Bars that serve food vs those that dont

I don’t know, but on a side note, I go to a lot of restaurants throughout the day for my job. The big chains are practicing social distancing. Bars closed, tables and seating spread out, masks, etc. The private owned restaurants are not. The bars are open and filled to the max. God I love Texas.

I said the same thing.....so an individual that wants to just have a drink out can go to say Buffalo Wild Wings because they serve food....while this "bar" that takes the same safety measures (maybe even more) you cannot go to just based on the fact that they do not serve food...but one can just go to BWW and drink a beer and not required to order the only differentiator between both being allowed to open.

Please tell me how that makes sense and anyone is any safer?? If there is concern about people becoming belligerent and rowdy drunk (which they could do at BWW mind you) then put a limit on drinks, there is common sense ways to make it all work.

(no message)

quote:

---

You think people are as densely filling a chili’s as they are a place like reggies on a Saturday night

---

shite some of those shitty chain restaurants in the suburbs get packed as frick. Never understood people waiting 2 hours to eat at a fricking Chili’s or olive garden

quote:

---

Stage 1 allows bars to open that have food licenses, and those that don’t have to remain closed. How does serving food somehow prevent Covid from spreading?

---

I don't agree with any of these restrictions, but I could hear them arguing that restaurants are held to a higher standard with the health department.

On the flip side, the room for error/contamination in serving a drink at a bar is probably lower than the possibility that someone screws up in the kitchen.

None of it makes sense.