Kicked out of resort because of [occupancy rules exceeded.]

[SueDonJ]

What do you mean by 'act gay'? In a room with max occupancy of 2, it would be the choice of the occupant/renter whether one would leave, or if the group would leave together. But the sexual orientation of the guests is of no concern or business of the innkeeper- that would be discrimination.

Ya don't say....

And the implication of "don't act gay" would be don't hold hands, embrace or kiss in public. I'm sure you asked that question tongue in cheek.

You may have missed the point that any one of your three guests could leave the premises so that the other two would be in conformance with the max occupancy and therefore not subject to discrimination. Thus, the baby and the mother OR the father could have stayed without exceeding the occupancy limits while still allowing the baby in the premises.

In other words, your tenuous discrimination case can't be proven unless the OP was told point-blank that babies are not allowed as guests. The OP never said that.

 

[SueDonJ]

We're saying the same thing. It's a measure of accommodation, not maximum occupancy. Otherwise, resorts would have no need for rollaways.

We're not saying the same thing as far as your post where you disagreed with geekette about the meaning of the X/X format as it pertains to occupancy, and my post in support of her meaning.

Some resorts will allow extras in rollaways/cribs, some won't. It's up to the guest to find out in advance if they intend to use the lodging for more people than what's stated as occupancy limits.

 

[DeniseM]

Wow - I can't believe how long this thread has gone on, on a relatively mundane topic.

 

[TTom]

Probably missed something along the line...

I haven't read most of this thread, so I may be going "off the rails." That having been said, if the OP was allowed to check in, with their infant/one year old clearly visible and, if NOTHING was indicated by the resort staff with regard to any potential "violation of the rules," e.g., "we have to confirm with our management or RCI" or "as long as we don't receive any complaints from our other guests" (this one is a bit dicey). then the OP was treated unfairly.

The simple matter of the OP being evicted does not provide complete context to all that happened.

Even if the OP had done the same thing previously, it is still their obligation to confirm that this is acceptable, since it is a violation of some sort (whether that is of the prevailing laws or the resort policy).

Although I am not aware of any legal precedent for considering infants as an extension of their parents, i.e., not a "person," that would be the only case I could see where the OP could claim they did not violate a rule.

Bottom line, it sounds like the OP made an assumption, no one on either side clarified the situation, an uncomfortable circumstance occurred, and there was a problem which seems to have been handled pretty badly. There's enough blame here for everyone to have a feast!

Tom

 

[Fern Modena]

I am offended by your trying to make what happened an analogy with racial discrimination or anti-gay behavior. It is about occupancy rules, [deleted.]

Fern

And my position from the beginning is that some courts and govt organizations might care how babies are or are not counted, if it appears that there is a possibility of arbitrary enforcement that may point toward discrimination. To use your analogy, if a resort chooses to waive the fee for white guests but not black ones, there is going to be a problem. If a resort tells a couple to keep their baby quiet at check-in, then immediately calls RCI to evict them, I see a potential problem.

What do you think would happen if a resort refused a gay couple. Do you think it's their right as a resort?

 

[Ty1on]

We're not saying the same thing as far as your post where you disagreed with geekette about the meaning of the X/X format as it pertains to occupancy, and my post in support of her meaning.

Some resorts will allow extras in rollaways/cribs, some won't. It's up to the guest to find out in advance if they intend to use the lodging for more people than what's stated as occupancy limits.

The accommodation number is not a max occupancy number. I edited my post above with this paste from RCI's Dolphin's Cove Room Details for a 1 BR:

Sleeps: 4
Privacy: 2
Kitchen: Full
Bathroom: Full

Sleeps 4 and Max 4 don't mean the same thing.

 

[Ty1on]

I am offended by your trying to make what happened an analogy with racial discrimination or anti-gay behavior. It is about occupancy rules, [deleted]

Fern

[Deleted - personal attack.]

Discrimination is discrimination, and California in particularly has used the same laws to combat discrimination against families with children. That was my original point.

