Wolfgang Puck's Five Sixty restaurant turns away World War II veterans over dress cod

Anderson's message: Rules don't apply if you did something a few decades ago.

Should they have to pay for their meal? How much should we bend backwards for the greatest generation?

There's a similar story out of Orlando where the Immigration Officer who turned away the "20th Hijacker" is now facing demotion because he broke procedure and drove a Homeland Security van home (against the rules) and subsequently a government laptop and his gun were stolen. People are outraged, yelling "The man's a hero!"

Past accolades don't make you exempt from the standards. I live in a democracy, not an oligarchy.

So fine dining establishments should waive dress codes for veterans?

Have you ever served veterans at a resturaunt? It's like a bunch of Mr. Pinks demanding more iced tea.

I find it odd that we demonize businesses for engaging in consistent practices and standards, and I find it even more odd that the Palookaville Press decided to do a story on it.

"Old guys in t-shirts can't go to nice restaurant, film at 11."

Sounds like a misunderstanding that basically comes down to an inexperienced hostess. And I can understand. "Classier" restaurants can be intimidating when you're the first "line of defense" (ugh, shutter to use that term here) as a hostess would be.

Could've been handled way better obviously, but it's not like the restaurant is out to get the veterans or anything. They even stated that the hostess was polite about it.

In summation: boooooooring.


ETA: But yeah, just like you'd let Brad Pitt in there if he were in his fucking boxers and a t-shirt that says "NAMBLA since 1972," you let in WWII vets as well. They can be VIPs I'd say.

What if you shot a Korean? Viet Cong? Granadan? Nicaraguan? Iraqi? Afghan?

It's a publicly posted dress code. They can abide by it or eat somewhere else. The gentlemen took it in stride, but the remarks by the family afterward
just reveal a terrible line of thought. Replace up to get a view of the city. with anything. It's a terrible rationalization for doing anything. It's a restaurant. You have a ton of choices, chose some place that wants your business. Then, to piss on the hostess who was doing her job.

Northrop is setting up the argument that they were denied service because the hostess was too young to understand that dubya-dubya two was the crowning achievement of America, and that she should kowtow to the greatest generation. Empowered to do what?

Did the restaurant have a publicity screwup? Sure. Did their own rules make them do that? Yes. Should the distinguished gentlemen chose a better, less pretentious restaurant? Absolutely. Had these guys not been veterans, would we have cared? Wolfgang Puck's Five Sixty restaurant turns away octogenarian librarians over dress code.

I love the way the old codgers took the whole thing in stride.

The dress code is their policy. The manager didn't change the policy, just offered a public gift and invitation back.




Except, the daughter of the veteran said the hostess wasn't rude. The restaurant wasn't rude.

I was once made to wear a terribly ugly collared shirt on a golf course because I wasn't paying attention to the shirt I put on. Dress policy was I wear the club offered shirt, go home and get another shirt, or I not play. I didn't have to play there, but I put on the shirt and did. Their course, their rules. I didn't have to give them my money.

Fuck, which one's the cod, again?

I'm confused. Does the restaurant serve dress cod, or were the veterans demanding dress cod, and turned away because Five Sixty doesn't serve dress cod?

Seems like the veterans were being kind of picky. Why not settle for normal cod?

Edit: Goddammit, Dave.

Dress cod has been fished to near extinction by the Japanese. THE JAPANESE. NOW does the world war 2 connection make sense???

What if you ran the Uncle Sam's Yankee Derby Hot Dog Shack in Ho Chi Minh city, and a bunch of angry, poorly dressed Vietnamese war heroes demanded service? You would send them packing. You people are missing the top level context here.

This one -



Do you have one that looks like that? Because that's the dress cod.

I think that's imitation dress cod. The lack of a monocle is a dead giveaway.

I'm curious how you came to that conclusion, because nothing in the article states that that was the case. But hey, it's a young woman dealing with a bunch of elderly people, she must have not wanted to have been bothered, right?

Yeah, the ones who should actually be offended seem like the least offended of the bunch.

We've got another incident going on here locally where a private business was flying a rather old and worn American flag that a veteran decided to go over and take down, leaving a note telling the owner to get a new one. The owner pressed petty theft charges, and now everyone is falling all over themselves to call the guy who took the flag a hero, conveniently forgetting the fact that, regardless of motive, he stole someone else's property.

You know, I thought that the thread about The View was the stupidest thread I'd read today. This is stupider.

Follow the rules of the business or they reserve the right to not serve you. Simple. I don't care if these vets shot a hundred Nazis in the face each, they still have to operate within the parameters of the society they belong to. What's the problem here?

Anderson?

...well okay, but still.

I still think it was a conspiracy on the part of the hostess to keep non-tipping old assholes out of the restaurant. A move I wish more hostesses would employ.

As the daughter of a WW2 vet, I'd like to weigh in on this issue if I may:

My Dad happens to wear stuffy wool suits nearly year round. I can't explain why he does it (other than a sense of professionalism that's been absent from subsequent generations -- my own included), he just gets overheated less easily than we mortals I guess. Even during the height of last summer's Heat Crisis, he was decked out in wool. He'd have easily been able to gain entry to this eatery any day of the year

With that said... he has joint pain, and the act of taking on or off a jacket often requires help and he will wince with pain (well, he won't ask for help, but I always try to give it). "Casual" business attire can become enormously difficult to manage as aging inflicts it's many wounds (my dad's shoulder problems come from falling on ice the 90s, but he also had Polio at one point even though it didn't effect him much at all). To tell a bunch of people who must be 80-95 they need to be wearing suit coats and ties ETC wherever they go on the off chance they'll encounter a dress code is unrealistic and unfair. It's almost like denying someone entrance to a restaurant if they can't use the stairs to enter the building

It's meanness disguised as good taste

Yeah.

