Burger King's lamest apology EVER! [Archive] - Straight Dope Message Board

XJETGIRLX

11-12-2003, 01:14 PM

Originally posted by autz
A restaurant is a public facility. As such they may not break the law. For example, BK couldn't just decide they don't want anyone in a wheelchair to come in. They don't have that right.

They have to follow the laws of the state (think of the civil right sit-ins in luch counters).

In this case the law clearly says they don't have the right to prohibit breastfeeding "in any place where the woman otherwise may rightfully be..."

By the way, there are similar laws in all 50 states.

I thought that 'public facilities' were only those owned and maintained by the state?

I understand that they have to follow the rules of the state that they operate in. The law only says that they cannot prohibit her from breastfeeding in any place she otherwise may rightfully be. I don't think that this would have overridden the business' right to ask her to leave if they so chose, is all I'm saying. Whether or not she may rightfully be there if they asked her to leave is my contention. I don't know that that is the case, but I'm curious to know if the business could have legally asked her to leave and still not run afoul of the law.

I don't see how this is in any way related to civil rights sit-ins though.

NYR407

11-12-2003, 01:15 PM

Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic
What's "disgusting" about a mother feeding a baby? What kind of fuckhead gets upset about it?

Well appararently someone in a Burger King on Nov 10th was disgusted enough to complain to a BK employee. You really can't say what will or won't disgust someone.

Palo Verde

11-12-2003, 01:15 PM

If it's that simple, World Eater, then why did it make the front page of the national CNN web site?

Palo Verde

11-12-2003, 01:20 PM

If I saw a Mexican woman and a Indian man eating at BK and it disgusted me, and I complained to the management, should they ask the couple to go eat in the bathroom?

If the management did and the couple wanted an apology, should BK be sure to issue one that appologizes to me for being disgusted by it?

Diogenes the Cynic

11-12-2003, 01:22 PM

Originally posted by NYR407
Well appararently someone in a Burger King on Nov 10th was disgusted enough to complain to a BK employee. You really can't say what will or won't disgust someone.
I can say that person is a fuckhead...and that they don't deserve an apology.

World Eater

11-12-2003, 01:24 PM

Originally posted by autz
If it's that simple, World Eater, then why did it make the front page of the national CNN web site?

Have you seen some of the shit they put on the front page of CNN?

That means absolutely nothing.

XJETGIRLX

11-12-2003, 01:25 PM

Originally posted by autz
If I saw a Mexican woman and a Indian man eating at BK and it disgusted me, and I complained to the management, should they ask the couple to go eat in the bathroom?

If the management did and the couple wanted an apology, should BK be sure to issue one that appologizes to me for being disgusted by it?

How in the bloody hell is that comparable? They can't choose to refrain from being Mexican or Indian, respectively. The woman can choose to nurse her child in privacy. That's quite a flimsy charge.

Doesn't the article say that they asked her to cover herself? Why is this such an unreasonable request (for those of you who feel she was sleighted)?

Count Blucher

11-12-2003, 01:27 PM

The corporate lawyers would never approve that language, as it could expose the corporation to a possible suit.

Diogenes the Cynic

11-12-2003, 01:42 PM

Originally posted by XJETGIRLX
How in the bloody hell is that comparable? They can't choose to refrain from being Mexican or Indian, respectively. The woman can choose to nurse her child in privacy. That's quite a flimsy charge.

Doesn't the article say that they asked her to cover herself? Why is this such an unreasonable request (for those of you who feel she was sleighted)?
Because a mother has a right to feed her baby and no one else, including Burger King, has a right to tell her how to do it.

Most states specifically exclude breastfeeding from indecency or public nudity laws. Basically they have a right to do it and you don't have a right to be guaranteed that you will not be offended by what you see in public. Breastfeeding is not obscene and infringes on no one else's rights. If you don't like it, don't stare it.

Paranoid Randroid

11-12-2003, 01:42 PM

This debate amuses me.

I can see why someone might not like public breastfeeding, insfoar as I can see why someone might not like to see a public bare breast in general. I can't see why such a person would be a fuckhead. (And I can't see why people get so worked up about a message board argument.) Perhaps somebody here can clarify - was the woman requested to cover herself or go to the bathroom, or was she ordered to do so on pain of being forced to leave?

MsRobyn

11-12-2003, 01:43 PM

NYR407

11-12-2003, 01:43 PM

My apologies, the article said the person was "uncomfortable" not "disgusted" by the breastfeeding. Not that it really makes a difference but I just wanted to clarify.

Palo Verde

11-12-2003, 01:44 PM

Originally posted by XJETGIRLX
How in the bloody hell is that comparable? They can't choose to refrain from being Mexican or Indian, respectively. The woman can choose to nurse her child in privacy. That's quite a flimsy charge.

Totally comparable. Both are doing perfectly legal acts in public. In both cases it is illegal to ask them to stop.

The 'disgusting' part is that they are eating TOGETHER! That is why I (theoretically) asked the BK management to intervene. They could choose not to. You know, mixing of the races and all.

[/quote]Doesn't the article say that they asked her to cover herself? Why is this such an unreasonable request (for those of you who feel she was sleighted)? [/QUOTE]

Because it is illegal? She has a total right to breastfeed in public, without covering herself. And they have NO legal right to ask her to stop, move, or cover herself.

El Cid Viscoso

11-12-2003, 01:44 PM

Funny how people get offended by a baby hungrily nuzzling a bare boobie but don't think twice about shoveling a processed, grilled, fat-fortified agglomeration of cow parts into their pie hole.

autz, you're fighting the good fight here, but IMHO&dagger; BK's reluctance to apologize directly to the woman may be out of the necessity to protect itself as a corporation, and in part, its franchisee. It's much better for the corporation to defend against allegations of breaking the law and violating the woman's rights (should she choose to take that onerous and expensive route) than it is to admit to wrongdoing.

Another notable case against BK in the news right now is about employees' wanton contamination of food to be served to the public. The suit alleges employees contaminated BK food with urine, degreaser and saliva on a very regular basis.

In this suit, the presence of an apology letter from the management to one of the recipients of the contaminated food would likely be considered a "smoking gun."

&dagger;My very first real job was with Burger King. I have many neat stories, from stupidity in management to outright cornholing of food product.

Mtgman

11-12-2003, 01:47 PM

Many babies don't like to be covered while they are nursing. They like to be able to look up at their mother and it is a bonding experience. Shutting them off from the parent during feeding defeats a good portion of the purpose.

Simply because someone could avoid doing something doesn't mean they should be expected to. Especially if that something is perfectly natural, legal, and healthy. There is no reason for a breastfeeding mother to cover herself and the baby during nursing to avoid offending those who may feel the sight is offensive.

The interracial couple COULD avoid Burger King, or they COULD sit at seperate tables to avoid offending anyone who maybe offended by interracial relationships. But it is their right to be there and to be together. Just because they could do something else, also within their rights, and thereby avoid the situation doesn't mean they would be one whit in the wrong for sitting together, even if it offends some other customers.

All that being said, autz, I think their apology was underwhelming, but as long as they change their behavior and don't bother nursing mothers in the future I don't think there is an issue here.

Enjoy,
Steven

Palo Verde

11-12-2003, 01:48 PM

My, what a terrible job coding I did.

I apologize to anyone on the Straight Dope Message Board on November 12, 2003 who might have been offended by any faulty coding I did.

Horrifying Howler Monkey

11-12-2003, 01:48 PM

I would love to see an answer to the issue XJETGIRLX mentioned, as I have always wondered that. Do business owners have the right to evict someone from their business for any reason they decide? Is it considered private property? I assume in most situations I can kick anyone out of my house I want to, but would it be the same if ran a business out of it?

mske

11-12-2003, 01:55 PM

Seems to me autz that since you consider the act of breastfeeding in public to be no big deal, why do expect the nature of the apology to be out of proportion to it?

Mtgman

11-12-2003, 01:59 PM

Most businesses reserve the right, somewhere in the fine print, to "refuse service to anyone for any or no reason". The SDMB included. Now if this holds up in a court of law is a different matter. For the most part if you open a place up to the public, as a BK certainly is, then you accept the rules that govern behavior in public places(usually the laws of the state/city/county/etc) in which the business is located. In this particular case BK, by opening a public resturant in Utah, implicitly accepted the laws of the state of Utah regarding the right to breastfeed in public places. They violated that rule, and thus the bru-ha-ha.

If BK wanted to enforce this type of issue they would have to be members-only and have membership agreements which stated their objection to breastfeeding in the resturant. Even with such agreements there are some barriers you can't cross and suits have been successful against private establishments which tried to restrict membership on basis of several "protected rights" such as race, gender, etc.

Does any of that help?

Enjoy,
Steven

Palo Verde

11-12-2003, 02:02 PM

Originally posted by XJETGIRLX
I thought that 'public facilities' were only those owned and maintained by the state?

I understand that they have to follow the rules of the state that they operate in. The law only says that they cannot prohibit her from breastfeeding in any place she otherwise may rightfully be. I don't think that this would have overridden the business' right to ask her to leave if they so chose, is all I'm saying. Whether or not she may rightfully be there if they asked her to leave is my contention. I don't know that that is the case, but I'm curious to know if the business could have legally asked her to leave and still not run afoul of the law.

I don't see how this is in any way related to civil rights sit-ins though.

A "public facility" is "a wide range of entities, such as restaurants, hotels, theaters, doctors' offices, pharmacies, retail stores, museums, libraries, parks, private schools, and day care centers. Private clubs and religious organizations are exempt from the requirements for public accommodations. "

They "may not prohibit a woman's breast feeding in any location where she otherwise may rightfully be, irrespective of whether the breast is uncovered during or incidental to the breastfeeding. " Meaning if they kick this lady out of BK because she's stealing from the other customer's, then she doesn't have a right to be there in the first place.

But they can't kick her out (or ask her to go elsewhere) just becasue she's nursing.

Think of it this way. If this lady weren't nursing and didn't even have a baby, is she allowed to be there? Unless she's doing something weird, the answer is yes. So she may rightfully be there. So they can't prohibit her from breastfeeding.

The referece to civil rights sit-ins has to do with the fact that lunch counters and other places tried to argue that they were private businesses and could restrict certain races from entering if they wanted. That's where the idea of public accomidations comes in. It applies to keeping your facility open and accessable to the public

Lord Ashtar

11-12-2003, 02:03 PM

Originally posted by autz
My, what a terrible job coding I did.

I apologize to anyone on the Straight Dope Message Board on November 12, 2003 who might have been offended by any faulty coding I did.

Not good enough. Admit what you did and why it was wrong. ;)

Snooooopy

11-12-2003, 02:06 PM

Why don't women ever want to breast-feed in fast-food restaurants that I'M eating at? I like breasts!

Palo Verde

11-12-2003, 02:06 PM

Originally posted by Lord Ashtar
Not good enough. Admit what you did and why it was wrong. ;)

I can't. That might open me up to all kinds of messy lawsuits.

alice_in_wonderland

11-12-2003, 02:07 PM

Magayuk - not really.

If Idiot Manager doesn't like people in wheelchairs, in theory he could ask those people to leave his restaraunt, but he better have a reason apart from the wheelchair for doing so. Ditto for breast feeding.

A restaraunt is a public place. Just as they are required to accomodate persons with handicaps, they are required to tolerate them as well. Utah law states that women are alowed to breast feed anywhere they please, provided they would ordinarily be alowed there. Assuming the lady in question wasn't doing anything besides breastfeeding, the manager could not legally ask her to leave.

Hedda Rosa

11-12-2003, 02:26 PM

The response from BK is pretty damn lame, but no more or less than I'd expect from a big corporation.

As a breastfeeding mom who does nurse in public frequently (my walking, talking 15-month-old - horrors! :rolleyes: ) I carry a card with me at all times:

California Civil Code 43.3
Breastfeeding Rights

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a mother may breastfeed her child in any location, public or private, except a private home or residence of another, where the mother and child are authorized to be present.

it seems that the mom and baby in question were authorized to be in the BK having been served and permitted to seat themselves, so had they been in California the resturant would have been breaking the law asking her to stop breastfeeding. They card I carry doesn't address the question of being asked to relocate to private area however, so that request on the part of the BK employee might be more murky legal question.

Twiddle

neutron star

11-12-2003, 02:31 PM

Originally posted by autz
So a lady goes into Burger King and starts nursing her baby. The managers get a complaint

You know, most of these restaurants do have policies against bringing in outside food. Why couldn't this lady have just ordered her kid a Super Sized Similac like everyone else? :D

DaveX

11-12-2003, 02:38 PM

Just curious, does anybody's opinion change if it's not a big, evil corpoorate entity like BK, and instead (just for fun) we said the incident occured at a small locally owned coffee shop (or something)?

angelicate

11-12-2003, 02:39 PM

Originally posted by NYR407
"Burger King Corporation and our franchisee apologize for any inconvenience any of our guests experienced at our restaurant on November 10, 2003."

That's the beauty of this apology. It not only covers an apology to the woman who likes to breast feed her baby in front of complete stangers but also to the people that were trying to eat a meal and were disgusted by the sight.

Oh Jesus Christ, you'd think the lady stood on a table, stripped to the waist and danced around, all while holding the child up to one breast.

She fed her child. If she's anything like I was when she was nursing, she was pretty discreet. Sure, someone could catch a tiny glimpse of skin, if they really tried, but for the most part, they'd see my baby's head in front of my breast with my shirt covering any skin above that. Sure, I tried covering her up completely with a blanket at first, but since we didn't do that at home, she hated it and would throw the blanket off, often turning her head in the process and then my breast would actually be exposed.

Here's a suggestion: You don't like the look of someone breastfeeding their child, don't look. Unless she stands in front of you with baby and breast at eye level, I'm sure you can find a way to avoid it.

Gangster Octopus

11-12-2003, 02:44 PM

autz,

Why do you keep expounding on the idea that the restaurant has no right] to [b]ask the mother to cover up or move? BK certainly has every right to ask her. I mean, do we know did they ask politely, or forcefully? Is the mother's response reasonable or unreasonable?

Left Hand of Dorkness

11-12-2003, 02:53 PM

My guess is that heads are rolling in BK's public relations department. If they'd just issued a straightforward apology, this wouldn't be making the news; as it is, I doubt Burger King is happy about how they're making the news. Big time PR screwup from the very people who are supposed to be helping their PR.

Daniel

Palo Verde

11-12-2003, 03:17 PM

Mr. Octopus,

Would BK have the right to ask a black woman to leave because she is black? Would they have the right to ask an Scientologist to leave because he's reading "Battlefield Earth?" To ask an epiletic to leave because she had a siezure?

No.

Does it matter if they ask politely or forcefully?

No.

How could the mother's response be unreasonable if she's in a public place doing a legal activity?

Frumpy Jones

11-12-2003, 03:19 PM

Lady asks BK for an apology and gets this lame old response, "Burger King Corporation and our franchisee apologize for any inconvenience any of our guests experienced at our restaurant on November 10, 2003."

Well, Thank GOODNESS I read this post! I asked for no Onions on my whopper on Nov. 10.. and I got frickin' onions on it like they were just giving onions away!

And now they apologized.

That's sweet :)

Long story short on this one folks: Breast feeding is okay. BK shouldn't have said anything. Stupid kid's fault trying to please another customer (who obviously fears breasts).

Change the situation to NOSE PICKING. It's perfectly legal to pick your nose )And wipe it into your handkerchief that you then place in your pocket). but it MAY offend someone, who may say something, and something might be said to you.

BK did just enough of what it had to do to amend the situation. The woman was too sensitive, BK employee was too insensitive, the person that complained needs to get laid.

END OF STORY!

Mtgman

11-12-2003, 03:27 PM

Originally posted by Twiddle
They card I carry doesn't address the question of being asked to relocate to private area however, so that request on the part of the BK employee might be more murky legal question. Not really, it is still pretty straightforward. The woman has a right to be in the public area, therefore she has a right to breastfeed in the public area. The language of the laws in both California and Utah make that clear. Being asked to re-locate out of a public area is a request which the nursing mother has absolutely no obligation to honor. She can simply sit there and nurse anyway, they have no standing on which to force her to move. Call the cops? They know the law and they won't arrest her for nursing in a public place. Strongarm her yourself? Then the cops come for the person doing the strongarming and the money in the pockets of their employer.Originally posted by Gangster Octopus
"Why do you keep expounding on the idea that the restaurant has no right to ask the mother to cover up or move? BK certainly has every right to ask her. I mean, do we know did they ask politely, or forcefully? Is the mother's response reasonable or unreasonable?Because they DON'T have the right to even ASK in any sort of official capacity. If the manager came up and acted as an agent of the BK corporation when he asked her to cover herself or remove herself from the public area, then the manager was acting illegally because the relationship the corporation has with the state expressly disallows them to discriminate on this basis. It doesn't matter how politely or impolitely it was worded. No entity which creates a place and opens it to the public can put rules around that place which are in violation of the state's laws governing public behavior. That is simply one of the rules of doing business in the US.

Even by ASKING they violated their agreement with the state, and the citizens thereof, which they agreed to when they opened the resturant. They had no right to ask. Period.

Enjoy,
Steven

Gangster Octopus

11-12-2003, 03:56 PM

Steven,

So are you saying they could be prosecuted or fined? I don't buy it

XJETGIRLX

11-12-2003, 04:04 PM

Originally posted by Mtgman
Because they DON'T have the right to even ASK in any sort of official capacity.

Erm, one would think that legally they can ask whatever the hell they want. What they actually have the legal power to enforce, however, is another matter. I am still living in America, right? Bill of rights, freedom of speech and whatnot? Mmmkay. Just checking.

cckerberos

11-12-2003, 04:10 PM

So I guess I'm the only one really surprised that women have a right to breastfeed virtually anywhere and anytime in Utah and California? I could certainly understand if it there was an ordinance specifying that doing so in public wasn't a crime or some such, but I'm very surprised that private institutions are not allowed to prohibit it under any circumstances.

tracer

11-12-2003, 04:16 PM

Originally posted by racinchikki
Hell, I wrote to them complaining about the drive-thru chick who gave my food to another car, told me about it, and refused to do anything until I went in and forced her to give me my food while I stood there and watched her put it in the bag, and I didn't even get the form letter.
In situations like this, you're much better off writing a letter to (or calling on the phone) the manager or owner of the Burger King in question, rather than writing a letter to Corporate. The owner/manager has a much more vested interest in keeping that particular Burger King operating in a friendly manner so that they'll get repeat business.

Bricker

11-12-2003, 04:23 PM

Originally posted by XJETGIRLX
That may be true, but as a private business don't they get to say who may or may not be on their premesis regardless of the reason? Not that I don't think they were assholes for making a scene of it all, but legally they can refuse service or ask anyone to leave their store for any reason. I don't think the law would support her right to remain on the premesis if they asked her to leave and she didn't. Or am I mistaken in my understanding?

I suspect you're mistaken.

The law requires that places of public accomodation -- which are NOT the same as state-owned facilities -- are forbidden to discriminate on certain grounds. While an establishment might be able to require all Star Wars fans to leave, they likely could not require all African Americans to leave.

So far as a cursory examination reveals, Utah law imposes a similar duty with respect to breastfeeding - that is, even though you are a privately owned establishment, if you're a place of public accomodation, you cannot refuse to serve a breastfeeding woman.

I welcome corrections on this point from someone more versed in Utah law than I.

- Rick

Palo Verde

11-12-2003, 04:23 PM

cckerboros

It's not just Utah and California. It's every state in the U.S.

And as was mentioned earlier, they aren't 'private institutions,' they are public accomidations.

XJETGIRLX

Can they ask a Muslim not to read the Koran in their restaurant? Maybe. But they'll end up pissing a lot of people off, making an apology (even if half-assed), and putting the issue on the front page of CNN.

Bricker

11-12-2003, 04:27 PM

Originally posted by XJETGIRLX
Erm, one would think that legally they can ask whatever the hell they want. What they actually have the legal power to enforce, however, is another matter. I am still living in America, right? Bill of rights, freedom of speech and whatnot? Mmmkay. Just checking.

Erm, yourself.

Thought experiment: tomorrow, a Burger King manager approaches an African-American woman and says, "Excuse me, but would you mind leaving? Some of our customers don't like blacks. I hope you understand."

Legal? Or not? He is, after all, just asking.

- Rick

Primaflora

11-12-2003, 04:29 PM

Originally posted by DaveX
Just curious, does anybody's opinion change if it's not a big, evil corpoorate entity like BK, and instead (just for fun) we said the incident occured at a small locally owned coffee shop (or something)?