 

[SueDonJ]

The accommodation number is not a max occupancy number. I edited my post above with this paste from RCI's Dolphin's Cove Room Details for a 1 BR:

Sleeps: 4
Privacy: 2
Kitchen: Full
Bathroom: Full

Sleeps 4 and Max 4 don't mean the same thing.

That only reinforces the premise that if a guest intends to bring more people than what's stated, it's prudent to be in contact with the resort prior to the stay or be willing to accept the responsibility for any consequences.

 

[Ty1on]

That only reinforces the premise that if a guest intends to bring more people than what's stated, it's prudent to be in contact with the resort prior to the stay.

Well sure, because they should be concerned whether they can find a place to sleep their 9 month old baby.

Does this sincerely make sense to you?

 

[Passepartout]

Wow - I can't believe how long this thread has gone on, on a relatively mundane topic.

It would have lasted one short page but for one participant throwing out exceptions to simple occupancy rules.

 

[SueDonJ]

Can we please try not to equate discrimination scenarios as they're introduced here as examples, with personal offense of discrimination? I know it's a fine line but Ty1on has IMO been doing his best to explain why he sees this as a discrimination matter. I don't agree with his premise that this was a matter of discrimination but I do understand why he's he's introduced certain scenarios in support of the case he's trying to make.

 

[SueDonJ]

Well sure, because they should be concerned whether they can find a place to sleep their 9 month old baby.

Does this sincerely make sense to you?

Yes. If it didn't make sense to me I wouldn't be arguing it so strenuously!

But again, the OP says the baby was "1 year old." Not an infant strictly speaking, if the resort's policy is predicated on allowing infants above the occupancy limits (which we have no idea if that's the case.)

 

[Ty1on]

Can we please try not to equate discrimination scenarios as they're introduced here as examples, with personal offense of discrimination? I know it's a fine line but Ty1on has IMO been doing his best to explain why he sees this as a discrimination matter. I don't agree with his premise that this was a matter of discrimination but I do understand why he's he's introduced certain scenarios in support of the case he's trying to make.

And this all started with a suggestion that there could be a discrimination factor to this incident in California, the King of discrimination prosecution. Then came the resort rulebook pounders. To understand discrimination, it is very important to know that rules are used to facilitate discrimination, especially when they are enforced arbitrarily.

 

[SueDonJ]

And this all started with a suggestion that there could be a discrimination factor to this incident in California, the King of discrimination prosecution. Then came the resort rulebook pounders. To understand discrimination, it is very important to know that rules are used to facilitate discrimination, especially when they are enforced arbitrarily.

I have a complete understanding of discrimination and how it's implemented both overtly and covertly. I'm not disagreeing with you because I don't understand you. IMO the same can be said by many posters in this thread.

 

[ace2000]

Maybe it wasnt the baby. It could have been either one of the two adults here that was considered the 3rd person

You or your wife could have slept in the car to bring the number down to 2

Here's the solution. Ron's post here is the only thing that makes any sense in the entire thread...

 

[geekette]

The accommodation number is not a max occupancy number. I edited my post above with this paste from RCI's Dolphin's Cove Room Details for a 1 BR:

Sleeps: 4
Privacy: 2
Kitchen: Full
Bathroom: Full

Sleeps 4 and Max 4 don't mean the same thing.

You might want to check with RCI for exact definitions since your interpretation is only valid with you.

By your logic, you could pack 10 people in at a time, so long as only 4 were sleeping. Clearly, this would be discriminatory against the conscious that get evicted when they fall unconscious, raising the Sleeping number to an intolerable amount of unconscious people in one unit.

 

[jc92869]

The resort was simply enforcing it's own policy. I have heard of it being done to spring breakers on a trip who greatly exceeded occupancy. This is the first I have ever heard of it being done to a one year old. The toddler isn't even old enough to sleep in a bed. It's ridiculous.

OP Here.
This is why the original title of the post was "kicked out of resort because of baby". Mods felt the need to change it and it's their right and i'm not fighting it, but i think that the "Baby" IS important in this discussion.

