. The choices one makes for oneself as an adult is very different than those we should be making for children. To err on the side of caution is not a bad thing!

Posted 2 years ago #
JanS
Member Profile

Garden_nymph, I so agree.

This whole thing could have been avoided if the offending empty bottle had been removed from the table in a timely fashion, before the check was presented. That's part of the job, I would think, to remove empty plates, glasses, bottles, etc. at the end of the meal. Then there would have been no waiting, no baby chewing, no a$$ chewing..and everyone would be happy.

Posted 2 years ago #
cathyw
Member Profile

More than once I have seen parents allow their toddlers to "taste" their beer, although maybe not at restaurants. Not that uncommon. Is it possible that the restaurant employee didn't know the bottle was empty? Grandpa knew it was empty. But that doesn't mean everyone else did.

Posted 2 years ago #
Cait
Member Profile

While I do agree that the bottle should have just been taken from the table, I can tell you that the servers there are always pretty attentive, so it may have been hard for them to tell if the bottle was still holding liquid. Usually the only way to tell with dark glass bottles is if someone hasn't touched it for a while or if you just ask. A baby playing with it would cause me alarm before it caused me to ask if you were finished.

Honestly, law or not, letting a baby have a beer bottle anywhere near its mouth would really put me off as a patron or an owner. It's like parents who let kids play with restaurant knives. No, it's not likely going to cut them unless it's a full-on steak knife, but it looks like you're just not paying attention and that makes patrons uncomfortable. I feel like I have to personally watch your kid while you socialize in case it looks like an eye-poking it imminent. Or, you know, a dropped beer bottle. It's the trainwreck theory, you can't really look away. And business owners know this, but I wish MORE did.

In economic times like this when it comes to restaurants, err on the side of caution whether you're a patron or an owner. That would of course include being nice to your customers in delicate situations, but do you honestly mean to tell me that you don't see where they're coming from? Even with the law behind them?

I know people can also be overly sensitive as well when people reprimand them about anything involving their children, so keep in mind that that may have played a part as well. I'm still going to get my crack chicken dang it. Probably even more now.

Posted 2 years ago #
JanS
Member Profile

I hear the crack prawns are pretty darned good, too :)

Posted 2 years ago #
dawsonct
Member Profile

RE: post #18, I was thinking the same thing JanS, bus the damned table, don't yell at your patrons. I understand the fear of losing a liquor license, but that would NOT have happened in this incident.
That would be almost as ridiculous as screaming at one of your customers in the dining room of your establishment.
As draconian as our state's liquor laws STILL are, none of the WSLCB agents I have known would have bothered to do anything more than have the restaurateur take away the bottle.

Posted 2 years ago #
CMP
Member Profile

MJ171, sorry to hear about your experience but don't cut off Buddha Ruksa entirely. After a few too many episodes of slow service while dining in, I just gave up and order take out all the time. As for the beer bottle, I think everyone is making a rather big deal out of it. When I have kids, I'm not going to freak out if they suck on an empty bottle. And if it happened in a restaurant and some nosy person said something to me about it, I'd tell you to mind your own business. A baby is in more danger learning to walk than sucking on a glass bottle IMO.

Posted 2 years ago #
funkietoo
Member Profile

MJ171, per WSB's Rant Rules, people need to share how they tried to work things out with the business before they post a rant. Per your original post, there doesn't seem to be anything listed about whether your family has tried to contact BR to share your experience and give them a chance to make it right.

Posted 2 years ago #
KBear
Member Profile

CMP, read the original post again. It was not the parent or some nosy patron who objected to the beer bottle. It was the owner, and it IS his business. Your opinion (or the parent's opinion) of how dangerous it is for a baby to suck on a beer bottle doesn't matter at all. What matters is that it's against the law. The owner is entirely within his rights to see that his patrons comply with the law. However, if you had read any of the replies, you would have noticed that virtually everyone agrees that no one needed to "freak out" about this and it could have been handled much more diplomatically.