Mine doesn't change. I'd definitely be pissed off to be asked to breastfeed in the toilet and it wouldn't depend on who asked.

Gangster Octopus

11-12-2003, 04:39 PM

Originally posted by Bricker
Erm, yourself.

Thought experiment: tomorrow, a Burger King manager approaches an African-American woman and says, "Excuse me, but would you mind leaving? Some of our customers don't like blacks. I hope you understand."

Legal? Or not? He is, after all, just asking.

- Rick

Well, I would hope that is legal, just as I would hope that the person tells the manager to "Fuck off."

Frumpy Jones

11-12-2003, 04:40 PM

Why prohibit it? it's not like they are flinging their breast milk to and fro all over the place!

What is your legal reason for not allowing it, or why are you surprised?

Mtgman

11-12-2003, 04:48 PM

Originally posted by Gangster Octopus
So are you saying they could be prosecuted or fined? I don't buy itYes, actually. (http://abcnews.go.com/sections/living/HealthyWoman/healthywoman_54.html) If the two Ohio women can prove their case[that Wal-Mart employees, acting on company policies, asked them to leave the store because they were breastfeeding], Wal-Mart will face a tough legal road, due to precedents set in similar cases. Around the country, scores of women have sued and won the right to breastfeed in public.
In 1977, Long Island resident Barbara Damon successfully sued her local pool for kicking her out and revoking her $85 family membership after she was caught nursing her 2-month-old.
“I’m looking forward to women being comfortable feeding nursing infants in public,” she remarked afterwards. Try to restrict a woman from breastfeeding in public and you can be, and "scores" have been, sued.Originally posted by cckerberos
So I guess I'm the only one really surprised that women have a right to breastfeed virtually anywhere and anytime in Utah and California? I could certainly understand if it there was an ordinance specifying that doing so in public wasn't a crime or some such, but I'm very surprised that private institutions are not allowed to prohibit it under any circumstances. Children get hungry pretty much anywhere and anytime right? Private institutions are allowed to prohibit it under SOME circumstances. Private institutions which set themselves up as public places(such as the lobby of a BK) don't fit in this category. A members-only club which has "no breastfeeding" in the membership agreement would have a much better chance.

Enjoy,
Steven

On Preview:Gangster Octopus, if the BK manager was acting as himself, a private citizen, and exercising his personal right to free speech, then yes, he could probably make the request with impunity. When he tries to invoke the authority of the BK corporation, he runs afoul of the laws which govern what the BK corporation may and may not do in the sections of their resturants deemed "public" spaces. Does that make sense?

buttonjockey308

11-12-2003, 04:54 PM

This issue, really, is one of decency. Yes, it's healthy, and normal for a woman to breastfeed her child, I get that, really, but to do it in a place where other people eat, is a social faux pas at best, and blatantly insensitive at worst. Perhaps BK was wrong, according to Utah Law, but honestly, the lack of decorum on the part of the woman is staggering.

If breast feeding is such a private act of bonding between mother and child, why do it in public view? More over, why CONTINUE to do it after you were decently asked not to do it?

There is a line that we walk as civilized people in a society, public displays of private things, especially where people dine, is patently unacceptable, and crosses that line.

So do most public displays of affection, FWIW.

I'm sorry this woman was harangued. I'm sorry the other diners felt the need to complain. I'm sorry that when asked, this woman failed to respond to the requests of the management, and I'm sorry the management felt pressured to ask. The honest truth is though, that despite the parameters of the law, both parties were equally to blame for the fracas, really, end of story.

Bricker

11-12-2003, 04:56 PM

Originally posted by Gangster Octopus
Well, I would hope that is legal, just as I would hope that the person tells the manager to "Fuck off."

Your hope notwithstanding, it's not legal.

Diogenes the Cynic

11-12-2003, 04:59 PM

There is nothing remotely "indecent" about breastfeeding. It is grossly offensive and indecent to ask a mother not to feed her baby.

The woman did absolutely nothing wrong and deserves zero blame.

Bricker

11-12-2003, 05:01 PM

buttonjockey308, you may think this is merely a matter of differing opinions.

Given that the people of the state of Utah saw fit to express their will that breastfeeding be permitted in public, even in restaurants, your opinion that it's indecent doesn't hold much sway. You're welcome to your opinion, of course; the people of Utah don't agree with you, and it is their voice that matters as far as making the rules go.

And under the rules, a woman has every right to breastfeed in public without the slightest regard for your outraged reaction.

Gangster Octopus

11-12-2003, 05:14 PM

Originally posted by Bricker
Your hope notwithstanding, it's not legal.

Well, I think that sucks.

angelicate

11-12-2003, 05:45 PM

As much as it's an act of bonding, it's also an act of nourishing your child. What are you supposed to do, run out to the car (and cover with a blanket, lest someone look in the window and see you feeding your child) every time baby gets hungry? Run to the bathroom? Would you like to eat in a public restroom? bring a bottle along? A lot of women are not able to produce enough milk through pumping, in a reasonable amount of time, to want to prepare a bottle each time you have to leave the house. Also, speaking from my own personal experience, and from knowing other women with exclusively breastfed babies, a lot of them will not take a bottle. It is not what they're used to and they don't like it, and instead of eating, they will scream. (But then, we'd be offending someone by having the baby scream.)

How is feeding your child indecent and insensitive? That is ridiculous. Everyone agrees that breastfeding is best for babies, as long as they don't have to see it. It offends me when I go to a restaurant and someone is chewing with their mouth open. I simply look away. It's not that hard.

And in response to the BK vs coffee shop question, I'd be offended regardless of the company in question.

Mtgman

11-12-2003, 05:49 PM

Gangster Octopus: Why? Why should the corporation be allowed to go around issuing requests, more like demands actually, that they have no legal standing to enforce? Should it be legal for me to go around representing myself as an employee of "companyname" and asking all people doing business with "companyname" to stop doing "something perfectly legitimate" in a public place? Surely, because they have no right to restrict the behavior(it is a public place after all) me making the requests is some sort of harassment at least.

Personal freedom of speech does not fully extend to corporations. Even personal freedom of speech doesn't protect harassment.

Enjoy,
Steven

BiblioCat

11-12-2003, 06:07 PM

Originally posted by buttonjockey308
This issue, really, is one of decency. Yes, it's healthy, and normal for a woman to breastfeed her child, I get that, really, but to do it in a place where other people eat, is a social faux pas at best, and blatantly insensitive at worst. Perhaps BK was wrong, according to Utah Law, but honestly, the lack of decorum on the part of the woman is staggering. "Lack of decorum" ? Are you kidding me? If I were breastfeeding one of my kids, and someone came up and told me to go do it in the bathroom, I'd tell them to go eat in the freaking bathroom, if they're so damn offended. Do you know what it's like in fast food bathrooms? Most are just a sink and a toilet, and the toilet is one of those with no lid. Plus it stinks. Just how is Mom supposed to feed her child in there? :rolleyes:

For all the people offended by seeing one woman nurse their baby, I bet they've been around ten women nursing their babies and not even realized it. Most women are very discreet. It's very easy to just pull up your shirt, open your bra and pop the baby on. If you're sitting at a table, someone else would really have to LOOK to see what was going on. You don't have to cover yourself with a blanket; your shirt covers the top of you, and the baby covers the bottom part. All that shows is a little bit of skin above the nipple, and lots of babies put their hand their to "hold on."
It's not indecent. Good grief; grow up.

Truth Seeker

11-12-2003, 06:18 PM

Autz, What's the big deal? BK was just enforcing its "No Outside Food" policy. ;)

Originally posted by Bricker
Your hope notwithstanding, it's not legal.
Now you've got me thinking. Technically speaking, Gangster may be correct, though I doubt anyone ever parses their actions that closely.

Could a restaurant decorate their premises with white supremicist posters? I'd probably say yes, so long as the restaurant doesn't actually discriminate in serving patrons.

By the same token, a restaurant probably could, technically, politely request a patron to go elsewhere even for a discriminatory reason so long as it doesn't actually discriminate in any way when that request is refused.

In the U.S., I don't know that the "hostile environment" doctrine applies outside of the workplace.

Miller

11-12-2003, 06:18 PM

I don't mind women breastfeeding in public. Doesn't gross me out, doesn't spoil my appetite, doesn't bother me in the least. But we need fuckin' laws about it? It's a "right" now? Someone being grossed by it is comparable to a racist?

There aren't enough roll-eye smilies in the world.

BiblioCat

11-12-2003, 06:27 PM

Originally posted by Miller
I don't mind women breastfeeding in public. Doesn't gross me out, doesn't spoil my appetite, doesn't bother me in the least. But we need fuckin' laws about it? It's a "right" now? Someone being grossed by it is comparable to a racist?

There aren't enough roll-eye smilies in the world. Yes, we need laws about it, because nursing women were being asked to leave public places all over the country.
There apparently were enough people out there who were so squicked out by the sight of an innocent child suckling at his mother's breast that they had to go get cops and store managers involved and make those "horrid perverted women" leave the premises immediately.

I don't know that it's comparable to being a racist, but, yes, shit like that was happening all over the place and laws had to be put in place to protect women who needed to breastfeed their children.

Rhum Runner

11-12-2003, 06:30 PM

Originally posted by Twiddle
As a breastfeeding mom who does nurse in public frequently (my walking, talking 15-month-old - horrors! :rolleyes: ) I carry a card with me at all times:

:eek:

I don't have a problem with breastfeeding in public, in general, but I have got to say that I'm not sure how I would feel about this. What if the kid is five years old (as has happened)? Should moomy still get to "feed" their five year old? Irrespective of what the law says, I probabaly would not like to see that in a B K Lounge.

Miller

11-12-2003, 06:56 PM

Originally posted by BiblioCat
Yes, we need laws about it, because nursing women were being asked to leave public places all over the country.
There apparently were enough people out there who were so squicked out by the sight of an innocent child suckling at his mother's breast that they had to go get cops and store managers involved and make those "horrid perverted women" leave the premises immediately.

I don't know that it's comparable to being a racist, but, yes, shit like that was happening all over the place and laws had to be put in place to protect women who needed to breastfeed their children.

Not to be a dick about it, but so? Why is being asked to feed your kid somewhere else such a massive invasion of someone's civil rights? And if there were so many people who were freaked out over it (God only knows why...), why should their feelings take a backseat to the feelings of people who think breastfeeding is just spiffy? (Which, once again, includes me. I have no problem with it, I just don't get the outrage at people who do have a problem with it.)

Hedda Rosa

11-12-2003, 07:12 PM

Originally posted by Rhum Runner
:eek:

I don't have a problem with breastfeeding in public, in general, but I have got to say that I'm not sure how I would feel about this. What if the kid is five years old (as has happened)? Should moomy still get to "feed" their five year old? Irrespective of what the law says, I probabaly would not like to see that in a B K Lounge.

First, re: moomy. Fuck you and the cow you rode in on.

Second, my 15-month-old still gets valuable nutrition from breastmilk, better than the crap at BK, notwithstanding that I like the occasional order of onion rings m'self.

Luckily your opinion of breastfeeding in public matters not one whit outside of your ability to restrict it on your own property. And there is no mention of age in the CA breastfeeding law.

My guess is you don't have kids, but as any mom of a little toddler will tell you they are really still babies, and not just short adults with all the associated hangups about sexuality some might like to project onto them.

Twiddle

Rhum Runner

11-12-2003, 07:50 PM

Originally posted by Twiddle
First, re: moomy. Fuck you and the cow you rode in on.
Guess you aren't going to believe that was an innocent typo, eh?

Second, my 15-month-old still gets valuable nutrition from breastmilk, better than the crap at BK, notwithstanding that I like the occasional order of onion rings m'self.

Luckily your opinion of breastfeeding in public matters not one whit outside of your ability to restrict it on your own property. And there is no mention of age in the CA breastfeeding law.

My guess is you don't have kids, but as any mom of a little toddler will tell you they are really still babies, and not just short adults with all the associated hangups about sexuality some might like to project onto them.

Yeah, I'm sure it does get valuable nutrition. I suppose if it was 5 years old it still would get valuable nutrition. Are you saying that you ought to be able to breastfeed a 5 year old child in public? Again, irrespective of the law, surely the public is entitled to be a bit weirded out by watching a mother suckle its five year old spawn while trying to enjoy a flame broiled piece of delectable fast-food goodness? No?

If there is a breastfeeding-weirded-out-spectrum with newborn baby at one end and twelve year old middle schooler at the other, I'm not sure where I think 15 months lies. That was really my only comment, and I was only sort of pondering it out loud. 15 months just strikes me as being old to still being breast fed, and in particular to be brestfed in public. By the time the little rat can run around one would think it would be able to eat some solid food and not keep drinking din din from moomy. Or do you just let it wash down its happy meal with a nip of milk? Either way, there's no need to get all hostile about it. I'm not trying to take the bottle, or boobie, from your "baby."

You aren't one of those rabid earth mother types are you? You know, the placenta soup crowd? I don't know, but I'm getting a distinctly earth-mother vibe here.

MrWhy

11-12-2003, 08:42 PM

Originally posted by Cheese Monster
I can see why someone might not like public breastfeeding, insfoar as I can see why someone might not like to see a public bare breast in generalReally? Why? It's just flesh.

Assuming the person in question is not doing anything offensive - that the breast is simply visible, what's the big deal?

Bricker

11-12-2003, 09:01 PM

Originally posted by Truth Seeker

Could a restaurant decorate their premises with white supremicist posters? I'd probably say yes, so long as the restaurant doesn't actually discriminate in serving patrons.

By the same token, a restaurant probably could, technically, politely request a patron to go elsewhere even for a discriminatory reason so long as it doesn't actually discriminate in any way when that request is refused.

In the U.S., I don't know that the "hostile environment" doctrine applies outside of the workplace.

Any case law in support of that proposition?

Truth Seeker

11-12-2003, 09:28 PM

Originally posted by Bricker
Any case law in support of that proposition?
Only negative. I did a very cursory search but only turned up instances of the "hostile environment" theory being used in employment discrimination cases.

However, it does make a certain amount of sense. First, there are some First Amendment issues that arise in the context of communications to the public.

Second, there are lots of businesses that create "hostile environments" for certain sections of the public, e.g. strip clubs. Allowing such an environment in a work place would clearly be illegal sex discrimination. However, it's not illegal sex discrimination even though many women would feel extremely uncomfortable about going in for a drink.

Now if these clubs actually refused to serve a woman who did come in, it would be illegal. But it isn't, apparently, illegal for them to create an environment that makes women uncomfortable since these strip clubs (I assume) do not actually discriminate.

Why couldn't you extend that analysis to race, or anything else, for that matter? Would it really be actionable for the manager of a Burger King to privately and politely say to a black patron,

"Sir, you're welcome at Burger King and we'll be very pleased to serve you if you want. But in this part of town, most of our customers are slack-jawed, racist rednecks. You don't have to, of course, but I would consider it a personal favour if you would eat lunch at the McDonalds across the street instead."

Just to forestall any tedious squeeling and running about, I'm not suggesting this is a good idea. I'm suggeting that it may not amount to actionable discrimination.

milroyj

11-12-2003, 10:02 PM

Originally posted by autz
By the way, there are similar laws in all 50 states.

Are you sure about that? So far, we have references to the law in UT and CA, but how do you know there are similar laws in all 50 states? I kinda doubt it.

Mr2001

11-12-2003, 10:58 PM

Originally posted by MrWhy
Really? Why? It's just flesh.

Assuming the person in question is not doing anything offensive - that the breast is simply visible, what's the big deal?
I agree. If a glimpse of a bare breast is OK, then it's OK, whether it was bared to feed a child or just for fun.

Odesio

11-12-2003, 11:08 PM

Originally posted by autz

What this lady was doing is 100% legal. They have no more right to ask her to go to the bathroom than they would to ask someone to go to the bathroom in order to eat their French Fries there.

What does legality have to do with it? It's not illegal to burp or fart but if it becomes a problem they might ask you to leave or take it to the bathroom as well. Personally I think there are more appropriate places to breast feed then in front of everyone else in a public place.

Marc

Diogenes the Cynic

11-12-2003, 11:10 PM

What is inappropriate about breastfeeding in public?

Diogenes the Cynic

11-12-2003, 11:12 PM

Jesus, I never knew we had so many boob-a-phobes on the SDMB.

Odesio

11-12-2003, 11:25 PM

Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic
What is inappropriate about breastfeeding in public?

I don't really think it is appropriate at a restaurant where there are many other people eating. Not that I'd make a big deal out of it. I'd rather eat lunch in a restaurant populated by lactating women then have to sit next to a smoker while I eat.

Marc

Cerowyn

11-12-2003, 11:27 PM

Ya know, I started reading this thread thinking that it was a pretty lame OP. However, as a father of twins who were nursed for longer than Twiddle's has been so far, I gotta say that there are some mightily narrow-minded people in the world. Perhaps I'm an eternal optimist, but I expected the SDMB to be more enlightened than that.

Sigh.

Snake

11-13-2003, 01:44 AM

I don't care if women breast feed in public. They could set up a conga line and pass along a whole bunch of kids to play Duck Duck Nurse. I do have one problem though. Ok , as far as I can tell, BK never asked her to leave. They merely asked her to be more discreet. Nurse in another area where the other customers can't see or cover up a bit . Whats the big deal ? They didn't say "Stop doing that or leave." I think she's making a big deal out of nothing.This doesn't sound like a reason for a big call to arms to defend womens' rights to me. She's making it sound like BK told her to wash the dishes cuz she's a woman.

BlackKnight

11-13-2003, 02:21 AM

Originally posted by MrWhy
Really? Why? It's just flesh.
Hypothetical: If my erect penis was sticking out of my fly at a restaurant, would you be disgusted or offended? (It would obviously be illegal, but that's not what I'm asking.)

Assuming the person in question is not doing anything offensive - that the breast is simply visible, what's the big deal?
Ah, there's the rub. Lots of people consider breastfeeding in public to be offensive. I'm not saying I agree with them, but there are plenty of people who believe that.

"Offensive" is in the eye of the beholder.

As to the corporate apology, it was weak, but better than nothing.

3trew

11-13-2003, 02:46 AM

Originally posted by quietman1920
The corporate lawyers would never approve that language, as it could expose the corporation to a possible suit.

You poor bastard.

No nipples, no "natural", no "decency", no "Won't somebody think of the children!", not an erect penis in sight, no hot buttons at all.

All you've done is fight ignorance.

A quietman indeed.

The still, small voice on this one, I think.

Leaper

11-13-2003, 03:00 AM

Before I start, I want to say that this question has absolutely nothing to do with my opinion on whether public breastfeeding is a big deal or not. That's why I say the following is "tangential":

Hmm. Here's sort of a tangential question that's come to mind. A woman is breastfeeding in public. A man stops and starts staring at her bare breast with a huge grin on his face. He's obviously watching for salacious reasons, but he's not expressing this in any way directly to her.

My question, especially to those who firmly believe that public breast feeding is no big deal, is: can he be arrested for sexual harassment or anything of that nature? If the breast feeding is NBD, then one might be able to argue that the action is no more dangerous or salacious than staring at the legs of a passing woman wearing a short skirt.

Hope I'm being clear, here...

TeaElle

11-13-2003, 04:37 AM

The circular logic astounds me. "Why is it inappropriate?" "Because it's just not something that should be done where others are eating?" "Why shouldn't it be done where others are eating?" "Because it makes some people uncomfortable?" "Why does it make people uncomfortable?" "Because it's inappropriate."

It's only inappropriate to people who are incapable of understanding that the female breast when used for nursing a child is not a sexual object. It is not the equivalent of a penis of any turgidity status. It is not the equivalent of any genitalia. It is not even the equivalent of the silicone bloated funbags shaken by Cinnamon Lane at the local flesh emporium.

If you're incapable of regarding the act of nursing as feeding a child without your imposed sexual overlay, that's not the problem of the nursing mother! And no, you are no more justified in asking her to cover herself up or move somewhere else than you would be if the child were in a high chair being fed mushy carrots off a spoon.

Grow the hell up, people. It's 2003. Women with infants are not confined to our homes anymore. We go out in public, our children get hungry and we feed them, and for many (and growing numbers) of us, that means we breastfeed. If you can't deal with it, maybe you're the one who needs to put a blanket over your head or go to the restroom or hide in your car.

Originally posted by Leaper
Hmm. Here's sort of a tangential question that's come to mind. A woman is breastfeeding in public. A man stops and starts staring at her bare breast with a huge grin on his face. He's obviously watching for salacious reasons, but he's not expressing this in any way directly to her.