Rules are rules - i get it, they are there for a reason, but sometimes rules don't make sense in a certain situation. This (i believe) is one of them.

Remember how silly it sounded years ago when airlines started charging baggage fees? Remember asking "What, Am i supposed to travel without bags?" Remember the feeling that this was just another instance of corporate greed?

Sure, you could travel without bags; buy everything you need for your trip at your destination. Sure you could pay the extra fees. Sure you could simply just not travel.

Well the feeling here was similar.

Sure, we could just book two separate rooms for my wife baby and I. Sure we could just have one of us sleep in the car. Sure we could simply not vacation as a family.- But REALLY?

 

[geekette]

OP Here.
This is why the original title of the post was "kicked out of resort because of baby". Mods felt the need to change it and it's their right and i'm not fighting it, but i think that the "Baby" IS important in this discussion.

Rules are rules - i get it, they are there for a reason, but sometimes rules don't make sense in a certain situation. This (i believe) is one of them.

Remember how silly it sounded years ago when airlines started charging baggage fees? Remember asking "What, Am i supposed to travel without bags?" Remember the feeling that this was just another instance of corporate greed?

Sure, you could travel without bags; buy everything you need for your trip at your destination. Sure you could pay the extra fees. Sure you could simply just not travel.

Well the feeling here was similar.

Sure, we could just book two separate rooms for my wife baby and I. Sure we could just have one of us sleep in the car. Sure we could simply not vacation as a family.- But REALLY?

OP, you could also get accommodations large enough for your family.

Consider the scenario of fire at the resort. Nobody is going to be looking for more than 2 people in your room. If that's ok with you, keep on skirting max occ rules.

Consider also when a ship goes down, they don't say 1800 adult souls lost and 3 infants. No, every life is a soul to be accounted for.

 

[am1]

With two twin boys and traveling a lot with my wife's cousin who lives with us, other cousin or sister, my my mother, wife's mother we have excedded the occupancy at multiple hotels without issue. One we were charged an extra person (adult fee). We have never had an issue otherwise. Most stays have been using reward points where the max occupancy limit is higher then the rack rate when paying cash. Only once at a timeshare we went above this limit and no issue.

There may be a difference between 2 allowed and 3 in the room vs 4 allowed and 5 in the room. Or two of the them being kids and not just one.

I would never think for a second that my sons would not count as whole people. It would be insulting if they were counted that way.

A question though what if one gives birth during the stay and puts them over the maximum occupancy? In the case of twins where the mother was not aware of two babies? Very rare case and even less likely the resort makes an issue of it but what if?

I have no problem with Disney's policy of an extra child being allowed. An encourage it as only 1 bedrooms seems to come available there. But lets remember where disney makes their money.

This situation is an issue for us as the hilton studios in nyc that come available only sleep 2. 3 weeks with just my wife is too long. We will have to book manhattan club or wyndham 45 which costs a lot more and no breakfast or social hour but the extra space and kitchen will be nice.

I am of the opinion that if the resort does not allow you to stay then do not book there anymore. In all my situations another room could have been booked, stayed elsewhere, or went home. My wife and my two kids were looked after.

If we have another child then it would be more of an issue as 4 to 5 is much difficult instead of 2 - 3 or 4 in terms of availability.

I do not agree with all the discrimination lawsuits and for sure not in this case but it is a slippery slope and in 2015 we are on it. Anyone can sue anyone for any reason.

 

[Ken555]

Hmm...I find it interesting that some believe it's okay to knowingly exceed occupancy limits. At least one post infers this is due to cost. So...when I travel by myself, should I expect a discount because I won't be utilizing as much of the hotel services as a family of four or five? Of course not.


Sent from my iPad

 

[SueDonJ]

OP Here.
This is why the original title of the post was "kicked out of resort because of baby". Mods felt the need to change it and it's their right and i'm not fighting it, but i think that the "Baby" IS important in this discussion.

Rules are rules - i get it, they are there for a reason, but sometimes rules don't make sense in a certain situation. This (i believe) is one of them. ...