Posted 2 years ago #
anonyme
Member Profile

All we know about the actions of the BR "bouncer" are that he asked that the baby not be allowed to suck on the bottle. The alleged rudeness is really all a matter of interpretation. I would suggest that people often react negatively to being caught out in an embarrassing situation. The impulse is always to blame the other party for being rude, regardless of how diplomatic they tried to be in handling the issue. The BR employee was not only entirely justified in taking action, they were forced into a no-win situation.

Posted 2 years ago #
thee
Member Profile

@16 Pdieter FTW!

Posted 2 years ago #
SarahScoot
Member Profile

Anonyme, exactly what I was thinking. That's why I didn't even comment on the way the owner acted: the person reporting this encounter already filtered her perception of the event when it happened, then again when writing about it here. Yes, it may have happened just as she says, or it may have been much more polite, but in her embarrassment and anger, she perceived the owner's behavior differently. And again, people are prone to embellish events when relating them to others in an attempt to curry favor.

Posted 2 years ago #
KBear
Member Profile

"people are prone to embellish events when relating them to others in an attempt to curry favor."

mmm.... curry!

Posted 2 years ago #
SarahScoot
Member Profile

You're right, KBear; I totally missed a pun opportunity! Coconut curry favor, pumpkin curry favor... so many delicious choices.

Posted 2 years ago #
MJ171
Member Profile

Thanks to everyone for your postings. I think some of you may have missed my point. Whether it's technically "legal" for a child to chew on an empty beer bottle, and whether it's a restaurant owner's prerogative to protect his liquor license, is neither here nor there. My point is that this restaurant owner acted totally inappropriately in this circumstance. My description of the language used and approach taken are completely accurate. It only seems like an embellishment because of how over the top and ridiculous the owner's reaction actually was.

Posted 1 year ago #
Garden_nymph
Member Profile

Is there a reason you are re-muddying the waters with this additional post? To be clear, it is ILLEGAL for a baby to chew on an "empty" beer bottle in a restaurant. Pack a binky! I for one will continue enjoying their "crack chicken" and pumpkin curry!

Posted 1 year ago #
JanS
Member Profile

MJ171...here's my solution to the problem...don't eat there. It's that simple. Your rant is a month old...we get it...we don't have to agree with you. The rules don't say that. So sorry some people disagreed.

Posted 1 year ago #
anonyme
Member Profile

The "unembellished" original post does not suggest anything "inappropriate" "over the top" or "ridiculous" by the "bouncer" (no doubt, owner). This language applies more accurately to the reaction of the OP than to the restaurant owner.

Posted 1 year ago #
mav0414
Member Profile

the owner ("bouncer") was correct, you are wrong.

better yet, in an establishment that serves liquor, leave babies home with a baby sitter. I'm sure other adult patrons would probably had a better dining out experience.
That goes for movie theatres too!!!!!!!

Posted 1 year ago #
KBear
Member Profile

MJ171, you were twice wrong here. Wrong to allow the behavior in the first place, and wrong to overreact about the owner's overreaction. The owner was right to react, but wrong to overreact. Get over it.

Posted 1 year ago #
DP
Member Profile

I beg to differ with some of you latter-day commentators. In my opinion, MJ171 was well justified in being irked.

Like all restaurants, Buddha Ruksa is in the hospitality business. In other words, they don't just sell food; they sell hospitality.

Of course the owner was entitled to ask MJ not to let the baby play with a beer bottle. No one's disputing this. But at the same time, said owner was obligated to convey this message as calmly and politely as possible.

—which, for some reason, many of you are disputing.

If the incident occurred as described, the owner of Buddha Ruksa behaved in a very un-Buddha-like way. MJ's party might have gotten the food they paid for, but they certainly didn't get the service.

I hope they didn't leave a tip.

—DP

P.S. Even though I'm with MJ on this one, I would be interested to hear the owner's side of it.

P.P.S To those of you who suggest that MJ leave the baby at home, find another restaurant, etc. . . . . Go soak your heads.

But I mean that nicely. ;-)

Posted 1 year ago #
WSB
Member Profile

Closing this one. We're working on a way for old posts to be non-reopenable (new word), which is an easy configuration for comment threads on the main site, but the forum software is a slightly different bird. Till then, as many folks do, if you see something reopened after weeks or months, we appreciate the flag.

Posted 1 year ago #