My question, especially to those who firmly believe that public breast feeding is no big deal, is: can he be arrested for sexual harassment or anything of that nature? If the breast feeding is NBD, then one might be able to argue that the action is no more dangerous or salacious than staring at the legs of a passing woman wearing a short skirt.

Sexual harassment is not a criminal act. Staring at someone isn't a criminal act unless its part of a larger pattern of general harassment or stalking. If this were in the workplace and it was a co-worker or superior doing the staring then there may be civil consequences to the act, especially if it is repeated and creates a hostile workplace environment or is meant to intimidate. But in the mall or on the bus, there's nothing criminal or actionable about it.

But there are always people who will stare at nursing mothers in public, and until that staring becomes off-the-scales creepy or escalates to a confrontation (like the woman at Burger King) we tend not to notice, since we have something and someone more compelling of our attention right there at hand. In fact, I've found that it's other women who stare most -- either out of obvious repulsion, which makes me smile brazenly at them, or out of support, in which case they usually are just trying to catch my eye to give me a smile or a thumbs up.

Some guy who stood and stared salaciously at the small portion of a breast that could be seen around the head of a nursing child (one of the least sexy things in the world, I'd hope) has a major problem, and while very little could be done to him legally, social pressure should be brought to bear on such a person just for being an immature, inept, sexually whacked out freakboy.

crazy grady

11-13-2003, 05:07 AM

I'm sorry, but I don't want to see a kid sucking her mama's tit while I am eating my food. Few others do either. Why couldn't the lady use a bottle in public? Well, you say that this is natural and normal, so is farting and peeing, but I like to do those things in a private place.

Bodily functions=Private Place.

Grady

MsRobyn

11-13-2003, 05:32 AM

Mycroft Holmes

11-13-2003, 05:52 AM

Originally posted by crazy grady
I'm sorry, but I don't want to see a kid sucking her mama's tit while I am eating my food. Few others do either. Why couldn't the lady use a bottle in public? Well, you say that this is natural and normal, so is farting and peeing, but I like to do those things in a private place.

Bodily functions=Private Place.

Grady

Boy, it's posts like these that leave me worried about American society. I just cannot understand the hangups that some people must have to associate anything even remotely sexual or scatological or perverted with the simple act of breastfeeding a child. Please note that the word for this procedure includes the important part: feeding.

I have lived in Europe for years, and no one even gives a second glance to breastfeeding mothers, be it in a restaurant, on the bus, in a park, in the office, wherever. Then again, here in Europe, women are free to pop out their boobies in some of these places anyway, and boy that can be nice sometimes. .....Englischer Garten in Meunchen during the summer..... Mmmmmm. :D .

Another thing that I find worrying about this thread is how many posts there are that go into the whole legaleze around this whole incident. A lot of the posts go on about which law applies, and who should sue who. No wonder the American legal system is drowning in frivolous lawsuits. Does everything have to be resolved by a court of law, instead of just plain old common sense?

A lot of these trends in American society (along with the dumbing down of a large part of the population) have me really worried about the long term future of a country I love very much.

Bricker

11-13-2003, 05:57 AM

Cheesesteak

11-13-2003, 06:12 AM

Just joining together a few bits of info from the posts here:

BK employee asks woman to cover up while breastfeeding
Utah law allows breastfeeding in public places like BK
people and companies get sued over this
there has been no lawsuit over this case... yet

Seems to me that BK is NOT going to freely admit wrongdoing before the case is fully litigated.

Siege

11-13-2003, 06:22 AM

You know, it seems to me I see a lot more of women's breasts on ads on TV's than I've ever seen of the breasts of women who are breastfeeding in public.

Would those of you who object to women breastfeeding in a Burger King also object to women coming in wearing halter tops or strapless tops? Chances are, they're showing a lot more skin.

CJ

crazy grady

11-13-2003, 06:26 AM

It is very simple. The vast majority of people do not want to see a woman's breast with a kid on the end when they are eating. This is something that is supposed to be accomplished in private. It is in poor taste to do it in public. What's wrong with a baby bottle with warm milk (human or cow?) in it. Most people DO NOT desire to see this, for whatever reason, may they be religious, psychological or sexual. Common sense applies here.

And yes, this is as equal to me passing gas. I have the fundamental right to pass gas wherever I wish. I mean, it's a health issue for goodness sakes! I could even go to Salt Lake City, Sacramento, or even Washington DC to have the right to pass gas wherever I please, no matter the feelings, the morality or sensitivities of other people in a public place.

GRADY

Bricker

11-13-2003, 06:28 AM

Originally posted by crazy grady
It is very simple. The vast majority of people do not want to see a woman's breast with a kid on the end when they are eating. This is something that is supposed to be accomplished in private. It is in poor taste to do it in public. What's wrong with a baby bottle with warm milk (human or cow?) in it. Most people DO NOT desire to see this, for whatever reason, may they be religious, psychological or sexual. Common sense applies here.

Once again I point out that the law in Utah reflects the will of the people of Utah, as expressed through their elected representatives.

That's my basis for telling you you're wrong. What's your evidence that "The vast majority of people do not want to see a woman's breast with a kid on the end when they are eating?"

Cite?

MsRobyn

11-13-2003, 06:29 AM

Originally posted by crazy grady
It is very simple. The vast majority of people do not want to see a woman's breast with a kid on the end when they are eating. This is something that is supposed to be accomplished in private. It is in poor taste to do it in public. What's wrong with a baby bottle with warm milk (human or cow?) in it. Most people DO NOT desire to see this, for whatever reason, may they be religious, psychological or sexual. Common sense applies here.

And yes, this is as equal to me passing gas. I have the fundamental right to pass gas wherever I wish. I mean, it's a health issue for goodness sakes! I could even go to Salt Lake City, Sacramento, or even Washington DC to have the right to pass gas wherever I please, no matter the feelings, the morality or sensitivities of other people in a public place.

GRADY

As has been explained before, many breastfed babies won't take a bottle. It's not what they're used to, and so they won't eat from a bottle. That's what's wrong with it. Do you want to see a baby starve because of your ignorant attitude about breastfeeding?

Robin

SkeptiJess

11-13-2003, 06:51 AM

Most people DO NOT desire to see this, for whatever reason, may they be religious, psychological or sexual.crazy grady, please stop saying this unless and until you can back it up. In fact, what you mean is that you "DO NOT desire to see this" and, frankly, that's your problem not the problem of the baby who's just trying to eat, for crying out loud, or the mother who's just trying to feed her baby. If it offends you to see a woman breastfeeding a baby, just avert your eyes. It's rude to stare anyway.

IMO, BTW MOST people don't mind public breastfeeding in the least. Unfortunately, as with so many things, that tiny majority who DO mind are pretty goddamn loud about it. This is why such laws have had to be passed -- it ought to be (and for MOST people, clearly is) common sense that public breastfeeding doesn't equal anything dirty or smutty. However, those few loudmouths cause such problems that money and energy has to be spent on passing such obvious laws.

World Eater

11-13-2003, 06:51 AM

Originally posted by Mycroft Holmes
Boy, it's posts like these that leave me worried about American society. I just cannot understand the hangups that some people must have to associate anything even remotely sexual or scatological or perverted with the simple act of breastfeeding a child. Please note that the word for this procedure includes the important part: feeding.

I have lived in Europe for years, and no one even gives a second glance to breastfeeding mothers, be it in a restaurant, on the bus, in a park, in the office, wherever. Then again, here in Europe, women are free to pop out their boobies in some of these places anyway, and boy that can be nice sometimes. .....Englischer Garten in Meunchen during the summer..... Mmmmmm. :D .

Another thing that I find worrying about this thread is how many posts there are that go into the whole legaleze around this whole incident. A lot of the posts go on about which law applies, and who should sue who. No wonder the American legal system is drowning in frivolous lawsuits. Does everything have to be resolved by a court of law, instead of just plain old common sense?

A lot of these trends in American society (along with the dumbing down of a large part of the population) have me really worried about the long term future of a country I love very much.

Sad, but so true.

TeaElle

11-13-2003, 08:03 AM

Originally posted by crazy grady
It is very simple. The vast majority of people do not want to see a woman's breast with a kid on the end when they are eating. This is something that is supposed to be accomplished in private.

Once again, just because you say so, what's the proof that the "majority" of people, let alone the vast majority of people are opposed to breastfeeding in public? And what is your basis for saying that it is to be "accomplished in private?" Do you only eat in private?

It is in poor taste to do it in public. What's wrong with a baby bottle with warm milk (human or cow?) in it.

Many breastfed babies will not take a bottle, no matter its content, especially from their mother. (And no baby should have cow milk. Cow milk is for baby cows. Human milk is for baby humans. A diet of cow milk will kill an infant.)

Furthermore, bottles need to be prepared ahead of time, meaning pumping the breasts, which is not always possible, or using baby formula, which an otherwise exclusively breastfed baby is unlikely to want to eat. Bottles must be sterilized and heated, something that is not always possible. Breasts require no such preparation, and barring supply problems, are always ready whenever the need arises.

And yes, this is as equal to me passing gas.

When someone's life sustenance is your intestinal gas, it will be equal. Until there is a young human being surviving on your flatus, don't even think about equivocating the two.

Now, to speak against your "vast majority" argument, there is no state in the U.S. where breastfeeding in public and the correlated baring of breast is illegal by state code. Most major cities have passed statutes which have clarified or affirmed the rights of mothers to breastfeed wherever they may otherwise lawfully be. The majority of U.S. states have also passed laws affirming that right, only a handful have not done so, in most cases it has been a matter of bills dying in committee, squabbles over language, or breastfeeding protection being tacked onto other legislation which has not passed.

The states which have not passed explicit statewide laws affirming the right to public breastfeeding in some fashion:

Alabama
Idaho (though breastfeeding mothers in Idaho can get a nursing exemption from jury service)
Kentucky (bill bogged before session adjournment)
Maryland (though all of the urban counties have enacted protection statutes)
Massachusetts (got bogged in committee over language squabbles)
Pennsylvania (metro area protection also in place)
Tennessee (though employers are required to accomodate employees' need for breaks and private space to breastfeed/pump in the workplace)
Wyoming (legislation is pending)

That's 8 states, 2 of which are sparsely populated, out of 50. And in Pennsylvania, which has no statewide affirmation, Philadelphia has one of the best laws for breastfeeding mothers in the nation, stating that not only is there a specific right to breastfeed in any place where the mother may lawfully be, but prohibiting any segregation of women in order to breastfeed. (Meaning that the BK manager in the case in the OP would've been breaking the law in Philly by even making the suggestion of the filthy bathroom.)

In addition, there are dozens of other laws on the books -- including many in the states which have not specifically passed statewide affirmations of the right to breastfeed wherever -- which are designed to promote and encourage breastfeeding. Maryland exempts breastfeeding supplies from sales tax, California demands lactation counselors be present in every hospital which serves mothers and infants. Other states make lactation and breastfeeding education a requirement for recepients of any kind of public assistance like AFDC, Medicaid and WIC. More than a dozen states have detailed protections of breastfed children from being separated from their mothers for court-mandated visitation with non-custodial fathers.

This is what the World Health Organization has said. Now tell me that someone's right not to get het up over seeing the sides of some woman's breast trumps this:

As a global goal for optimal maternal and child health and nutrition, all women should be enabled to practice exclusive breastfeeding and all infants should be fed exclusively on breast milk from birth to four to six months of age. Thereafter, children should continue to be breastfed while receiving appropriate and adequate complementary foods for up to two years of age or beyond. This child feeding ideal is to be achieved by creating an appropriate environment of awareness and support so that women can breastfeed in this manner. <...>

Breastfeeding provides significant health benefits to both the mother and child. Breastfeeding provides maternal protection from breast cancer, osteoporosis, urinary tract infections, and other cancers. A recent study indicates that if all women breastfed all their children for two years, that breast cancer in the United States could decline by 25%.

Studies now show that babies who are not breastfed have higher rates of death, meningitis, childhood leukemia and other cancers, diabetes, respiratory illnesses, bacterial and viral infections, diarrhoeal diseases, otitis media, allergies, obesity and developmental delays. Breastfeeding may raise a baby's IQ.

Frumpy Jones

11-13-2003, 08:05 AM

Originally posted by Miller
Not to be a dick about it, but so? Why is being asked to feed your kid somewhere else such a massive invasion of someone's civil rights? And if there were so many people who were freaked out over it (God only knows why...), why should their feelings take a backseat to the feelings of people who think breastfeeding is just spiffy? (Which, once again, includes me. I have no problem with it, I just don't get the outrage at people who do have a problem with it.)

Sooooo.. you're saying that someone who hates, oh, let's choose MEXICANS this time, and doesn't want a Mexican sitting in their BK... you are saying that their feelings on the subject of Mexicans, and their asking the Mexican -- nicely -- to leave and eat somewhere else, are something that should not be dismissed? That the Mexican's civil rights are not being taken away? I understand this is not your POV exactly, but you did ask the question in your post.

What all the people who are FOR the not wanting to see the breastfeeding in public are not noticing, is that there are a lot of things you may not like, but have to accept (Like smoking, or Republicans). ;)

In all seriousness, this country has some odd issues with nakedness. At some point (beyond puberty) a breast changes from SEXUAL ATTRACTOR, to HUNK O FLESH. This time happens to coincide with when a mom is feeding the baby. Not to say it can't go back from one to the other, but COME ON PEOPLE! Be grown-up about this! Think it logically through.

I have not heard ONE argument yet as to WHY it shouldn't been seen in public. I've heard many say they just don't wanna see it, but that's not the reason, that's just the want.

crazy grady just says it's wrong but doesn't say why. People pretty much attacked Grady (and others) by simply saying the state of Utah disagrees with you. But I think that's a cop out reply. Doesn't anyone care to know the WHY besides be?

At least Bricker went so far to say he feels it's a bodily function and should be kept private. but eating, in general is a bodily function, no? And it can be pretty disgusting (ever watch some people?), so that's hardly an argument for why it shouldn't be around...

So, I ask those that say it shouldn't be allowed (Regardless of any state laws saying it should), why they think it shouldn't be allowed. What's the problem with it?

Here's your chance.. be heard. And don't blow it with crud like "IT JUST IS" or "IT'S DISGUSTING".. be elaborate... detail it out.

Gracias.

MrSarcasticus

11-13-2003, 08:08 AM

Fuck this crap. If Burger King should apologize for anything, it should be for serving the shittiest fries in the known universe. How can fries be that fucking bad?

World Eater

11-13-2003, 08:52 AM

Why are you guys even talking to Grady?

Everyone knows he's crazy. :D

XJETGIRLX

11-13-2003, 09:22 AM

What is with all of the comparisons of breastfeeding to race? I don't see how the two are at all comparable.

Diogenes the Cynic

11-13-2003, 09:32 AM

Ah, there's the rub. Lots of people consider breastfeeding in public to be offensive. I'm not saying I agree with them, but there are plenty of people who believe that.
Too fucking bad. You don't have a right to not be offended. The right of a mother to feed her baby is more important than someone else's fear of boobies.

So far, no one has actually given a single reason why breastfeeding in public is inappropriate or offensive, but even if they're offended that's their hang up not the nursing mothers'.

Diogenes the Cynic

11-13-2003, 09:42 AM

Originally posted by XJETGIRLX
What is with all of the comparisons of breastfeeding to race? I don't see how the two are at all comparable.
It's comparable in how it's protected by law. A woman has the same right to breastfeed in public as she does to be black in public. They are both protected civil rights. There are morons who are offended by interracial couples in public and there are morons who are offended by boobies. The law states that the feelings of these morons cannot override the civil rights of another person.

badmana

11-13-2003, 10:15 AM

I'd want to point out a small fact that laws do not have to reflect a majority of the people's wishes. Lots of laws are passed only because of powerful lobby groups and misinformation to the public (i.e. road speed laws, speed = dangerous etc).

I have no problems with breastfeeding moms in public but I think sometimes discretion is required when doing something completely legal yet bothering to others. For instance, very smelly foods (like durian...yuck) are "legal" yet eating that at your work place might be a bad idea. It could be argued that durian isn't a nessessity to life, but then again, using a bottle of human breast milk in public isn't exactly the most difficult thing to plan either.

BTW, are these stores legally allowed to not serve people without shirts/shoes etc? This isn't tired into this debate directly (I'm not comparing breastfeeding to wearing a shirt) but along the same lines, are they allowed to enforce such a rule?

Palo Verde

11-13-2003, 10:21 AM

Originally posted by milroyj
Are you sure about that? So far, we have references to the law in UT and CA, but how do you know there are similar laws in all 50 states? I kinda doubt it.

Here's a nice link for you about breastfeeding legislation in the US (http://www.lalecheleague.org/LawBills.html).

The following states have laws explicitly protecting the rights of breastfeeding moms:

Alabama
Alaska
California
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Iowa
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Missouri
Montana
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
Wisconsin
Wyoming

In all other states, breastfeeding in public is 100% legal. They just haven't felt the need to be explicit about it.

You see, things are legal unless they are made illegal. So, there is no law saying that it's legal to wear floral dresses, but since there is no law saying it's illegal, we know that's it's just hunky dorey with the law.

There are NO laws making breastfeeding illegal. So even in the states with no laws one way or another, it's 100% legal. "The purpose of legislation is to clarify that it is legal, and to change society's attitudes about breastfeeding. As a general rule of thumb, if you have a right to be somewhere with your baby, and you can feed your baby a bottle, then certainly you have the right to breastfeed. "

Mtgman

11-13-2003, 11:41 AM

Originally posted by badmana
BTW, are these stores legally allowed to not serve people without shirts/shoes etc? This isn't tired into this debate directly (I'm not comparing breastfeeding to wearing a shirt) but along the same lines, are they allowed to enforce such a rule? That depends on the laws in the vicinity. If, as is the case in some beachfront towns in Florida, it is legal to go around topless(for men, mostly. There is actually a lawsuit against the state to either require men to wear shirts or to allow women to go topless under "equal protection" grounds), then a store discriminating against a patron for engaging in a legal activity(going topless) could be open to action. The "no shoes" thing is actually protected, IIRC, by some obscure clause in health codes.

It all boils down to this. A state, the government, decides what is acceptable and what is not acceptable in public spaces. If a private company, like BK, makes part of its store a public space, then it has to accept the state's rules about public spaces. Period. If members of the public are skeeved out about what the state allows in public spaces(including the terrifying chance that you may see someone other than yourself sucking a boob) then they need to write letters to their representatives and try to get the laws changed or avoid public spaces. A good example of the WRONG thing to do is go up to the owners of the resturant and ask them to try to enforce rules which are less offensive to your personal views. They can't change the rules and it is illegal for them to try. Complain to the proper authorities because BK only has one choice, either stop being a public place, or abide by the state's laws governing public places.

Enjoy,
Steven

Left Hand of Dorkness

11-13-2003, 12:06 PM

Mtgman, I"m not sure you're right about the shirt thing. After all, I'm allowed to walk around in a ragged T-shirt that says, "Down with the Man!", but Chez Nez Dans L'aire can refuse to seat me in their restaurant until I go home and put on a suit and tie.

I think there are three categories:

* Activities prohibited in public spaces (sexual intercourse)
* Activities not prohibited in public spaces (wearing nasty-ass clothes)
* Activities protected in public spaces (breastfeeding)

Daniel

Mtgman

11-13-2003, 12:46 PM

Places of public accommodation can place "reasonable restrictions" on behavior as long as they do it in a fair and equitable(applying to everyone) manner. Since Chez Nez Dans L'aire doesn't allow ANYONE in without a coat and tie, they can pass this test. The legalities of a grocery store refusing service to a person without a shirt would depend on the laws in the area. If the law expressly protects going shirtless, as it does breastfeeding, then the grocery store may not refuse service to a topless individual. If they have a reasonable justification(as decided by a judge) for restricting topless people from their store, they can probably get away with it. I see the Florida laws referenced by tangent when I read over the TopFree lawsuit (http://www.legalfreedom.com/topfree/complaint/) but I can't tell if going topless is expressly protected or if it is just that Female toplessness is criminalized whereas Male toplessness is not.

Lots of judges all over the country have decided that discrimination against breastfeeding mothers for breastfeeding in public is not reasonable and have found those who tried to discriminate against them at fault in lawsuits as well as spurred the legislatures to pass laws which expressly protect breastfeeding.