Who gets to decide which rules are silly, and who gets to enforce rules when making exceptions results in people feeling entitled to break whatever rules they choose?

Remember how silly it sounded years ago when airlines started charging baggage fees? Remember asking "What, Am i supposed to travel without bags?" Remember the feeling that this was just another instance of corporate greed?

Sure, you could travel without bags; buy everything you need for your trip at your destination. Sure you could pay the extra fees. Sure you could simply just not travel.

Well the feeling here was similar.

Sure, we could just book two separate rooms for my wife baby and I. Sure we could just have one of us sleep in the car. Sure we could simply not vacation as a family.- But REALLY?

Or, knowing that there isn't an industry-wide standard, couldn't you choose lodging that you've verified in advance will allow the three of you (whether in a 2/2 that makes exceptions for all babies the same age as yours, or in a 2/3+ or larger?)

I honestly do feel for you because that situation in the moment must have been very difficult and disappointing. But I can't blame the resort for establishing and enforcing rules put in place to protect the value of every guest's enjoyment. If over that July 4th holiday interval they strictly enforced the rules with no exceptions, or if in the six months between your stays your baby reached the cut-off age of their allowable exceptions, or if you were the 20th guest checking in that day with an additional person, or for whatever reason the resort chose to enforce the rules for your stay ... that moment was lousy for you. I wouldn't rather, though, that the entitlement to relax any rules be left in the guests' purview and not the resort's.

It's still unclear whether the resort staff told you when you were checking in and with no prior or stated notice that babies are not allowed. If they did, which means if they based your eviction on a baby being involved and not on occupancy limits, then I'd say you might have a case of discrimination like Ty1on suggests. Might. In which case I'd agree with his initial advice to consult an attorney. The reason I didn't agree with it then and still, and the reason I edited the thread title, is because RCI told you they were moving you because of the occupancy limits and you summed up your OP by warning that occupancy limits can be enforced.

 

[Ty1on]

You might want to check with RCI for exact definitions since your interpretation is only valid with you.

By your logic, you could pack 10 people in at a time, so long as only 4 were sleeping. Clearly, this would be discriminatory against the conscious that get evicted when they fall unconscious, raising the Sleeping number to an intolerable amount of unconscious people in one unit.

What you really mean is that I should check with RCI because I don't agree with your definition.

Sleeps 4 means Sleeps 4. What is so hard to understand about that, and why that isn't the same as Max Occupancy?

 

[jc92869]

Hmm...I find it interesting that some believe it's okay to knowingly exceed occupancy limits. At least one post infers this is due to cost. So...when I travel by myself, should I expect a discount because I won't be utilizing as much of the hotel services as a family of four or five? Of course not.


Sent from my iPad

No. The quoted post above sounds like it infers a knowing and purposeful disregard of the max occupancy rules due to cost.

This is far from what happened in this situation.

Whether it was hotel rules, local regulation, federal laws, or managerial decision to kick us out, it does not matter. We did not question it. We left.
Besides who wants to be somewhere where you are not wanted.

 

[Ken555]

No. The quoted post above sounds like it infers a knowing and purposeful disregard of the max occupancy rules due to cost.



This is far from what happened in this situation.



Whether it was hotel rules, local regulation, federal laws, or managerial decision to kick us out, it does not matter. We did not question it. We left.

Besides who wants to be somewhere where you are not wanted.

I was not referring to your exact situation, as I posted previously. I am referring to other posts. Context is key


Sent from my iPad

 

[jc92869]

OP, you could also get accommodations large enough for your family.

Consider the scenario of fire at the resort. Nobody is going to be looking for more than 2 people in your room. If that's ok with you, keep on skirting max occ rules.

Consider also when a ship goes down, they don't say 1800 adult souls lost and 3 infants. No, every life is a soul to be accounted for.

VERY respectfully, that sounds just like the canned response we got from one of the check in reps. The same that had earlier in the conversation had very mentioned in a very cavalier manner that they already had a waiting list of people waiting to rent out our unit at a higher rate.