Plus, it was also inconsiderate when the hostess said, "Did you say World War II or table for two?"

My Dad's an 85 year old WW2 veteran. So are many members of my Lodge. None of them have a problem adhering to any dress codes within the Lodge or outside of it.

My Father in law is 80 years old, morbidly obese, and blind. He likes to wear shorts and shirts all day long if he can. If he's heading out to church or to a restaurant, he puts on a suit.

Right but my understanding is that they were on a tour and just happened to stop by. Regardless, IMHO as someone else stated, WW2 vets are VIPS

It's funny that they're all wearing suits in that picture in the article.

I noticed that too. A statement, no doubt.

I think it's actually funny that the old guys didn't really give a shit about it, but after the daughters threw a stink, the restaurant sent scotch.

By the by, if you see an elderly gentleman wearing a POW shirt and a unit ball cap, and can't identify him as a veteran, you're really not looking. Also, I think anyone who had the balls to fight for their country has the right to wear whatever they want to a restaurant, and clearly the management of the place felt the same.

WW2 vets are great and all, but you're acting like this is some societal rule to which we all must adhere. It's simply not. The restaurant sets its own policies and boundaries. The vets didn't follow either. No service. Black and white, neat as you please. Nothing else to the conversation than that. You don't have to like it but the argument that as WW2 vets they should have been allowed in holds no water.

I don't think it's a rule that this restaurant failed to adhere to, I think they failed to act decently and I'm judging them for that. There is a difference, to my mind. No one is going to throw Puck in jail or sue him for kicking out WW2 vets (the way one could had they refused entry to the handicapped), but as a private citizen I'm certainly within my rights to judge the restaurant for it's actions in this case

Anyway, that's the sum total of my opinion on this matter. I respect the rights of others to disagree.

Thing is, most of the WWII vets I've known would never dream of using that status to let them bend the rules. They didn't go over to Europe or the Pacific so they could dine out in shorts and t-shirts.

This. Exactly this.

Kate, this isn't about decency. This is about a business setting policy. Nothing more. This is exactly what I'm saying-- you're arguing that the hostess isn't decent because she wouldn't make an exception for people you've deemed to be VIPs. It's patently ridiculous.

I have seen Vietnam vets try to use it as a free pass before... on me... when they're being assholes.

Yeah, that's the thing with me. Had they actually tried to use their WWII service to get special treatment, I would suddenly NOT want to. But if I already knew and noticed that they didn't use it as a badge of entitlement, I would probably bend the rules for them.

Honestly I can definitely see the other side of the argument, and perhaps my personal connection to this issue clouds my judgement, but I stand where I stand. Let's agree to disagree.

Be honest, Kate: All you have to do is tell folks at any resturant in Bum Fart, MA that your dad personally wrassled Hitler to the ground and brought him back for secret government testing, then boned Meryl Streep and called it a day, and you get any seat in the house.

Right?

We hardly eat out at all anymore because we can't afford to. I just don't like the idea of a rich big shot like Mr Puck turning away vets (most of whom are not the wealthiest people in this country) when they go out for their big meal on their NYC trip

Are you done now? Because I feel like you've been going out of your way lately to make me feel bad. I know you think I'm bigoted against religion, but give it a rest OK?

I really don't see a problem here. There was a dress code and she was enforcing it. End of story

"Mr. Puck" didn't turn anyone away. A restaurant hostess, who probably makes far less than a retired hospital administrator, did. On the surface, this may look like some kind of class thing, but it's probably more a matter of a relatively low-level employee not wanting to jeopardize her job by overstepping professional boundaries.

Well, exactly, the boundaries that she believed had been established by her employers, who probably at some level took their cue from Mr Puck. The work environment that had been created, one that made this hostess feel that she had to turn away WW2 vets, is one that Mr Puck has to be responsible for on some level

Anyway, as stated, I definitely see and almost support the other side of the argument on this one, but in the end I just believe what I believe and we'll have to respectfully agree to disagree

This is no different than "no shirt no shoes, no service."

So Puck has a cod problem? This thread is so confusing.

It was Dallas, you ninny. Read the fucking article before commenting.

The work environment had been created that made this hostess feel that she had to turn away some guys who weren't dressed appropriately. It's not like the restaurant had an "anti-vet" policy written into their code. If anything, these guys should be particularly respectful of the fact that she was, in effect, following orders.

Regardless, it turns out her choice to adhere to the rules did not necessarily reflect the desires of upper management, so you really can't pin this on Puck, who doesn't have the clairvoyance to write a "WWII vet exception" into the policy.

Does Wolfgang Puck at least serves fish n' chips?

Question:

If a WW2 vet became a Chewer and posted a face palm pic or news on the boards, should he be banned? Gotta play by the rules in others' establishments.

Different sorts of rules, different establishments. They are not analogous situations, IMHO

But they are analogous. Both places are private enterprises which have a right to regulate its customers within a publicly posted, proscribed manner.