Bricker mentioned the keyword on the previous page. A place for "public accomodation". Here is a primer on laws about "public accommodation" (http://www.metrokc.gov/dias/ocre/aboutPA.htm). It is based off the King County metro area, but these principles hold in most areas. A key clause, which is at the heart of this discussion Along with the right to go to public places comes the responsibility to act in a manner that does not infringe upon other people's rights. In addition, the owner is allowed to establish reasonable requirements, such as an admission fee or prohibition of concealed weapons, as long as these rules are applied equally to all customers and clients regardless of whether they belong to a protected class.BK tried to establish a requirement that a breastfeeding mother must cover herself and the baby or relocate to the bathroom. This requirement was illegal according to the laws of the state of Utah.

Enjoy,
Steven

Left Hand of Dorkness

11-13-2003, 02:04 PM

Originally posted by Mtgman
Places of public accommodation can place "reasonable restrictions" on behavior as long as they do it in a fair and equitable(applying to everyone) manner. Since Chez Nez Dans L'aire doesn't allow ANYONE in without a coat and tie, they can pass this test.

Not to nitpick, but I betcha anything the restaurant lets my wife in sans coat & tie yet still passes the legality test; in fact, I bet that they would refuse me service even if I were wearing a slinky formal evening gown, and not be breaking the law. Am I wrong? If not, what's the operating legal principle here -- it clearly allows nongovernmental public places to discriminate based on gender?

Daniel

Matchka

11-13-2003, 02:25 PM

Snooooopy feeding breastises aren't quite as apetizing as dormant ones. But heck, it's BK...have it YOUR way. :)

Bongmaster

11-13-2003, 02:33 PM

Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic
What's "disgusting" about a mother feeding a baby? What kind of fuckhead gets upset about it?

The very same fuck heads that are so hyped up about their own personal brand of moral behavior that they forget we live in proximity to others that do not share the same opinion.

Mtgman

11-13-2003, 02:47 PM

It is exactly one of those grey areas which the TopFree lawsuit is aimed at resolving. A man can go topless in Florida but going topless in Florida for a woman is a criminal act. A man can lavisiously flourish his breasts in public and a woman would be charged for doing the same. Basically it is one of those, all too common IMHO, situations where the law assumes common sense will dictate the appropriate response but the assumption is a bad one. About the only way the resturant could legally phrase their restriction on what type of clothing the diners must wear is by using vaguely defined categories like "traditional mens evening wear for men and traditional women's evening wear for women". If you wanted to test this in court you could certainly attempt to dress in drag and see how you were treated. Then take it to court and see if they decide the resturant's restriction violates equal protection and that men should be allowed to wear any traditional evening wear, including gowns, and women should be allowed to wear any traditional evening wear as well, including coat and tie. Another way to test it would be to have your wife show up in a tuxedo and see how they treat her. If they let her in, but stop you in drag, then you've probably got a case. If they adhere pretty strictly to their "traditional mens evening wear for men and traditional women's evening wear for women" then they're probably ok.

Enjoy,
Steven

Truth Seeker

11-13-2003, 04:00 PM

Originally posted by Mtgman
It all boils down to this. A state, the government, decides what is acceptable and what is not acceptable in public spaces. If a private company, like BK, makes part of its store a public space, then it has to accept the state's rules about public spaces. Period.

In the U.S., this is not the way it works.

First, a "public accomodation" is not a "public space." In fact, a public accomodation is, IIRC, always a private space since it is a doctrine that allows the extension of civil rights laws to private actors who would otherwise be legally entitled to discriminate.

Second, and more fundamentally, there is no "right" to engage in some activity simply because it is not illegal. There is, for example, no law against wearing red shoes and anyone is entitled to do so in a public space. I, however, am perfectly free to forbid people from entering my business while wearing red shoes, even though my business is a "public accomodation."

What I can't do is discriminate against members of a protected class. I cannot, for example, forbid only blacks from entering my business while wearing red shoes. I could, however, discriminate against, say, Republicans or people who own dogs or even people who I just think are ugly.

In BK's case, their restaurant is not a public space, though it is a public accomodation. BK, is, therefore, perfectly free to limit and control what you do there. You can buy your lunch from McDonalds and go eat it in the park (a public space) but BK is perfectly free to prevent you from buying "food" from McDonalds and eating it in their restaurant.

When a law grants an affirmative right to do something, the question becomes more complex. It is one thing for the state to require you to treat all patrons equally regardless of what they are. It is another thing to require you to treat all patrons equally regardless of what they do.

It is perfectly constitutional for a state to pass a law outlawing discrimination against children in places of public accomodation. That doesn't mean, however, that a family with a child throwing a violent tantrum and screaming her head off must necessarily be allowed to enter your movie theatre. You, as a theatre owner, have a perfect right to prevent anyone, child or adult, from screaming during a film. I would question the constitutionality of a law that allowed people to scream in movie theatres.

IMO, the breast-feeding thing is much less clear-cut. I'd be curious if anyone had actually challenged it. I think you could make at least a colorable argument that the CA law cited could amount to a taking under the U.S. constitution. After all, you are effectively exapropriating private property for a public use by forcing restaurants, etc. to allow patrons to use their property for an activity (breast feeding) that they would/might otherwise prohibit.

Mtgman

11-13-2003, 04:41 PM

Note that I never said there was a "right" to engage in any activity which was not explicitly illegal. In fact, I don't see where anyone in this thread has said that, can you provide a quote? I don't think it will matter to any of the non-lawyers or those without significant knowledge/interest in the workings of the US legal system so it isn't a big deal. Still, if I'm going to be judged at a legal standard, like being called on freely interchanging "public space" with "places of public accommodation", then I'm going to defend myself with lawyer type tactics.

If a business establishes a public accommodation space(since we've been hijacked into using legal terminology by nitpickery I'll try to be a bit more careful I guess) then they accept the protected classes, as defined by the jurisdictions the space is within, and agree to honor any civil rights which are explicitly protected. The grey area is the areas which are neither outlawed nor explicitly protected. By establishing a public accommodation a business agrees they will not make "unreasonable" restrictions on public behavior in the space. Those ARE the rules, in more lawyer-y language, for anyone who wishes to nitpick. The state still holds all the cards because they decide what is protected, what is illegal, and get to determine what is "reasonable". Period. This is the framework places like BK have to work with.

I stand by my earlier construction. The state, ultimately, and the court systems which are part of the state, decides what is and is not acceptable in "public spaces"(which, for the sake of the learned legalists, is equivelant to "public accommodations"). Sometimes the state does the business the favor of explicitly outlawing something or explicitly protecting something, but the fact remains that private businesses which set up a public space can't make illegal things legal within that space, can't make explicitly legal things illegal, nor can they make restrictions on any other category of behavior without being able to defend their restrictions as "reasonable" should someone choose to file suit because of the restriction.

Enjoy,
Steven

Truth Seeker

11-13-2003, 05:56 PM

Mtgman
But there is no "reasonableness" test. The classic formulation is that you can discriminate for any reason or even no reason, but you can't discriminate for an illegal reason.

First, while you might think it is a nitpick, there is a world of difference between a "public space" and a "public accomodation." In a "public space", in effect, you control the rules, i.e., you can do anything that isn't illegal. In a "public accomodation" they (the owner of the business) sets the rules. He or she can prohibit or require anything they wish, so long as it is not illegal. You can stand in the park and harangue passers-by about Zoroastrianism and no one can stop you. BK can prohibit you from doing so in a BK. No one can force you to flap your arms and cluck like a chicken while you're walking down the street. Kentucky Fried Chicken could, if they so desired, require you to do so as a condition of entering one of their restaurants.

BTW, "public accomodation" has nothing to do with space, it has to do with whether and how you do business with the general public. A hotel is a public accomodation but so is a phone company or a mail-order catalog.

Second,
but the fact remains that private businesses which set up a public space can't make illegal things legal within that space, can't make explicitly legal things illegal, nor can they make restrictions on any other category of behavior without being able to defend their restrictions as "reasonable" should someone choose to file suit because of the restriction.
To be clear, if a private business sets up a park and dedicates it to the city, it is true that they can't restrict what happens there, since it now belongs to the city. However, if a business does business with the public, it certainly can restrict what goes on there even if their restriction is "unreasonable" so long as it doesn't discriminate against a protected class.

An unusual example recently played out in Salt Lake City, Utah. The Mormon Church headquarters sat on opposite sides of a busy street. The church negotiated with the city to buy the street, close it off and turn it into a park in order to turn the headquarters into a "campus." As a condition of the sale, the city insisted on a public right of way for pedestrians but agreed that this public right of way was for passage only and that the church could prevent any activities that it didn't like, including, "loiter, assemble, party, demonstrate, picket, distribute literature, solicit, beg, litter, consume tobacco or alcoholic beverages, erect signs or displays, sunbathe, or engage in other similar conduct."

The Court said that by dedicating the public easement, the church lost its right to control what went on there.

http://www.rothgerber.com/newslettersarticles/ff021.asp

Now it's true that a church is not a public accomodation. But the same rules, in this case will apply to Walmart or any other business that allows the public access to its private property. Being private property, which the public uses subject to a license (one of those legal-y terms) from the owner, absent an express law to the contrary (an maybe even then) the owner can prohibit pretty much any conduct he or she chooses. If you think the restrictions are "unreasonable" then you are free to patronize a different business.

In fact, a business can even exclude individuals from its property that it doesn't want to do business with even if its just because the owner doesn't personally like them.1 If that person comes back, he or she is trespassing and subject to arrest. "I won't do business with you because your black." is not a legal reason to discriminate. "I won't do business with you because I think you're ugly and I just don't like you" is.

1 I believe there are a couple of exceptions to this, e.g., for common carriers.

Bricker

11-13-2003, 09:37 PM

Originally posted by Frumpy Jones
At least Bricker went so far to say he feels it's a bodily function and should be kept private. but eating, in general is a bodily function, no? And it can be pretty disgusting (ever watch some people?), so that's hardly an argument for why it shouldn't be around...

If you can find any post in which I said that I felt breastfeeding should be kept private, I'll send you $100 Amazon.com gift certificate right now.

(Hint: I didn't)

- Rick

milroyj

11-13-2003, 10:53 PM

Originally posted by autz
Here's a nice link for you about breastfeeding legislation in the US (http://www.lalecheleague.org/LawBills.html).

The following states have laws explicitly protecting the rights of breastfeeding moms:

Alabama

Earlier, TeaElle said:

The states which have not passed explicit statewide laws affirming the right to public breastfeeding in some fashion:

Alabama

In the interest of fighting ignorance, which is it, ladies?

Left Hand of Dorkness

11-13-2003, 11:00 PM

Originally posted by Bricker
If you can find any post in which I said that I felt breastfeeding should be kept private, I'll send you $100 Amazon.com gift certificate right now.

(Hint: I didn't)

- Rick

Posted by you in this thread:

breastfeeding should be kept private

Do I get my gift certificate?

Daniel

oh well, it was worth a shot

Bricker

11-13-2003, 11:47 PM

Nice try. But no. That's not what that post says, and my offer clearly contemplates a post made prior to the challenge.

Rick

11-14-2003, 12:47 AM

Originally posted by Gangster Octopus
Well, I would hope that is legal, just as I would hope that the person tells the manager to "Fuck off."

Gangster, check your watch. 40 years slow.

Gary Kumquat

11-14-2003, 01:06 AM

This is bizarre on so many levels I find it impressive. Some of you people are honestly complaining that a mother is feeding her baby in a restaurant?

You have to be joking. Yes that's a bodily function - eating. The same one every other non-staff member in the place is engaging in.

I must ask those of you so keen for the baby to feed in the toilet - would you care to eat there? Do you feel you should be hidden from public view whilst engaging in this gross bodily function?

And ignoring the sheer moral hypocrisy, not to mention victorian-esque prudishness of your stance, let's look at the health concerns please of a baby eating in an environment where "significant quantities of microbes floated around the bathroom for at least two hours after each flush (http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a990416.html)". Doesn't that just sound finger licking good?

In case my contempt isn't quite clear enough, let me summarise. Anyone who thinks it's appropriate to ask a breastfeeding woman to move to a toilet so as not to offend their precious sensibilities is a fuckwit.

Bill H.

11-14-2003, 03:21 AM

autz wrote
Here's a nice link for you about breastfeeding legislation in the US.
Fascinating. Here's a quote from the site:
A few states have enacted laws that require courts in family law cases (divorce or separation) to consider breastfeeding in making custody and visitation or parenting time decisions. Two states exempt mothers nursing their children in their cars from the seatbelt laws. Maryland became the first state to provide an exemption from the sales tax laws for breastfeeding accessories, such as pumps, shields, and other items that are used by breastfeeding mothers.
There's some wise legislation for you.
"I have boobs and I don't think it's fair that I pay taxes!"
"I have boobs and I don't think myself or my child should have to wear a seat belt!"
"I have boobs and I don't think my ex-husband should get the baby!"

I guess a good lobbyist can get you just about anything.

On the actual subject at hand, yes she is legally allowed to breastfeed in public, and yes she was mildly insulted. But in my book people who demand a written apology for words they didn't like, and then complain to the press that the apology falls short of their expectations are jerks. Those who support such a position aren't necessarily jerks, but are pretty silly.

doreen

11-14-2003, 05:53 AM

autz,

That cite doesn't list states which explicitly protect the right to breastfeed in public.. It lists states with any legislation regarding breastfeeding. According to thet link, the only law Maryland has exempts produsts related to breastfeeding from sales tax, and two bills introduced in 2001 to clarify the right to breastfeed in public were not enacted. Tennessee's only legislation requires workplaces to accomodate nursing mothers. The link for Alabama says
Alabama has no legislation dealing with the right to breastfeed in public, but does have a WIC statute that mentions breastfeeding Code of Ala. § 2212C1 (1999), TITLE 22.

Frumpy Jones

11-14-2003, 06:48 AM

Originally posted by Bricker
If you can find any post in which I said that I felt breastfeeding should be kept private, I'll send you $100 Amazon.com gift certificate right now.

Whoops. I thought I read two posts saying Breastfeeding is bad. When I went to scan up for it, and found it, I saw your name next to it.

Somehow I missed it was you quoting Grady.

My Bad.

Now where's my certificate?

Gangster Octopus

11-14-2003, 10:46 AM

Originally posted by Rick
Gangster, check your watch. 40 years slow.

Care to elaborate, Rick?

byter

11-14-2003, 10:47 AM

Between Bricker and Truth Seeker I guess I can see how bars can make certain restrictions. One was the ‘no colors’ rule that many have. The other was ‘no unescorted women’.

I think Ohio has been wrestling with a boob law (sounds like fun) for a while now. Problems started a few years ago when a couple of ladies were arrested for going topless in a gay pride parade. Eventually charges were dropped and certain laws were deemed unconstitutional. Some interesting things have come out of that change. One of the first was a new propensity for attractive women to bare their chests at Broad and High (the middle of downtown Columbus). Usually, they are doling out passes and advertising for strip clubs, although there was a PETA like one this last summer. The second, and most appreciated from my vantage, was that dancers in bars that sold booze could now go topless. Prior to this, only dry bars could show breasts, and they were also total nude bars. Now many of the ‘go go’ or strip club bars that have a liquor license can have their dancers perform topless.

Mtgman

11-14-2003, 11:14 AM

Originally posted by Truth Seeker
But there is no "reasonableness" test. The classic formulation is that you can discriminate for any reason or even no reason, but you can't discriminate for an illegal reason.The cite I quoted from the King County website said owners of places of public accommodation could place "reasonable" restrictions on public behavior within those spaces. Quite frankly I don't really care what the legal formulations and technical tests a court would do are. This is NOT a courtroom, I am discoursing with laymen, I am a layman myself. I have no responsibility to use the proper legal terminology. Discussions of the legal terminology, classic formulations, court tests, and other other legal jargon is nothing but a nitpick. Pretty much all of the friction between us has been because you have conflated my use of "public space" with "public property". In the context of my comments I think it is fairly clear that the closest legal term to the concept I was describing is "place of public accommodation". The state does have laws surrounding the establishment of places of public accommodation and if you want to own such a place, you have to follow those rules.

As the case of the breastfeeding mother who successfully sued a private pool who ejected her and revoked her membership for breastfeeding demonstrated, the courts(agents of the state) can step in and declare restrictions on behavior in places of public accommodation null and void, as well as punish the owner. This case happened in the '70's IIRC, before public breastfeeding was a protected right. The establishment tried to impose a restriction on behavior which was not expressly protected or outlawed(as they can usually do) but the courts found in favor of the breastfeeding mother and overturned the establishment's restriction.

Re-read the first post where I used this "public place" formulation back on the first page. I'll re-post it for you.Originally posted by Mtgman
For the most part if you open a place up to the public, as a BK certainly is, then you accept the rules that govern behavior in public places(usually the laws of the state/city/county/etc) in which the business is located. In this particular case BK, by opening a public resturant in Utah, implicitly accepted the laws of the state of Utah regarding the right to breastfeed in public places. They violated that rule, and thus the bru-ha-ha.Any mention there of transfer of ownership of the property to the state? Any mention of public property? The laws of the state of Utah referred to in this quote are the laws governing behavior, and the restrictions private entities can place on it, in places of public accommodation. I didn't use the legal terms and I apologize if that has caused you some confusion. The statement is still correct in intent and it is a reasonable reading to interpret "public place" as a layman's representation of the legal concept of "place of public accommodation".

Enjoy,
Steven

Rick

11-14-2003, 12:00 PM

[quote]Originally posted by Gangster Octopus
Care to elaborate, Rick?
Well let's go through it shall we
Originally posted by Bricker
Erm, yourself.

Thought experiment: tomorrow, a Burger King manager approaches an African-American woman and says, "Excuse me, but would you mind leaving? Some of our customers don't like blacks. I hope you understand."

Legal? Or not? He is, after all, just asking.

- Rick**
Your response was
Well, I would hope that is legal, just as I would hope that the person tells the manager to "Fuck off."
(bolding mine)
This is the exact same argument that southern white owners of lunch counters, and restaurants (and other businesses) used in the late 1950's and early 60's to keep their business segregated. Needless to say they got spanked by the courts BIG TIME.
So in saying that you hope that asking an African American to leave your business is legal you are trying to argue what was declared illegal over 40 years ago. Check your watch, it seems to be about 40 years slow.
If you still have doubts do a Google on Denny’s and discrimination. IIRC correctly they paid millions to settle a discrimination suit over not serving African Americans a couple of years back.

** Do not confuse Bricker/Rick with me Rick/Rick It is really easy to tell us apart, he is the smart one. :)

heresiarch

11-14-2003, 12:10 PM

Some BK manager-bot said
Burger King Corporation and our franchisee apologize for any inconvenience any of our guests experienced at our restaurant on November 10, 2003. Hey, that was Monday. And I ate at a Burger King on Monday. So they're apologizing to me!

I can't really think of anything that was wrong. Well, the fries were cold. That kind of sucked. Hot french fries are my favorite part of the fast food menu, so that did kind of bring me down.

But they apologized to me. They actually took the time to acknowledge their mistake - wait, they didn't really do that. But they apologized to me personally (and to everyone else that ate at BK on Monday), and that's pretty special.

It's really the sincerity of the apology that takes a relatively minor mistake at one restaurant and turns it around into a public relations triumph for all of Burger King. Good job.

Shayna

11-14-2003, 12:21 PM

Originally posted by Mtgman
Note that I never said there was a "right" to engage in any activity which was not explicitly illegal. In fact, I don't see where anyone in this thread has said that, can you provide a quote? In the interest of fighting ignorance, there is at least one state, New York, where legislation amending their civil rights act granted mothers an absolute right to breastfeed in public: [In 1994] New York enacted legislation that went further than any other state to date by creating a civil rights law guaranteeing a mother's right to breastfeed in any location. Thus, a violation of this law is a violation of a mother's civil rights. This makes New York the first state to offer legal recourse to a mother if her right to breastfeed is violated.

http://www.lalecheleague.org/Law/NBNovDec94p164.html

Gangster Octopus

11-14-2003, 12:50 PM

I'm sorry, but you misunderstand, Rick, or more likely I wasn't clear. All I was saying was that I do not think it should be illegal to ask, with limits (i.e threats). I do not advocate that they can actually enforce any such request. SImply, I do not think the simple act of a verbal request should de facto be restricted if the request can be reasonably denied.

zuma

11-14-2003, 12:59 PM

This is the most difficuolt pitting I've ever seen. So much to mock, but so little to be angry about. You have a rude cow who latches an infant to her naked udder.

You have an uptight asshole who cannot stand the sight of a tit.

You have a pimply teen just trying to do his job with screaming all around him.

You have a bk pr flunky just trying to make everyone happy.

Well, the cow should have fed her kid in a non-public area.
The idiot who complained, unless he was getting squirted with fluids, is even worse than the cow. It's burger king, after all.

The pimply teen did his best. I'd give him a raise.

bk corporate just apologized to everyone.

I think the minimum wage teen is the only one we should be sorry for. The poor guy was only trying to make peace between two rude assholes.

Mtgman

11-14-2003, 01:09 PM

Texas has similar laws (http://www.lalecheleague.org/Law/Bills36.html). Other states may as well, but I am most familiar with Texas laws. The statement Shayna quoted was part of a defense against another nitpick. There are three basic levels of legality in the US justice system. Things which are explicitly outlawed, things which are explicitly protected, and everything else. The complaint Truth Seeker lodged when he said Originally posted by Truth Seeker
Second, and more fundamentally, there is no "right" to engage in some activity simply because it is not illegal. There is, for example, no law against wearing red shoes and anyone is entitled to do so in a public space. I, however, am perfectly free to forbid people from entering my business while wearing red shoes, even though my business is a "public accomodation." was a legal nitpick because autz had said Originally posted by autz
There are NO laws making breastfeeding illegal. So even in the states with no laws one way or another, it's 100% legal. "The purpose of legislation is to clarify that it is legal, and to change society's attitudes about breastfeeding. As a general rule of thumb, if you have a right to be somewhere with your baby, and you can feed your baby a bottle, then certainly you have the right to breastfeed. "Now I believe autz was quoting someone else's assertion that breastfeeding was a "right" even places where it was not specifically protected. The problem came in because "right" is a specific legal term reserved for activities which have been explicitly protected, and thus the red flags on the radar of the legalistically-minded. For the layman though it is perfectly fine to take the statement at face value when speaking of breastfeeding. There have been enough cases as precedent and there is an overwhelming majority of states which grant breastfeeding the status of a protected right that the "general rule of thumb" is perfectly reasonable.

Truth Seeker made a change to the statement when he objected to it by abstracting it away from the specific issue of breastfeeding. He is quite correct that items neither explicitly protected(rights) nor items specifically prohibited(illegal activities) should not be considered "rights". Something being neither a "right" nor a "illegal activity" means they have never been addressed by the legislatures or courts and we do not know which side the courts/legislature would come down on if the question of a citizen engaging in that behavior was addressed. The statement autz quoted is still on solid ground though because it limited itself to the issue of breastfeeding and even in states where the question of public breastfeeding has not been addressed by the courts or the legislature, there are very good chances that it would be considered a right if the case arose.

Gangster Octopus: Businesses do not have the same rights to free speech that individuals do. If a designated spokesman for the business, such as a manager, makes a request it is assumed to have the authority of the business behind it. Even if the business has no ability to enforce the directive, they have explicitly, by establishing the business, agreed not to make these requests. To do so is a violation of their agreement with the state by which they operate a business.

zuma: Fuck you very much.

Enjoy,
Steven

Elza B

11-14-2003, 01:54 PM

Originally posted by zuma
This is the most difficuolt pitting I've ever seen. So much to mock, but so little to be angry about. You have a rude cow who latches an infant to her naked udder.

You have an uptight asshole who cannot stand the sight of a tit.

You have a pimply teen just trying to do his job with screaming all around him.

You have a bk pr flunky just trying to make everyone happy.

Well, the cow should have fed her kid in a non-public area.
The idiot who complained, unless he was getting squirted with fluids, is even worse than the cow. It's burger king, after all.

The pimply teen did his best. I'd give him a raise.

bk corporate just apologized to everyone.

I think the minimum wage teen is the only one we should be sorry for. The poor guy was only trying to make peace between two rude assholes.

So is your whole house decorated in black and white?

Ava

Frumpy Jones

11-14-2003, 02:03 PM

Originally posted by zuma
...You have a rude cow who latches an infant to her naked udder... Well, the cow should have fed her kid in a non-public area.

Zuma, What, exactly, is your problem with this.. You and a few others state that it is wrong (Although state laws say otherwise). What I want to know (And keep asking for) is WHY YOU THINK IT IS WRONG?

I'm trying to understand the POV of those who think it shouldn't be, but no one give a reason.

Bricker

11-14-2003, 02:19 PM

I am stunned.

What steps, beyond passing laws mandating the right of mothers to breastfeed in public, can society take to convince zuma and his ilk that their stance is misplaced?

Truth Seeker

11-14-2003, 02:36 PM

Let me lay out the general structure of U.S. civil rights law and then I'll respond to your points.

Civil rights law creates what are commonly called "protected classes" of people, e.g. Blacks and Hispanics. To some extent, these aren't really protected classes so much as "illegal classifications." For example, the law doesn't outlaw discrimination against blacks, it outlaws discrimination based on race.

People within these "protected classes" cannot be treated any differently than anyone else simply because of their membership in a protected class. For example, a restaurant cannot ask blacks to pay for their meals in advance.

This does not mean, however, that you cannot ask everyone to pay in advance. Nor does it mean that you can't ask some people to pay in advance but not others, so long as you do not do so based on an "illegal classification." For example, you could ask anyone who does not have a major credit card to pay in advance. You could also ask left-handed people or Republicans to pay in advance, if you wanted to.

Now very few business would do this precisely because it is unreasonable and would interfere with their ability to make money. Nonetheless, so long as they apply these rules equally with respect to people in protected classes, it's perfectly legal. For example, refusing to serve all left-handed Republicans is legal. Refusing to serve only Black, left-handed Republicans is not.

By the same token, nothing prevents you from controlling the conduct of those who enter your business so long as you do not do so based on their membership in a protected class. For example, you could refuse to serve anyone wearing a Pro-Bush t-shirt. You could not refuse to serve only Blacks wearing Pro-Bush t-shirts.

You can also, of course, control conduct even if it relates to membership in a protected class so long as you do so without reference to membership in a protected class. For example, while you cannot discriminate based on religion, Burger King can certainly prevent a practioner of Santeria from sacrificing a chicken in a Burger King restaurant, so long as they prohibit, say, Catholics from holding a mass there. In states that treat sexual orientation as a protected class, you can ask two gays snogging each other to leave so long as you also prohibit straight couples from engaging in the same conduct.

The point here is that there is no "general reasonableness" standard in U.S. civil rights law. A business is free to require or prohibit any conduct it likes on its premises, so long as it does not discriminate against protected classes in doing so.

Bottom line: If your local diner owner goes 'round the bend and refuses to serve you (or anyone) unless you stand on your head and sing "Born to be Wild," you've got no case.

Originally posted by Mtgman
The cite I quoted from the King County website said owners of places of public accommodation could place "reasonable" restrictions on public behavior within those spaces. Quite frankly I don't really care what the legal formulations and technical tests a court would do are.
Well, you really ought to, if you want to actually understand how things work. All the county ordinance you cited does is increase the number of protected classes in that county. It makes no mention of a general "reasonableness standard." I actually bothered to look at the ordinance itself and here is how it describes discrimination,
"Discrimination" or "discriminatory practice or act" means any action or failure to act, whether by a single act or part of a practice, the effect of which is to adversely affect or differentiate between or among
individuals, because of race, color, religion, national origin, age, sex, marital status, parental status, sexual orientation, the presence of any sensory, mental or physical handicap, or the use of a trained dog guide by a blind, deaf or physically disabled person.

http://www.metrokc.gov/mkcc/Code/15-Title%2012.pdf

This is NOT a courtroom, I am discoursing with laymen, I am a layman myself. I have no responsibility to use the proper legal terminology. Discussions of the legal terminology, classic formulations, court tests, and other other legal jargon is nothing but a nitpick.
No, it's not a nitpick. In this case, its essential to actually understanding what you are talking about. I always find it amusing when people wear their lack of specialized knowledge as a badge of honor. "I'm a layman! I've got no use for all that fancy talk, just give me good old-fashioned common sense!" This might pass when you're tossing a few back with the boys at the local pub, but it doesn't cut much ice when you're having a serious discussion.

Pretty much all of the friction between us has been because you have conflated my use of "public space" with "public property".
No. The main problem, as I understand it, is that you keep insisting there is some sort of generalized "reasonableness" standard in U.S. discrimination law.

Any mention there of transfer of ownership of the property to the state? Any mention of public property? Under U.S. law, a taking doesn't necesarily involve a transfer of ownership, it can also occur when government action interferes with the use of private property.

The problem here isn't "legal nitpicking," it's that you don't understand the reach and scope of civil rights law in the U.S.. I'm sure many other people share your confusion. Hopefully, I've made it a bit clearer. I invite Bricker to step in and clarify anything he feels needs clarifying.

Mtgman

11-14-2003, 03:21 PM

Originally posted by Truth Seeker
The point here is that there is no "general reasonableness" standard in U.S. civil rights law. A business is free to require or prohibit any conduct it likes on its premises, so long as it does not discriminate against protected classes in doing so.

Bottom line: If your local diner owner goes 'round the bend and refuses to serve you (or anyone) unless you stand on your head and sing "Born to be Wild," you've got no case.Unless I take offense at being asked to sing "Born to be Wild" while standing on my head. If I file an action against the owner for making this a stipulation of service and a court decides that no one should ever be asked such a thing, using whatever reasoning they care to use, then the owner's restriction on what behavior he can require in his resturant is null and void. All of this is exactly in line with what I said about the state holding all the cards. I didn't bring up "reasonable" until the cite from King County. I guess we've done it again because "reasonable" is one of those legal keywords like "right" which has a specific meaning. Now you seem to think I am asserting something about the way the legal process would proceed. I'm not. All I'm saying is the courts, or the legislature, can trump an owner's restriction on activities. They can do this before the fact(as they did in the Utah case) or after the fact(as they did with the case of the mother who was ejected from a public pool for breastfeeding).

Truth Seeker, stop it. You've gotten so far off track from what I ever said that you're just making the situation less comprehensible. When you butt into a discussion between lay people and start picking their statements apart trying to make them fit into the legal system you're not clarifying anything. All you're doing is driving people to believe the legal system is so alien as to be incomprehensible and the practitioners thereof so petty as to be not worth having a "serious discussion" with. Being constantly told that you must be an expert on the topic to have anything to contribute is very annoying. If every layman is to be expected to care about the legal tests which would be used in a court of law, or "classical formulations", or to research the underlying statute referenced in a county's legal summary page before taking it at their word, then this state of affairs is nothing more than an arguement for reform of the legal system.

Enjoy,
Steven

Frumpy Jones

11-14-2003, 03:30 PM

Sorry for the bold caps to follow, but...

FOR THE LOVE OF PETE, WILL SOMEONE WHO THINKS A WOMAN SHOULD NOT BREASTFEED IN PUBLIC, PLEASE ELABORATE AS TO WHY YOU FEEL IT SHOULD BE THAT WAY, OTHER THAN IT'S DISGUSTING. I WANT TO KNOW WHY YOU THINK IT'S DISGUSTING!!!!!....

Thank you.

Mtgman

11-14-2003, 03:42 PM

CAUSE SOMEONE IS GETTING TO SUCK ON A TIT AND IT AIN'T ME!

:D

Enjoy,
Steven

Palo Verde

11-14-2003, 05:57 PM

Truth Seeker, I've been trying to follow and have to say that I understand less after your explanation than before it.

Now, I'm going on a 2 week vacation, so don't address any questions to me personally. I'll just avoid Burger King on my journey.

TeaElle

11-14-2003, 08:00 PM

Mtgman, I think you've hit the nail on the head.

XJETGIRLX

11-14-2003, 08:25 PM

Originally posted by Frumpy Jones
FOR THE LOVE OF PETE, WILL SOMEONE WHO THINKS A WOMAN SHOULD NOT BREASTFEED IN PUBLIC, PLEASE ELABORATE AS TO WHY YOU FEEL IT SHOULD BE THAT WAY, OTHER THAN IT'S DISGUSTING. I WANT TO KNOW WHY YOU THINK IT'S DISGUSTING!!!!!

I am by no means a prude, but it seems that overall our culture has thrown manners by the wayside. There are many things that are by no means illegal, but are definitely what one might call 'indelicate behaviors' that manners would dictate be kept to the privacy of ones home, or at least done with a bit more discretion.

Frankly, I personally think it's rude. Now I would never go so far as to suggest that there be any sort of ban on breastfeeding in public, but I hardly think it needs to be protected by law. I also do not disagree that it is both a natural and necessary function, but like other natural and necessary functions it is one that can cause embarassment or offense to others. I no more want to see a woman's exposed breast in public than I want to see someone picking their nose or scratching themselves. Each of these actions, if done with discretion can be accomplished in public if absolutely necessary, but it's my opinion that one should have the tact and manners to keep them private.

Honestly, I find the idea that some people feel the need to secure their right to subject others to what should by all rights be a personal and private activity just as confusing as you find those of us who object. If and/or when I have children I would be embarassed to death to nurse in public, and if it were absolutely necessary I would certainly find a way to be as discreet as possible.

Zabali_Clawbane

11-14-2003, 08:31 PM

Next time I'm in a fast food place, and the person in a nearby table is picking their nose, I'm going to ask management to tell them they have to take their food, and eat it in the toilet, or cover their faces so I don't have to see their snot covered visage. Just as reasonable in my mind, as asking a baby to have it's meal in the germ infested air of a public restroom. (No matter how well cleaned the surfaces are, flushing the toilet causes a fine mist that stays in the air for hours with it's microbrial goodness, not a good place to eat certainly.) And also, does the mom take her food into the toilet to eat it, setting it on the toilet tank or floor? Or does she leave it out at her table, to get thrown away or who knows what else done to it?

Use your heads, and also show some compassion! She's not doing it to make you uncomfortable on purpose, she's just trying to peacefully live her life. It's not an issue, until you make it so. Sometimes you literally just have to look the other way, until other reasonable solutions have been found. Don't think that other's haven't done the same for your sorry ass, either. (That comment directed at the "people" shouting that it's wrong of a mother to feed her child in public.)

If they are going to ask a breastfeeding mother to "go somewhere private" to feed her child, they'd better set up a "lounge" area for such a purpose, clean germ free air, that's private, with a table for mom's meal. They'd better start re-designing all their restaurants. This isn't a bad idea, it's reasonable, and all the immature yokels out there wouldn't have a thing to cry over, or gawk at, and mom and baby could both eat in peace. (And put changeing tables in all the men's rooms while they are at it, dad's change diapers too ya know.)

XJETGIRLX

11-14-2003, 09:05 PM

Originally posted by Zabali_Clawbane
Next time I'm in a fast food place, and the person in a nearby table is picking their nose, I'm going to ask management to tell them they have to take their food, and eat it in the toilet, or cover their faces so I don't have to see their snot covered visage.

I don't recall anywhere in the article where it said they asked her to continue nursing in the restroom. I believe they simply asked if she would cover herself, or discontinue nursing in the restaurant. Am I mistaken?

Zabali_Clawbane

11-14-2003, 09:33 PM

In other threads dealing with this, such a suggestion has been brought up.

I think it's really ironic, that people won't often say or do anything to the female dressed in VERY revealing clothing out in public, showing lots of cleavage, but that once she puts her breasts to their nature made function, it's wrong somehow, and people don't want to see it. I think maybe in some cases, it's because some of these adults wouldn't drink breast milk for themselves, and so they find the sight of such being consumed vaguely nauseating, and don't know how to work through the feelings and deal with it, or don't care to.

Discretion works both ways, sometimes the person veiwing the thing has to excercise theirs, and look away, knowing that no law is being broken, and really their rights aren't being invaded either, since they still have the ability to sit elsewhere, or look away, and the mother isn't getting in their space with a baby dangling from her milk filled bosom.

As I said, it's intent that counts, the mothers aren't intending to cause discomfort, they are just feeding their child. Knowing this, people should ease up, and take a look at why they are so hyper sensitive. As long as the woman isn't standing right in front of a person, thrusting the breast with the baby attached into their faces, or doing other things to call attention directly to the fact that they are nursing, I feel that they should be left in peace.

It kinda reminds me of the time I had a NASTY bone deep wound on my shin in High School. (A big chunk of flesh scraped away by a serrated brick edge.) It had gotten to the point in the healing process that it needed to be uncovered. It was pretty gross, it was not a solid scab, and was still draining too. (Poor circulation in my legs due to Juvenile Rhuemathoid Arthritis.) This meant going to Gym with my sock carefully folded down away from the wound, so it wouldn't stick.

A "preppie" girl loftily informed me that she found the sight of my wound puke worthy (As if I didn't, and it was on my leg!) and that because of this, I HAD to cover it up so she couldn't see it. I called bullshit, and told her to mind her own business, told her I was under "Doctor's orders" to keep it uncovered, and said "Don't look at it if it bothers you so much!" It wasn't as if I were waving my shin under her nose, laughing as she retched, I was just going about my business, doing the weight training the class required. (This is how the wound came into her sight line occaisionally, I'd be doing arm curls, she'd be doing bench presses.)

The arrogance of people who think they have the right to impose their wishes on someone else, because something about the other law abiding citizen bothers them astounds me.

We all have to "look the other way" at certain times to get along in the world. We're all different, and something about someone is bound to bother at some point in time. The best thing to do, is look the other way, and move on, knowing that others have done this for you in the past, and will do so in the future. This is, of course, applied when dealing with situations like in this thread, where the other person is not breaking any law, but for some reason you feel bothered.

Zabali_Clawbane

11-14-2003, 09:40 PM

Also, I found this: "The general manager sent a female employee to speak with the woman and asked that she either cover herself or move to the ladies room," the company said in a prepared release. Geary contends she was fully covered. from the link in the OP.

FaerieBeth

11-14-2003, 10:39 PM

Originally posted by zuma
You have a rude cow who latches an infant to her naked udder.

Well, the cow should have fed her kid in a non-public area.

(this post not aimed at the above quoted only, but all those who just feel 'squicked out' by breastfeeding and desire to have it removed from your possible fields of vision)

Why? I double BOOB dare you to come up with one SINGLE verifiable reason why this woman should NOT have fed her child in the restaurant.
AND saying the following DOES NOT count:
I think it's gross.
I think it's inappropriate.
Many people find it disgusting. (PS. WHO are these people besides you? And provide a site with reliable statistics stating that the majority of Americans share you grossly outdated, Neanderthalic opinion)
It's something that should be done in private. (So should picking your thong out of the crack of your ass, but plenty of idiots find that an absolute turn on)

Like Frumpy Jones, I am eager to see your documentation of the affront that breastfeeding a child causes to the public at large.

In the meantime, you can go on reciting your creed:
Yea, though we walk through the valley of camel-toed jeans and halters holding up silicone with the nipples peeking out, I shall fear only breastfeeding for as thou can see, it is most evil and destructive to humanity. The rod AND the staff should be used liberally to pummel such women as who would defile our very vision and morally corrupt us with such a degrading, putrificating sight. Surely, once we rid our planet of those craven beasts who seek to (insert tone of horror)FEED their children, the world will be a better place and we can go back to watching the teeny tummy fat rolls peek out over the low rider jeans of the girl down on the corner as she bends over to proposition the guy in the car! Perhaps, evenso, we will be able to continiue our patronage of PG-13 rated movies where the majesty that is entrails, blood, gore, and mutilation can solice minds wounded by the affront such blatant exposure has wreaked. Weep for mankind! Weep until the unimaginable horror that is breastfeeding has been wiped from this earth- So we can enjoy our Judge Judy episodes in peace- So we can watch Temptation Island without fear of mother/child/breast persecution- So we can live normal lives steeped in violence and sex, the way it should be. Fini

* I was a breastfeeding mother. Three children, until all were 1 year old. I breastfed in public. I was never accosted by any small minded imbeciles, and from what I've read here, I count myself fortunate for that.

FB

DoctorJ

11-15-2003, 12:04 AM

FOR THE LOVE OF PETE, WILL SOMEONE WHO THINKS A WOMAN SHOULD NOT BREASTFEED IN PUBLIC, PLEASE ELABORATE AS TO WHY YOU FEEL IT SHOULD BE THAT WAY, OTHER THAN IT'S DISGUSTING. I WANT TO KNOW WHY YOU THINK IT'S DISGUSTING!!!!!....
Understand that I'm on your side here, and I'm asking this only because it's a subject I've never given much thought. I'm trying to phrase my question in such a way as to not be thought an asshole.

Why shouldn't I be able to openly masturbate in a public place? Why shouldn't I be able to pull out a jar and take a piss while standing in line for my Whopper?

I'm having trouble coming up with a good answer to the above quoted question, but I'm similarly having trouble coming up with a good answer to mine. I don't mean to equate the acts, but I'm not really seeing why objection to one is rational and the other is irrational.

Again, understand that I fully support anyone's right to breastfeed in public, and that I have no personal objections. I'm just trying to fight my own ignorance.

Dr. J

Zabali_Clawbane

11-15-2003, 12:09 AM

To answer the above question by DoctorJ because although peeing is a normal bodily function involving bodily fluids, and so is masturbation, they are also functions that for hygenic reasons are performed "behind closed doors". People eat in public every day, there is no "taboo" involving this in our culture, so why should the method of eating, or the age of the ingestor matter? Think of that. There is a taboo against having sex (even if it's self only) in public, and certainly against eliminating in public too. (The scent of piss kinda ruins the taste of fries.)

Diogenes the Cynic

11-15-2003, 12:10 AM

Masturbation is legally defined as indecent while breastfeeding is not.

Also, feeding is necessary to the welfare of a baby.

DoctorJ

11-15-2003, 12:25 AM

<devil's advocate mode=on>

Masturbation is legally defined as indecent while breastfeeding is not.
That doesn't answer the question as to why we consider one to be indecent and the other not.

Also, feeding is necessary to the welfare of a baby.
Peeing is necessary as well*, but we still generally require people to urinate behind closed doors.

Dr. J

*Nitpicks regarding dialysis will be punished by swift death.

Zabali_Clawbane

11-15-2003, 12:29 AM

DoctorJ See the post I made before this, and go down the lines of thinking I began therin. You should know that the reason you aren't allowed to pee just anywhere is due to the fact that it's just not hygenic. I'm sure if you whipped out a jar and peed in it in a fast food restaurant you'd be arrested for indecent exposure, and also possibly banned from the premises for violating health codes.

Mtgman

11-15-2003, 12:33 AM

Originally posted by FaerieBeth
Many people find it disgusting. (PS. WHO are these people besides you? And provide a site with reliable statistics stating that the majority of Americans share you grossly outdated, Neanderthalic opinion) It should be noted that a Neanderthal wouldn't bat an eye at a woman nursing a baby in public. This is a relatively modern attitude and seems fairly localized in the Western world, particularly the US.

Enjoy,
Steven

Mr2001

11-15-2003, 12:33 AM

Originally posted by Zabali_Clawbane
To answer the above question by DoctorJ because although peeing is a normal bodily function involving bodily fluids, and so is masturbation, they are also functions that for hygenic reasons are performed "behind closed doors".
Neither of those actions is any less hygienic than picking your nose. Urine is sterile and is allegedly good for cleaning out wounds on the battlefield.

People eat in public every day, there is no "taboo" involving this in our culture, so why should the method of eating, or the age of the ingestor matter?
For better or worse, there is a taboo involving bare breasts in public. Someone who's offended by breasts might turn your question around and ask: Why should it matter whether someone's sucking on said breast, or how old said sucker is?

DoctorJ

11-15-2003, 12:36 AM

<devil's advocate mode=still on>

To answer the above question by DoctorJ because although peeing is a normal bodily function involving bodily fluids, and so is masturbation, they are also functions that for hygenic reasons are performed "behind closed doors".
Again, struggling to be perfectly objective, I think that if one's load/piss is handled properly, neither is particularly unhygenic, at least not in ways that aren't equally true of breastfeeding.

People eat in public every day, there is no "taboo" involving this in our culture, so why should the method of eating, or the age of the ingestor matter?
To turn the question around, there is a taboo in our culture against exposing a woman's breasts in public, so why should the reason for doing so matter?

Dr. J

Zabali_Clawbane

11-15-2003, 12:51 AM

Whether pee is sterile when it first comes out of the body or not, (if the person has no infections that is) it is a medium which grows microbes easy, and that is why the public health codes are in place. The same with semanal fluid.

There is a difference between a grown man sucking on a bared breast, and a child. The grown man is doing so for sexual thrills, the child to get nourishment. A grown man (or woman) can eat other foods to gain nourishment, and does not rely on breast milk as their sole form of food.

The law covers the baring of breasts for sexual purposes, not for nursing purposes. That's what you are failing to see. Both the functions of a penis are deemed inappropriate as actions to be carried out in full veiw of everyone.

As far as your objection to bared breasts, most women don't flop out their entire breast to nurse, many women use a discreet "throw" and many women also have special "nursing" blouses, which do not expose the breast.

Even so, if the woman is not doing these things for whatever reason, what of it? I don't necessarily want to look at another female's boob either, but I'm not going to get bent out of shape over it if she's minding her own business, feeding her child. I figure it's her right to feed the baby, the baby's right to eat, and mine to look away. It is NOT my right to put my vague feelings of discomfort over either the mother's or the baby's rights to feed, and eat. Eating takes priority over my feelings in this.

Just as it was my right to have my wound uncovered, and the preppie's right to look away from it. Even if she was grossed out at the sight of it, it did not mean I had to cover it up, especially since it was not a good thing medically to do.

Heck, it's no worse than being in a locker room anyway, or looking in the mirror in my case. They're boobs, they have a function... To me, it's just not worth dwelling on, and crying over. If I were male, or attracted to females, I'd feel the same way. So I've seen a bared boob with a baby latched on eating, so what? I was more concerned that the mother would be uncomfortable in the frigid air conditioned air than anything.

Zabali_Clawbane

11-15-2003, 12:53 AM

I'll add, adults don't rely on breast milk as a form of food at all, while breastfeeding children get most or all of their nourishment from it.

Zabali_Clawbane

11-15-2003, 12:59 AM

Another addition, females are blocked from eliminating and masturbating in public too.

The nursing mother does not have her child sucking her breast for sexual pleasure, the baby is doing so to eat. That is the "saving grace" that you fail to see. That's why there appears to be a "double standard" to some.

Snooooopy

11-15-2003, 02:43 AM

Originally posted by Matchka
Snooooopy feeding breastises aren't quite as apetizing as dormant ones. But heck, it's BK...have it YOUR way. :)

Breasts = good!

I think that, any time women feel like they want to whip out their breasts in public, men have a duty to be supportive! If a woman asked me if I would mind if she slipped out of her bra in a restaurant or whatever, I would encourage her to do as she liked! I would also suggest that she make kissy-faces at me.

Bricker

11-15-2003, 11:23 AM

Originally posted by Mtgman
Now you seem to think I am asserting something about the way the legal process would proceed. I'm not. All I'm saying is the courts, or the legislature, can trump an owner's restriction on activities. They can do this before the fact(as they did in the Utah case) or after the fact(as they did with the case of the mother who was ejected from a public pool for breastfeeding).

That's true.

Truth Seeker, stop it. You've gotten so far off track from what I ever said that you're just making the situation less comprehensible. When you butt into a discussion between lay people and start picking their statements apart trying to make them fit into the legal system you're not clarifying anything. All you're doing is driving people to believe the legal system is so alien as to be incomprehensible and the practitioners thereof so petty as to be not worth having a "serious discussion" with. Being constantly told that you must be an expert on the topic to have anything to contribute is very annoying. If every layman is to be expected to care about the legal tests which would be used in a court of law, or "classical formulations", or to research the underlying statute referenced in a county's legal summary page before taking it at their word, then this state of affairs is nothing more than an arguement for reform of the legal system.

That's not true.

When the discussion - on a board devoted to fighting ignorance - involves a point of legal significance, you cannot say, "Hey, we're just laymen, talking, stop parading your knowledge around," and expect to be taken seriously. There are a variety of experts in a variety of fields here. I may offer some views on how harmless sneezing in public sans handkerchief is, but I'll certain defer to Qadop if he offers specifics about spray viral transmissions. I won't point out that I was speaking as a layman and am somehow immune from additional information.

- Rick

CrazyCatLady

11-15-2003, 12:22 PM

Well, I look at it like this: Say I'm having dinner with my husband in a restaurant, and when he asks me how my day was. I start telling him about all the cool traumas we saw, and the size, color, and consistency of the tumors we removed, to the disgust of the people seated within earshot of us. Someone complains, and a waitress asks us nicely to lower our voices or have our conversation elsewhere so as not to disturb the other customers. I can scream and howl about how I'm perfectly within my rights to exercise my freedom of speech and how I'm just having a perfectly normal, natural, healthy conversation and bonding experience with my husband and demand an apology. I can walk out of the restaurant in a huff and never go back. Or, I can accept the fact that I'm doing something other people consider rude and/or inappropriate for the dinner table and either change the subject or lower my voice.

Yes, I have a right to discuss my job anywhere, for any reason, and talking about my day with my husband is good for our relationship. We consider blood and guts and tumors and gunshot wounds to be perfectly normal, healthy dinner conversation. But we recognize that other people don't agree with us, and we try to have some modicum of respect for the sensibilities of others. It's called courtesy. We are perfectly entitled to talk about this stuff in front of people who are uncomfortable with it, but that would be crass.

Romola

11-15-2003, 06:30 PM

Can someone who truly finds public breastfeeding offensive please explain why they are offended by the partial exposure of the breast of a women during the act of feeding her child? Is it the breast itself? The discreetness (or lack thereof) of the act? Do they not understand the importance of breastfeeding? How the act benefits society?

Because as it stands, I still find it extremely offensive and perplexing that (even coming from a "devil's advocate" position) explicit tumor discussions during dinner, urinating in jars, and masturbating in public are considered comparable to breastfeeding. Reasonable people who truly understand the importance of breastfeeding to the health of mothers and infants, who understand the need to encourage breastfeeding in our society, must realize that urinating in a jar in public is rightly condemned as an antisocial, aggressive, and unsanitary act. Yes, most urine is sterile, but I certainly wouldn't want to walk on stinking urine-covered sidewalks or sit next to jars of urine in restaurants. Same with public masturbation and tumor discussions that are loud enough to disturb other patrons in a resturant; the intent and result is negative in nature. There are no positive consequences. It comes down to results. Urine in jars and masturbation in public = no discernible positive results (though I'm certain someone will step up with a justification). Breastfeeding = healthy, happy baby and mom, and by extension, society in general is benefited (positive result).

Breastfeeding should be (and from what I've experienced, thankfully, usually is) percieved as normal human behavior; a natural and necessary nuturing act between mother and child. How can such behavior be considered offensive, or rude, or antisocial? I remember a similar thread concerning public breastfeeding where one isolated situation of "indiscreet" breastfeeding was used to justify the villification of the act in general. I, on the other hand, have never witnessed any acts of public breastfeeding that made me uncomfortable. Which leads me to believe people who are disturbed by breastfeeding are in the wrong. Yes, they are entitled to their morals and sensibilties, but it doesn't follow that those feelings are right and correct. This isn't about courtesy; the act itself is not disgusting, it is not offensive. Mothers and babies deserve to be treated with dignity and respect and we as a society need women to breastfeed in public so the act becomes so accepted and encouraged, people who object to the act will keep their foolish, hurtful opinions to themselves.

XJETGIRLX let me preface by stating that I mean no ill will, but I know of no nursing mother who enjoys exposing her breasts to the public. Discreet nursing comes with practice and depends on the baby's mood and hunger level. Mothers have to leave the house once in awhile, and when your baby is hungry or sleepy and there are no private areas available, nursing in public is inevitable. I truly hope you can overcome your embarrassment should you have children.

Zabali_Clawbane

11-15-2003, 08:51 PM

Romola You've managed to echo my sentiments exactly. Although I have felt somewhat uncomfortable seeing a mom breastfeeding her child in a public place, it was more empathy due to the facts that it was frigid cold, and her entire breast was exposed, and she was an immigrant, and people around her were casting contempt at her. Otherwise, I know that what she was doing is not illegal, and is definitely excellent for nurturing her baby, so I showed compassion, and looked away, so she would not see worry or pity in my face. (Only because of the cold, and the contempt, I thought she was a wonderful mom and admired her too.)

I also found myself to be baffled and annoyed with the comparisons made in this thread. I found myself wondering if people could really be that thick, or if it was that they were trying to justify and hold on to their own "prudishness"?

It seems that maybe some of the people who posted that they were trying to understand the people in favor of breastfeeding where ever necessary, were in actuality trying to pick apart our reasonings, not listen and find points they could relate to. But those are just my opinions.

FaerieBeth

11-15-2003, 09:30 PM

Originally posted by Romola
Because as it stands, I still find it extremely offensive and perplexing that (even coming from a "devil's advocate" position) explicit tumor discussions during dinner, urinating in jars, and masturbating in public are considered comparable to breastfeeding.

I would also like to add my agreement with your post, Romola. The offense is multiplied by referring to breastfeeding moms as 'moomy' and 'cow'. I definitely think that any adult who cries 'decency' or 'courtesy', but will still yet resort to name calling and cheap shots of that caliber, needs to take a serious look in the mirror, and then decide who's being rude and ill-mannered.

FB

Bricker

11-15-2003, 11:27 PM

Originally posted by CrazyCatLady
Well, I look at it like this: Say I'm having dinner with my husband in a restaurant, and when he asks me how my day was. I start telling him about all the cool traumas we saw, and the size, color, and consistency of the tumors we removed, to the disgust of the people seated within earshot of us. Someone complains, and a waitress asks us nicely to lower our voices or have our conversation elsewhere so as not to disturb the other customers. I can scream and howl about how I'm perfectly within my rights to exercise my freedom of speech and how I'm just having a perfectly normal, natural, healthy conversation and bonding experience with my husband and demand an apology. I can walk out of the restaurant in a huff and never go back. Or, I can accept the fact that I'm doing something other people consider rude and/or inappropriate for the dinner table and either change the subject or lower my voice.

Yes, I have a right to discuss my job anywhere, for any reason, and talking about my day with my husband is good for our relationship. We consider blood and guts and tumors and gunshot wounds to be perfectly normal, healthy dinner conversation. But we recognize that other people don't agree with us, and we try to have some modicum of respect for the sensibilities of others. It's called courtesy. We are perfectly entitled to talk about this stuff in front of people who are uncomfortable with it, but that would be crass.

There is a difference between breastfeeding and this analogy.

The legislatures of various states, the duly elected people's representatives, have found breastfeeding merits the specific protection of the law. No legislature has acted for your trauma and med descriptions; there is no prevailing sense that your conversation is important enough to make a public policy that, notwithstanding the owners' wishes, you be permitted to continue.

There IS such a finding with breastfeeding.

While you might have safely offered your analogy when the debates were ongoing to pass these laws, the fact is, NOW the laws exist. They represent the will of the people, expressed through the democratic process.

- Rick

Mr2001

11-16-2003, 02:50 AM

Originally posted by Zabali_Clawbane
Whether pee is sterile when it first comes out of the body or not, (if the person has no infections that is) it is a medium which grows microbes easy, and that is why the public health codes are in place. The same with semanal fluid.
The same is true of milkshakes, soda, bread, and cheese, which are commonly sold in Burger King restaurants. It's even true of breast milk!

There is a difference between a grown man sucking on a bared breast, and a child. The grown man is doing so for sexual thrills, the child to get nourishment. A grown man (or woman) can eat other foods to gain nourishment, and does not rely on breast milk as their sole form of food.
The people watching can't see inside his head. All they see is a person sucking on a breast. They can guess at his intentions, and some inferred intentions may offend them more than others, but so what? Maybe his wife is lactating and he just likes the taste of breast milk.

The law covers the baring of breasts for sexual purposes, not for nursing purposes.
The ban has nothing to do with sex. If a woman were to expose her breasts for any other nonsexual reason (e.g. she spilled something on her shirt and wants to dry off), she'd be asked to leave, and/or arrested.

Heck, it's no worse than being in a locker room anyway, or looking in the mirror in my case. They're boobs, they have a function... To me, it's just not worth dwelling on, and crying over.
I agree. But that's an argument against banning nudity, not against banning breastfeeding.

Mtgman

11-16-2003, 03:06 AM

Originally posted by Bricker
you cannot say, "Hey, we're just laymen, talking, stop parading your knowledge around," and expect to be taken seriously.I said nothing of the sort. What I did say was that it is inappropriate to demand, or even expect, other people to use, or even care about, the classic formulations or legal tests a court would use. If someone with a legal background wishes to add additional information I am welcoming of it. When someone comes in and acts as if my statements are wrong, then I would appreciate some actual criticism of substance. All I have recieved thus far is approbation for not using the proper legal terminology for what I called a "public place", although I still maintain the meaning was clear in context. I was also criticised for using words which have specific legal meanings, like "reasonable", in a non-legal sense. This usage apparently led Truth Seeker to believe I was asserting something I was not, namely something about the specific legal process of challenging a restriction on behavior in a place of public accommodation. None of this is substance, it is semantics. The word "reasonable" is not utterly reserved for legalistic use. I quoted from a county website on the topic of places of public accommodation. Apparently that isn't good enough. I'm also supposed to reaseach the statutes that site was summarizing before citing it. Poppycock.

Again, show me where I have made an error of substance in my remarks about breastfeeding in public places. I have studied the laws regarding breastfeeding and while I am layman enough to throw around words like "reasonable" somewhat carelessly, that doesn't mean I don't understand the issue. Adding information is fine, but don't make "corrections" which are nothing more than semantic nitpicks because the appropriate legal jargon was not used. Some level of semantic regularity is required for proper communication, but when you start demanding people become familiar with the ridiculously technical legalistic jargon of classic formulations and various tests then you've simply put up a barrier to communication.

If Qadgop gets a patient in his office and they say "it hurts here" he doesn't demand that they describe the pain with the proper medical names of the nerves and organs in the region indicated, or I would certainly hope he doesn't. He takes his own knowledge and maps it to what they are trying to express and then helps them get on with their lives. If they want to know what that thingy is called I'm sure he would gladly tell them, and that is perfectly in keeping with an expert sharing his knowledge. To make it a pre-requisite to a discussion of the issue, or to mock them for not caring about what the medical terms for the tissues in the affected area are, as Truth Seeker did, is simply a crock.

CrazyCatLady: Everyone must constantly make the decisions as to which potential sensibilities in their fellow human beings they will try to avoid offending. It all comes down to which sensibilities an individual considers worthy of the respectful act of attempting to avoid offending. I consider it reasonable to be offended by graphic descriptions of gunshot wounds and tumors during a meal, therefore I refrain from such topics of discussion within earshot of my fellow diners in a public resturant. Although doing so would certainly be within my rights(although a resturant owner may legally object to such a conversation and eject me/refuse me service on the grounds that I was offending other customers unnecessarially). I do not consider it reasonable to be offended by the act of nursing an infant/young child. As such I make little to no effort to refrain from offending those who may be offended by such an act.

At the moment, in most states, the majority of the population, as represented by their legislatures, agree with me that being offended by someone nursing in public is unreasonable and have taken steps to protect nursing in public. Even if the person offended is in a position where they would normally have the authority to stop such a behavior, such as the person taking offense being the owner of a public resturant, the state has extended its hand to shield the nursing mother from any actions this person may take as a result of their feelings.

Enjoy,
Steven

TeaElle

11-16-2003, 06:14 AM

Nicely summarized, Mtgman.

I also note that we have yet to get any noncircular answer as to why public breastfeeding is so onerous and repellant. We've had strawmen by the dozen, we've had the most pathetic attempts at analogies I've seen in my time on the SDMB, but not one single meaningful answer that doesn't appeal to false logic, false outside authority ("many people" or "vast majority") or make correlations that a blind man couldn't see through. (Breastfeeding is so very much like discussing disgusting topics at the dinner table. :rolleyes:)

The weight of the anti-breastfeeding position certainly isn't enhanced by such bankrupt attempts at arguing in its favor.

pencilpusher

11-16-2003, 01:48 PM

I'm wondering if the people that complain about the breastfeeding in public are the same ones that bitch about the baby crying because it's hungry. I personally would rather glance at a breastfeeding mother with a quiet baby than have to sit and eat next to a baby thats screaming at the top of it's lungs because it can't eat.

Daisy Mae

11-16-2003, 03:02 PM

Originally posted by autz
She didn't ask for the manager to be fired, SHe didn't ask for a monetary compensation. All she asked for is an apology.

That's where this pitting comes in.

"Burger King Corporation and our franchisee apologize for any inconvenience any of our guests experienced at our restaurant on November 10, 2003."

Does that seem like any kind of a real apology to you???

To me, a "real apology" is one I don't have to ask for. How can ANYONE be comforted by an apology they have to force someone to say?

There are a lot of things that are legal that may make some people uncomfortable. In some places, women are able to be topless in public (::waits for all of the guys to post stupid comments::), it's legal to empty a colostomy bag in public, and it's legal to smoke in many public places. I can't imagine being so narcissistic that I would be so damned offended to have someone ASK me to stop doing something, that I'd DEMAND a formal apology and then whine about not getting the one I wanted to the media. I could understand if they said "Go to the bathroom or get out." or "Go to the bathroom or we'll shoot you." Let's get a grip.

To me, it smacks of a setup for a lawsuit. I agree with Quietman, that no legal department would be allowed to issue the apology suggested earlier in this post. It would truly be opening themselves up to be sued.

She was breast feeding her baby, someone asked her (probably due to a complaint from another customer) to stop or perhaps do it in the bathroom. This has happened in our hospital waiting room before, we simply escort the woman to somewhere that she can feed in private. To be honest, I don't really want to see a woman's boob while I'm eating either and I'm a woman too.

aaslatten

11-16-2003, 05:10 PM

"Sometimes you gotta break the rules."

-- old (and failed) Burger King slogan

Zabali_Clawbane

11-16-2003, 08:33 PM

Thank goodness the legislators were intelligent enough to realize that a baby's right to get the best possible care from it's mom, i.e. breastfeeding, overrides any possible discomforts that immature prudes might feel.

I think that the people who have wandered into this thread, scratching their heads, and saying "What about my rights? I don't want to see breastfeeding in public!" really only care about themselves in this, and not the good of society.

I'll say it again, I think it's quite darkly amusing that a woman can bare the sides, top or bottom of her breasts in a daring outfit, and not get as much "sanctioned by certain ordinary people" name calling, scorn, and prudish waspishness thrown at her as a good mother, breastfeeding her child will. Some people in this culture have serious issues and hangups that they are not willing to admit to, or try to overcome. Instead, they cling to them, and frantically look for any tiny thing they can argue with so they can keep them. Sheesh.

Essured

11-17-2003, 12:45 AM

General:
I personally would prefer to never be anywhere near a baby, as they smell, make annoying noises, turn adults into baby-talking idiots and often scream. (IMO).
I'd also prefer to not see council-worker's-bum (I think it might be called plumber's crack in some regions), and people wearing clothes that are either so big, they hide nothing, or so small everything bulges out the top. I'd also like to never see a guy staring at my tits or arse. And ugly people, I don't ever want to see another one of them. People having bad hair days should stay out of my line of sight, as should people who have pimples, talons instead of fingernails or those who wear the colour beige.

Unfortunately, it isn't GooWorld, and so I see things, daily that I'd probably prefer not see. I realise that I live in a world that wasn't created for my comfort, a world which I have to share (with way too many people, I might add) with others. Because I have to share this world, I try my best to be considerate of others. Up to a point.

I see two solutions. Make that person over there stop doing "X", because I don't want to see it. Or move those fantastically moveable eyeballs (great, aren't they?) in another direction.

Can you imagine a world where everything slightly offensive to anyone has been removed? I'd die of boredom.

The sight of council-worker's-bum doesn't physically hurt me, it doesn't stop me from going about my normal day, it doesn't even truly offend me. I'd just prefer not to see it, so I move my damn eyeballs somewhere else and the problem is solved. (please note, I am NOT comparing breastfeeding to bum crack, I'm talking in general about things that a person may not wish to see)

Specific:
Stop comparing breastfeeding to other things. There's nothing it compares to, as it's a pretty unique function.
If someone has a problem with it, I see no reason why everyone else has to curb their behaviour when it truly has no impact on anyone else. If I'm wrong, I'd love to hear what kind of true impact it could possibly have, as I haven't heard of any yet.
The only possible thing I could think of to object to is the fact that breastmilk is a potentially bio-hazardous substance, but I haven't exactly heard of an epidemic of people being hit by flying breastmilk. When that happens, yes, breastfeeding should be done in private, as I would think I have more right to not be hit by the flying breastmilk than a mother does to breastfeed anywhere or a baby does to have instant food. Until it actually impacts me though, I get to look away, not insist they behave to my expectations.

Whoever said it was much nicer to accidently observe the back of a baby's head than hear the thing screaming its head off was right. The screaming actually impacts others, the quiet feeding does not.

Essured

11-17-2003, 01:07 AM

Also wanted to add that I don't understand asking for or demanding an apology. That sort of apology is meaningless, IMO. YMMV, of course.

sugaree

11-17-2003, 08:21 AM

Originally posted by XJETGIRLX
I am by no means a prude, but it seems that overall our culture has thrown manners by the wayside. There are many things that are by no means illegal, but are definitely what one might call 'indelicate behaviors' that manners would dictate be kept to the privacy of ones home, or at least done with a bit more discretion.

Perhaps manners have gone by the wayside, but thing I've noticed is that society has lost the place for the entire family. I don't want to see little kids in a movie theater anymore than any of you, but back in the day, let's say 500 years back and more, there was no place that you couldn't take Granny and all the kids. Now, no one wants to see a crying baby, and some people do not want to see a flash of naked breast, so the only alternative is to confine Mom and kid within their home.

What a great way to limit post-partum depression. Keep Mom completely out of society.

Truth Seeker

11-17-2003, 02:19 PM

Originally posted by Mtgman
When you butt into a discussion between lay people and start picking their statements apart trying to make them fit into the legal system you're not clarifying anything.
I never thought I'd get dissed on this board for supplying accurate and detailed information.

Here's the problem.

By establishing a public accommodation a business agrees they will not make "unreasonable" restrictions on public behavior in the space. Those ARE the rules, in more lawyer-y language, for anyone who wishes to nitpick.
This statement -- along with all the other similar ones you made -- is complete crap. It is not a "nitpick" to point out that this is a steaming pile rather than an accurate summary of existing U.S. law. Now you may not care but there may be others reading this thread who do want the straight dope.

As for "butting in," you're not having a conversation in a restaurant here. In posting on a public message board, it's more like standing on a soapbox preaching on a street corner. When you start spouting gibberish you're going to have to expect a few hecklers.

If you don't want to discuss legal tests or statutes, then stop publicly pontificating about the law. If you and like-minded folk want to have a private conversation to air your views on topics you know nothing about, that's your business. Just make sure y'all hit the stove when you spit.

Mtgman

11-17-2003, 04:52 PM

The statement you quoted is accurate. All you have to do to see this is realize that the word "unreasonable' means "the court will use a reasonableness test" only in your own mind. The rest of the population seems to have no problem with the statement since they are parsing it with the common denotations of the words. If you still dispute the accuracy of the statement please feel free to re-phrase your objection with the understanding that we are speaking of general principles instead of specific legal procedures.

The fact is a court can review the restrictions placed by the management/owner of a place of public accommodation and can throw them out if they feel it is warranted. If a business makes such restrictions and is found to have wronged the public by abridging some right, even if it was not previously explicitly protected, the owner/manager's restriction can be struck down and they can be punished. The only flaw in the statement you quoted is that it used the "reasonable" keyword(inherited from the layman's summary of King County law) which seemed to imply, at least to you, that the courts would use the legal construct known as a "reasonable test" to make the determination. Again, this is semantics, not substance.

If you wish to correct my pontifications about the law then do so on substantial, not semantic, grounds. The usage of the word "unreasonable" became an assertion about the tests a court of law would use only in your own mind. I am not responsible for your misinterpretations of my statements, and I would gladly have clarified that I wasn't referring to court procedures if you had only asked. I have pointed out more than once now that I was not referring to specific rules of procedure, but general principles. A business sets up a place of public accomodation. They agree to abide by the laws of the locale regarding civil rights and criminal issues(they can't grant their members immunity from murder if it was committed on their premises for instance). They also agree to submit their decisions regarding issues which are not explicitly prohibited/protected under existing law to a court for review if they are challenged. If the court finds them objectionable(substitute this for "unreasonable" in the above quoted segment if you feel it makes a difference), then the business owner agrees to end the practice and accept any punishment the legal process may mete out.

I have no general objection to people providing accurate and detailed information. In fact I greatly welcome it and I welcome criticism of substance. What I object to is unfounded criticism. Someone telling me that my statement is a "steaming pile" when the flaw is in their reading, not my writing. That I find objectionable.

Enjoy,
Steven

Truth Seeker

11-19-2003, 11:39 AM

mtgman, not having observed you to be particularly stupid in the past, I must not be explaining things sufficiently. The statement of yours I quoted is not accurate. Let me give an example using your own words.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Truth Seeker
The point here is that there is no "general reasonableness" standard in U.S. civil rights law. A business is free to require or prohibit any conduct it likes on its premises, so long as it does not discriminate against protected classes in doing so.

Bottom line: If your local diner owner goes 'round the bend and refuses to serve you (or anyone) unless you stand on your head and sing "Born to be Wild," you've got no case.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Unless I take offense at being asked to sing "Born to be Wild" while standing on my head. If I file an action against the owner for making this a stipulation of service and a court decides that no one should ever be asked such a thing, using whatever reasoning they care to use, then the owner's restriction on what behavior he can require in his resturant is null and void.
If you file an action against the owner on these facts, I can tell you the outcome right now. Regardless of how offensive he thinks it is, the judge will say, "If you don't want to sing "Born to Be Wild" while standing on your head, eat somewhere else. Now get out of my courtroom. Next!"

You do not understand how U.S. courts work or what they do. I could explain in more detail, I suppose, but it would require the use of "lawyer-y language" and I don't want you to break out in a rash.

To sum up, you have no right to patronize any particular business. So long as he does not illegally discriminate, the owner can serve, or not serve, anyone he chooses. Since no business owner has any legal obligation1 to serve any particular person, no U.S. court will attempt to determine whether those decisions are offensive, unreasonable or even simply arbitrary.

In any event, this has become a hijack. I suggest you open a new thread if you actually want to understand how these things work. While I only have a passing familiarity with U.S. law in this area, I'm sure it will attract the attention of other, more expert dopers as well.

1 Once again, there are some limited exceptions to this, e.g., common carriers.

Green Cymbeline

11-19-2003, 05:53 PM

Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic
What's "disgusting" about a mother feeding a baby? What kind of fuckhead gets upset about it?
I am very sorry, but I think it's gross for a woman to whip out her tits in public. I'm a woman and I would never do that. Why can't these women either a) pump their breasts and feed the baby with a bottle or b) find a more private spot to do it so people don't have to see her milk-engorged breasts while they are trying to eat? Why must they insist on doing in in front of everyone?

What I don't get is, when most women cringe at bearing their breasts in public when not breast feeding, why is it suddenly just fine and dandy if there's a baby involved? Please, oh, please will someone answer this? And please don't give me some line like "it's a natural thing..." Blech.

Green Cymbeline

11-19-2003, 06:01 PM

Originally posted by angelicate
A lot of women are not able to produce enough milk through pumping, in a reasonable amount of time, to want to prepare a bottle each time you have to leave the house. Also, speaking from my own personal experience, and from knowing other women with exclusively breastfed babies, a lot of them will not take a bottle. It is not what they're used to and they don't like it, and instead of eating, they will scream.
Dude, come on, I don't buy that. I know many women who have no problem pumping their breasts and keeping a supply in the refirgerator. And if they had done this from the beginning, there is no reason the baby should shun a bottle. Lots of babies feed from both bottle and breast with no problem.

Green Cymbeline

11-19-2003, 06:08 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Twiddle
As a breastfeeding mom who does nurse in public frequently (my walking, talking 15-month-old - horrors! :rolleyes: )/QUOTE]
Why is a 15-month-old still being breastfed? Um, aren't they weaned off the teet by that age? Can you imagine having memories of sucking on your mother's breast? A kid that old is old enough to remember that. I am very sorry, Twiddle, but in this day and age that just strikes me as odd. And why would you want to do that to yourself...have a walking, talking child suck on your breasts and keep your milk flowing for over a year after he's born? Flame me if you will, but that is something I hope I never, ever see.

Daisy Mae

11-19-2003, 06:44 PM

Originally posted by nyctea scandiaca
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Twiddle
As a breastfeeding mom who does nurse in public frequently (my walking, talking 15-month-old - horrors! :rolleyes: )/QUOTE]
Why is a 15-month-old still being breastfed? Um, aren't they weaned off the teet by that age? Can you imagine having memories of sucking on your mother's breast? A kid that old is old enough to remember that. I am very sorry, Twiddle, but in this day and age that just strikes me as odd. And why would you want to do that to yourself...have a walking, talking child suck on your breasts and keep your milk flowing for over a year after he's born? Flame me if you will, but that is something I hope I never, ever see.

I hope you also never see someone who believes in "Attachment Parenting" Many of them breast feed their children until they are 3, 4, even 5 years old. Tis gross.

belladonna

11-19-2003, 07:24 PM

Oh good, fodder for another four pages! :rolleyes:

I am very sorry, but I think it's gross for a woman to whip out her tits in public.
Good thing, because I've never seen a breastfeeding mother "whip out" her breasts in my entire life. Seriously. Where do you live that this even comes close to representitive of the process? You make it sound as if breastfeeding involves standing on the table, tearing off your shirt, shaking your breasts in opposing circles all while wearing a flaming hat and singing Yankee Doodle Dandee at the top of your lungs.

when most women cringe at bearing their breasts in public when not breast feeding, why is it suddenly just fine and dandy if there's a baby involved?
Because there's a baby involved, you twit. A baby that is likely fussy or rooting, squirming or screaming, or any and all of the above because he is hungry. Many infants need to eat every two hours easily and when a baby is hungry, a good mother feeds him--regardless of those sacrifices she might have to make to do so. For breastfeeding mothers that means things like suffering through periodic bouts of sore nipples, allowing for a little bit of lost modesty, and having to put up with random ignoramouses like you.

Dude, come on, I don't buy that. I know many women who have no problem pumping their breasts and keeping a supply in the refirgerator.
Dude. What you will or will not buy really has no bearing whatsoever on the fabric of reality.
I am a breastfeeding mother. As such, I feed my baby every two to three hours. Pumping in between these feedings will produce maybe an ounce and can take up to thirty minutes. Even while I'm working and am able to pump twice a day with a number of hours in between I'm still lucky if I take home five ounces at the end of the day. So, from your font of apparently endless wisdom on this subject, where do you suggest I get the extra breastmilk from to prepare bottles?

Seems much more practical, rational, and convienent to me to just feed my baby in the manner to which we are both accustomed. If that bothers you, well--that makes me kind of happy to be honest. From your three ridiculous posts above I'm pretty sure that you're the type of person it would give me great pleasure to annoy.

keithnmick

11-19-2003, 08:44 PM

Phe. I'm not in the least offended by public breastfeeding. Let me state that first.
However, I can see how somebody could be.
Nakedness is viewed as taboo by our culture. The US was settled by Quakers from Europe who were strict puritans. Of course they would probably have little issue with breastfeeding - god's purpose...etc. Then we throw in some good old Victorian values - the time when curved table legs could be thought "improper". The miniskirt was considered shocking in the 60's. When I was a teenager (and I'm not thirty, quite yet) girls in high school rarely wore the kind of tight pants, thongs, belly shirts and various obvious piercings you can see at the mall these days.
A woman exposing her breast so that a baby can suck milk out of it? I guess I can accept that a reactionary, old fashioned, outspoken busybody WOULD be offended.
I'm certainly not, and I think breast feeding is perfectly fine in a restaurant, at the gym, on the bus, at the bowling alley, hanging from the monkey bars and on the bouncy castle.

Mtgman

11-20-2003, 11:54 AM

My personal feeling is that public breastfeeding is considered "icky" or inappropriate by various people primarially because of the sexualization of the breasts in western culture. As with most things which are used for sexual gratification a taboo has grown up around them. This taboo does not exist elsewhere, for example, in some of the native tribes of Africa. Remember the old National Geographic magazines? They would go to Africa and find these isolated tribes and the women didn't even wear tops, didn't consider the breasts even immodest. They covered their bottoms, but the tops just hung out. Breasts were no big deal.

Take a look at some of the comments in the thread. Look at how the breast is described by the people who find it inappropriate to breastfeed in public. As an "udder" or a "milk-engorged breast" or with some other appelation which negatively describes the, normally attractive, breast. Breasts are supposed to be attractive, and when bared they are supposed to signal sexual activity. Breastfeeding is kind of like a tiny coitus interruptus for these people. They see a boob, think "Yea SEX!" and then see a baby latch on to the boob and now they(except the tiny minority who find breastfeeding incredibly sexy, and let's please, PLEASE not go there!) have to reign in the sexual impulse. That isn't pleasant in most cases.Originally posted by Truth Seeker
mtgman, not having observed you to be particularly stupid in the past, I must not be explaining things sufficiently.Oh I've been plenty stupid in the past. :) I'll probably be plenty stupid in the future too. :) I'm not being stupid in the present though. I think I've got my hands on the last issue which seems to be the root of the disconnect between us. We both understand the issue just fine, but we're arguing at different levels. I'm going hypothetical, and you're going practical. Let's look at the example you just quoted.Originally posted by MtgmanOriginally posted by Truth Seeker
The point here is that there is no "general reasonableness" standard in U.S. civil rights law. A business is free to require or prohibit any conduct it likes on its premises, so long as it does not discriminate against protected classes in doing so.

Bottom line: If your local diner owner goes 'round the bend and refuses to serve you (or anyone) unless you stand on your head and sing "Born to be Wild," you've got no case.Unless I take offense at being asked to sing "Born to be Wild" while standing on my head. If I file an action against the owner for making this a stipulation of service and a court decides that no one should ever be asked such a thing, using whatever reasoning they care to use, then the owner's restriction on what behavior he can require in his resturant is null and void. To which you repliedOriginally posted by Truth Seeker
If you file an action against the owner on these facts, I can tell you the outcome right now. Regardless of how offensive he thinks it is, the judge will say, "If you don't want to sing "Born to Be Wild" while standing on your head, eat somewhere else. Now get out of my courtroom. Next!"Re-read my statement again and show me where I said a court would rule against the owner. The odds against such a ruling are very high, but there is nothing in the mechanics of the law which would make it an impossibility. In the texts of the law, and in precedent, and other things, there are plenty of rules which make it a virtual impossibility. Still, the mechanics of the situation is what I was getting at, not an assertion about a particular hypothetical situation. Arguing what would or would not happen if a resturant owner demanded patrons stand on their heads and sing "Born to be Wild" is not as interesting, or relevant, as arguing what COULD happen.

Thirty years or so ago a woman was ejected from a public pool for breastfeeding. There was no law explicitly protecting(and thus granting "right" status) to breastfeeding in public. Breastfeeding is a natural activity, healthy, reasonably hygenic, and is not lewd. The court found a right, previously unprotected, to breastfeed. The owner's restrictions were struck down and they were punished.

There is nothing inherent in the "Born to be Wild" case which would protect it from a similar fate. There is nothing in the mechanics of the judicial system which make it an impossibility either. It is higly unlikely, given the current realities and laws, but it is not impossible.

Enjoy,
Steven

Incubus

11-20-2003, 12:50 PM

People's attitudes are slow to change with laws/rights (sometimes they never change). I wouldn't be surprised if it were just easier for places like BK to start offering more private seating (not for the breastfeeding moms, but for the whiners who can't stand to see it).

And what's so wierd about finding a woman breastfeeding sexy? Is giving birth unsexy? Is pregnancy unsexy? Is conception unsexy?

Stonebow

11-20-2003, 01:37 PM

Originally posted by Incubus
Is giving birth unsexy?

Um...yes. It is. I know...I was in the room.

No to all of the others, though.

*shudder*

Mtgman

11-20-2003, 02:56 PM

Didn't say it was weird. Just didn't want to turn this thread into a TMI thread about fetishes involving lactation. It has been hijacked sufficiently already IMHO :)

Enjoy,
Steven

Unauthorized Cinnamon

11-20-2003, 09:21 PM

People who:

Refer to women "whipping out a breast" in order to breastfeed
Complain about seeing the naked breast of a nursing mother
Suggest that nursing moms "simply" pump and use bottles
Suggest that babies be fed bottles of cow's milk (especially these people)

are only showing their ignorance.

In other circumstances, I've let complete strangers gaze upon my entirely naked body, yet even I don't "whip out" my breasts to nurse. I know of nobody who does so. On the contrary, the nursing moms I know are generally modest, as well as frightened to death that some boor will give them crap for feeding their hungry babies.

Public nursing does not really involve exposure of the breast in most cases. In order to even see a sliver of breast, you'd have to be within a foot of the mother, and looking down on her. From a normal point of view, a nursing mother pretty much looks like she's holding a sleeping baby in her lap.

To co-opt CrazyCatLady's analogy, it would be like a restaurant patron at the next table scooting their chair up next to yours and craning their neck to eavesdrop on your quiet conversation, then demanding that you be made to stop, because you're offending them.

Even though some women can pump, and some nursing babies take bottles, there are many who can't do these things. And even if you can, it is a huge investment of time and effort to pump enough milk, store it, transport it at a safe temperature, bring it to a potable temperature, and feed the baby. Then you have to wash and sterilize the pump and bottle as well. It is not the equivalent of throwing some Cheerios into a Tupperware, as some people seem to think.

Finally, if you are so uninformed as to suggest that an infant be fed cow's milk, you just need to stay out of any discussion of breastfeeding until you've done some basic homework.

On a different note, the way our society is set up, either women need to be able to nurse in public, or they would have to seriously curtail their normal activities. Babies do not get hungry according to adult schedules, so there's no way to do basic errands without sometime needing to feed the baby. And most establishments don't provide decent accomodations for nursing that are private. Trust me, when I'm at Nordstrom, I use their lovely private lounge to nurse. A fast food restaurant bathroom is not an appropriate place to feed an infant, so nursing moms who want to grab a bite while out don't have much alternative than the dining room.

I think breastfeeding provides enough of a public health benefit that it deserves some protection, and the irrational discomfort of some should be overriden. Fortunately, most states have come to the same conclusion.

milroyj

11-20-2003, 11:06 PM

Originally posted by AerynSun
On a different note, the way our society is set up, either women need to be able to nurse in public, or they would have to seriously curtail their normal activities. Babies do not get hungry according to adult schedules, so there's no way to do basic errands without sometime needing to feed the baby. And most establishments don't provide decent accomodations for nursing that are private. Trust me, when I'm at Nordstrom, I use their lovely private lounge to nurse. A fast food restaurant bathroom is not an appropriate place to feed an infant, so nursing moms who want to grab a bite while out don't have much alternative than the dining room.

I understand what you're saying, but do they really need to breastfeed during the 15-20 minutes they're likely to be in Burger King? They can't breastfeed before, or after, in private? I can't imagine someone breastfeeding say, at a court appearance, or a job interview, on a hot date, or at a funeral, so why is it necessary at the BK Lounge?

Gary Kumquat

11-21-2003, 05:52 AM

Originally posted by milroyj
I understand what you're saying, but do they really need to breastfeed during the 15-20 minutes they're likely to be in Burger King?
Take it up with the baby. They tend to be the ones who decide when they're hungry. I find it faily amazing...nah, actually I find it typical of your logic that you'd rather a baby went hungry than your delicates sensibilities be offended.

Here's a tip - try looking away.

TeaElle

11-21-2003, 03:00 PM

To follow up on Gary Kumquat, you cannot force a baby to nurse "before" you go somewhere for someone else's convenience. They eat when they're hungry. Not before, not after. They do not have the ability to use "foresight" to know that they should eat now because they won't be able to later, and they do not have the ability to wait.

As for how long a child should nurse, the WHO recommendation states that children should be nursed for at least 12 months. Nursing a child until he weans himself -- which can happen at any age, and largely depends on other factors, many of them emotional -- isn't at all unusual for those committed to giving their child the greatest amount of the benefit possible, and is de rigeur outside of the industrialized countries where the longer a child nurses, the better chance he has at surviving his childhood.

The wonderful thing about breastmilk is that it changes in composition as a child ages, and depending upon the frequency of nursing. Even a 24 month old, who is walking and talking and doing all kinds of things on his own can derive benefits from nursing, both nutritional and emotional.

Once again, opponents are failing to come up with any argument against public nursing that doesn't include words like "blech." Face it folks, your position is bankrupt. Your mores are whacked. If you want to go get offended about some breasts, call Pamela Anderson, and leave the eating babies out of your head games.

alice_in_wonderland

11-21-2003, 03:39 PM

I had no idea there were so many people that were so prudish here.

If you're grossed out by breast-feeding, fine. I just find it very, very odd.

It seems as demented as a person that I used to know that was offended by Bonsai trees. Cruel to the tree or somesuch.

Bizarre.

angelicate

11-21-2003, 05:35 PM

Originally posted by nyctea scandiaca
Dude, come on, I don't buy that. I know many women who have no problem pumping their breasts and keeping a supply in the refirgerator. And if they had done this from the beginning, there is no reason the baby should shun a bottle. Lots of babies feed from both bottle and breast with no problem.

Dude, whether you buy it or not doesn't matter.
So lots of babies feed from bottle and breast with no problems. My daughter wouldn't take a bottle until she was 7 months old. We could feed her with a bottle, but it mostly consisted of her fighting it and swallowing the milk that happened to fall into her mouth. I left her with a babysitter once, and she wouldn't take a bottle the entire time I was gone. We started to introduce a bottle at about 1 month, it took 6 months for her to decide that bottles were okay.
So you know many women who are able to pump and freeze, what does that mean? It means that you know women who have no problem pumping. I know a lot of women who pump and freeze as well. I also, as a nursing mom who is in a couple of support groups for nursing women, know of many women who simply cannot produce milk for a pump, or can't produce enough to make it worth their while.
I had no problem whatsoever feeding my daughter. When it came to pumping, I'd have to sit there pumping for half an hour to get a 6 ounce bottle. Electric pumps are supposed to be better, but good ones run upwards of $200. Do I have an extra $200 so that I can buy a piece of equiptment that I'll rarely use? No. Are you going to give it to me, so that I can give my chld a bottle when I'm in public? No? Didn't think so.
What is the reason to do that from the beginning anyhow? I can understand if you are a working mother who needs to get your baby used to a bottle, but as a mom who had the option of staying home, there was absolutely no reason for my daughter to drink from a bottle, especially when pumping was such a pain and nursing was so easy.

Believe me, when I took my daughter out in public and she got hungry, the last thing I wanted to do was cause a scene. The last thing I wanted was some asshole coming up to me and calling me names and berating me because they happened to catch a tiny glimpse of chest flesh. I usually fed my daughter in changing rooms, but if there wasn't one available, and the only other choice was the restroom, you'd better believe she was getting fed wherever I could sit comfortably and be somewhat away from people. I spent a lot of dinners in the back booth at restaurants.

How about next time you see a woman nursing her baby in a restaurant, and it offends your delicate sensibilities, you take your dinner and go sit, fully clothed, on the public toilet, amidst the smells and general atmosphere of a public restroom, and see how well you enjoy your meal. This is ridiculous.

Daisy Mae

11-21-2003, 07:21 PM

Originally posted by AerynSun
People who:

Refer to women "whipping out a breast" in order to breastfeed
Complain about seeing the naked breast of a nursing mother
Suggest that nursing moms "simply" pump and use bottles
Suggest that babies be fed bottles of cow's milk (especially these people)

are only showing their ignorance.

In other circumstances, I've let complete strangers gaze upon my entirely naked body, yet even I don't "whip out" my breasts to nurse. I know of nobody who does so. On the contrary, the nursing moms I know are generally modest, as well as frightened to death that some boor will give them crap for feeding their hungry babies.

Just because you don't know of anyone who "whips out" their breast to nurse and all the nursing moms you know are modest, doesn't make it so for everyone. To assume that anyone who disagrees with you is "ignorant" is quite ignorant as well.

I'm a nurse and tend to notice when people are doing things of a medical nature in public, and I have seen many women "whip out" their bare breast with no regard for anyone else and feed their child. I've seen this in airports, restaurants, the DMV, and several other places as well. And no, it isn't just in racy Las Vegas where I live. I've seen it in the midwest where I am originally from and down south as well.

Originally posted by TeaElle
Once again, opponents are failing to come up with any argument against public nursing that doesn't include words like "blech." Face it folks, your position is bankrupt. Your mores are whacked. If you want to go get offended about some breasts, call Pamela Anderson, and leave the eating babies out of your head games.

Opponents of what??? Personally, I've never said women *should not* be able to breast feed in public. And the last time I checked, I'm entitled to my right to an opinion the same as women are entitled to their right to breast feed so I don't need to come up with any argument for how I perceive anything. And head games? Ehhh, wtf? How on EARTH is saying that someone doesn't really like seeing a nursing child a head game? I think some people in this post are making wayyyyyy too much out of this whole thing.

My position is simply that I find it thoroughly absurd to *demand* an apology and I find it funnier when people think a forced apology isn't *good enough.* How on earth can ANYONE be comforted by an apology you have to force someone to give you? Either they are sorry or they are not.

I've seen women who are modest and discreet when feeding their child, and I've seen women who are vulgar and rude when feeding their child. I wasn't dining at Burger King the night this happened, and I dare say that none of you were either so no one is able to say which category this woman fell into. To sit here and be snotty and snide with people over a situation none of us has real details about is pretty ridiculous. I've seen people calling each other ignorant, without morals, prudish, etc etc over a difference of opinion. So far, I don't recall anyone saying it should be against the law or that the woman should have been FORCED to leave the restaurant or go into the restroom.

To me, it isn't much different than being at dinner one night with my friend who is a diabetic and was testing her blood sugar. The sight of it was making another patron a little squeamish so the waitress asked her to do it in private. No big deal. After all, we're talking about bodily fluids. Breast milk is a bodily fluid and it can be a matter of being sanitary. A mother who is HIV positive can pass that to her child through breast milk. Maybe it's because I'm a nurse, and to me I can see where anything "bodily" can fall under the medical category and make anyone uncomfortable. I guess I'm a little too considerate because if I were making someone uncomfortable, I'm not above removing myself from a situation and handling my business in private. Some people simply are not worried about such things.

milroyj

11-21-2003, 08:16 PM

Originally posted by TeaElle
To follow up on Gary Kumquat, you cannot force a baby to nurse "before" you go somewhere for someone else's convenience. They eat when they're hungry. Not before, not after.

They eat when they're hungry, I see. What if they're hungry in Church, or at Grandma's funeral? Do they eat then, too?

Or what if Mom is driving? Surely breastfeeding Moms take car trips as long as 15-20 minutes. Does baby eat then?

fatmac98

11-21-2003, 11:39 PM

It may be legal for mommy to whip it out and start chow time, and it's also legal for me to be offended, and to run the hell out of that restaurant and never come back. . .

FTR, the wife is pregnant, and feeding time will be done at HOME, or in private.

Farmwoman

11-22-2003, 06:53 AM

I am one of those nursing women who demanded a managerial apology under similar circumstances.

I could have made my baby wait.
I could have gone to the toilet to feed him.
I could have let the illegal harrassment stand unchallenged.
I could have left the place humiliated.

I decided instead to take a stand against the kind of ignorance I see on this thread. It's not about my rights, or my baby's rights, or your comfort level. It's not about my discretion or lack thereof. It's about my desire to make a change in our screwed-up cultural mindset that fails to see the irony when a loud-mouthed drunk sitting under a wet t-shirt titty poster in a sports bar can loudly protest against a woman nursing a baby between bites at a nearby table... feeding her baby as babies are supposed to be fed. It's about normalizing public breastfeeding by educating one ignorant restaurant staff at a time. It's about feminism, the celebration of women's bodies doing exactly what they are designed to do, and about occasionally letting our wimmin folk leave home and walk around out in public...even if they do have a babe in arms.

Seriously, after nursing my first for 32 months and my second for 6 (and counting), this has become a non-issue for me.

Unless, of course, someone wants to make it an issue. Then I'll be glad to brush off my activist's cape.

Farmwoman

11-22-2003, 07:00 AM

fatmac98, better keep your wife away from women like me. She may end up nursing your child and living a normal life...you know, like going shopping, or to church, or out to eat. Oh, wait. According to manufacturers of artificial baby milk, only bottle feeding mothers can do those things.

Have her email me if you dare.

wring

11-22-2003, 11:37 AM

Originally posted by milroyj
They eat when they're hungry, I see. What if they're hungry in Church, or at Grandma's funeral? Do they eat then, too?

Or what if Mom is driving? Surely breastfeeding Moms take car trips as long as 15-20 minutes. Does baby eat then?

if hungry baby isn't being fed, hungry baby then cries. loudly.

and constantly.

So, apparently, you wish to require that the mommy that put your delicate sensabilities over the needs of her child.

yet, if she refrains from feeding her child and the child then starts screaming and crying, the manager will yet again be called to have her 'do something' to stifle the child's noise, because again, of the needs of the other patrons.

perhaps you should only go to 'adults only' Burger Kings in the future, so that your comfort level will be maintained.

El Cid Viscoso

11-22-2003, 02:54 PM

(http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=534&ncid=534&e=6&u=/ap/20031122/ap_on_bi_ge/breast_feeding)SALT LAKE CITY - Burger King adopted a corporate policy Friday allowing women to breast-feed their babies in restaurants — a day before a threatened "nurse-in" at the fast-food chain's facilities. Also from the article: "[Rob] Doughty [vice president for strategic communications] said Burger King's new policy had been in the works and wasn't timed to defuse the threatened protest."

Riiiiiiight.

milroyj

11-22-2003, 03:20 PM

Originally posted by wring
So, apparently, you wish to require that the mommy that put your delicate sensabilities over the needs of her child.

So, apparently, it's about Farmwoman's feminist political crap.

Five pages of claims about the absolute need to feed that child within the fifteen minutes at BK--gotta feed the baby when he's hungry, right? No political agenda, right? Just think of the children! Bullshit.

perhaps you should only go to 'adults only' Burger Kings in the future, so that your comfort level will be maintained.

Apparently that's no longer possible, according to Mr. B's link. Ah, well. While I did like their flame-broiled burgers, ever since they changed their french fries I haven't been going anyway, so no loss to me.

wring

11-22-2003, 03:34 PM

Apparently you wish to deny the mother the opportunity to feed her child 'cause it'd offend you. And that some how is a feminist agenda? probably liberal too.

I'm sure BUrger King will regret the loss of you as a customer.

By the way, my company has a similar policy to BK's, so, you'll want to avoid us, too. Darn the bad luck.

Tinkertoy

11-22-2003, 03:52 PM

If you come to Idaho stay out of the libraries on friday. During story time at our small library you'll see at least three mommies breast feeding. We bought rocking chairs to make them comfortable.

milroyj

11-22-2003, 04:05 PM

Originally posted by wring
Apparently you wish to deny the mother the opportunity to feed her child 'cause it'd offend you. And that some how is a feminist agenda? probably liberal too.

You, and others, have been claiming that public breastfeeding is done in the child's best interest. They have to eat when they are hungry, immediately, apparently. Farmwoman's post suggests other reasons, i.e., to to further a loony lefty political theory. It's dishonest to insist that public breastfeeding is done in the best interest of the child, when that is not necessarily the case, at least as far as FW is concerned.

Lying liars and the liars who tell them, indeed.

wring

11-22-2003, 04:16 PM

actually, I've claimed nothing of the sort- merely that mothers have the right to feed their children in restaurants. gads what will us liberals demand next?

as for the 'lie', comment - you, along w/the rest who leap to use that word apparently have difficulty with the English language, since I've not posted anything that remotely constitutes a lie. I may disagree with your prudishness, but that doesn't make me (or anyone else) a liar.

Bucky

11-22-2003, 04:25 PM

I hope I'm not repeating anyone, but the original story is unclear. Was the woman a patron/customer of the BK in question at the time? If not, she actually doesn't meet the legal standing of having a right to be there in the first place. it is pretty accepted that you don't have a legal right to hang out in a restaurant without buying something. She probably was a customer, but I hadn't seen anyone else mention this as a possible issue.

As for "you have no right to be offended," voices, please consider how hyprocritical and close-minded THAT is. I'm sure that you know that we have different cultures and different upbringings in this world. That doesn't mean that we get to ACT on our worldviews in every instance. But to tell me that I may NOT be offended is about like saying I MUST believe such-and-such. I find that far more offensive than someone's being disturbed by breast-feeding. Should they keep it to themselves if it bothers them? Legally, yes. If they don't know the woman, again yes. But can any of us tell them that they have NO RIGHT to feel the way they feel? Try that shoe on the other foot; it's quite uncomfortable.

wring

11-22-2003, 04:37 PM

once again - by poking fun at some one for being prudish about breast feeding, I don't believe I'm telling them they've no right to feel what they're feeling. They're silly, yes, but they've got a right to be silly.

they can indeed 'feel' whatever they wish. However, their feelings don't trump the need of a mother to feed her child.

Farmwoman

11-22-2003, 04:37 PM

Farmwoman's post suggests other reasons, i.e., to to further a loony lefty political theory.

Wrong milroyj.

I was feeding my baby in his interest. I chose to make a stink about illegal harrassment in the interest of society as a whole.

While I'm not going to compare myself to a Freedom Rider, it's a little like the difference between sitting at the lunch counter because you're hungry and want a burger and sitting there in the face of conflict because you want to affect change.

Most people consider me right of center.

milroyj

11-22-2003, 05:04 PM

Originally posted by wring
However, their feelings don't trump the need of a mother to feed her child.

No one has provided any evidence of a NEED to breastfeed a child in public, let alone in the fifteen minutes they are in a fast food restaurant. Can't they breastfeed before, or after, in private?

Farmwoman, on the other hand, has provided evidence that public breastfeeding is not entirely done for nutritional reasons, but also to express her "feminism". That's the lie I was referring to, that it's ONLY done for the child. Couch it in terms of "feeding the children" as much as you like, but some people are doing it to make a political point. LaLeche League, anyone, and their proposed "nurse-in"?

Nice way for them to use their own children to promote their beliefs, btw.

fessie

11-22-2003, 05:05 PM

So if you folks are so upset about bare breasts, do you avoid beaches? Have you sworn off porn? Staying away from Renaissance paintings? If a pretty, braless girl's blouse opens by accident on a windy day, do you avert your eyes in embarrassment?

Or if it's the act of feeding that's so disturbing, do you eschew the mammals at the zoo? Heaven help you if you happen across a display of bonobo, one of the great apes; I've seen females of that species engaging in autoerotic acts with great relish and no abandon.

It's just so peculiar that people are perfectly fine with overtly sexual displays of female anatomy, but are offended by utilitarian acts. It just doesn't make sense. Breasts are there for feeding babies.

I will agree that discretion is a good idea, as it's always preferable to be discreet in public, regardless of the act in which one is engaged. Hardly any public behavior is improved by being made more blatant.

milroyj

11-22-2003, 05:14 PM

Originally posted by fessie
I will agree that discretion is a good idea, as it's always preferable to be discreet in public, regardless of the act in which one is engaged. Hardly any public behavior is improved by being made more blatant.

And breastfeeding at BK is indiscreet, at best.

fessie

11-22-2003, 05:15 PM

milroyj, I'm wondering how you feel about public urinals. It seems their design makes it possible to catch a peek at another man's genitals. Unless you think men should all just wait until they get home to pee in private.

And apparently gyms should never have showers.

What you're not considering about the fast-food restaurant scenario is that it's unlikely a mom left home with the express intention of going only to Burger King in order to tantalize fellow diners with her breastfeeding. It's more likely that a mom would be running a number of errands and would make a beeline for a cheap restaurant when her baby showed signs of being hungry.

milroyj

11-22-2003, 05:18 PM

Originally posted by fessie
It's more likely that a mom would be running a number of errands and would make a beeline for a cheap restaurant when her baby showed signs of being hungry.

Well, that makes no sense, unless she is going to feed the infant Double Whoppers with Cheese. How about a beeline to a private place?

belladonna

11-22-2003, 06:41 PM

Sure milroy, because the world is just teeming with free, private, comfortable places open to any and all mothers who might want to come in to breastfeed their child. I've even heard they have free HBO and monkey butlers to serve frosty cold beverages.

milroyj

11-22-2003, 06:56 PM

Why don't they feed the little rugrat, you know, at home? Monkey butlers optional.

belladonna

11-22-2003, 07:24 PM

Are you serious?

I do have to leave my house sometimes, you know. Hell, sometimes I go places just because I want to, with no pressing need involved. Do you really think when I'm out with my sons for a day of errands, or shopping, or just hanging out at the park, I'm going to drive thirty or more minutes home just to spend ten minutes feeding him? You honestly, in the most objective corner of your mind, feel like that is a reasonable request? Christ on a cracker man, that's barely one step above the old belief that mothers and babies should never go anywhere.
If you really truly have such a problem with the thought that a breastfeeding mother might need to feed her child while she is out, I can't help but think that you should perhaps consider relocating to somewhere like Afghanistan or South Asia--I hear they really know how to keep their women in line there... :dubious:

TeaElle

11-22-2003, 07:59 PM

Originally posted by milroyj
They eat when they're hungry, I see. What if they're hungry in Church, or at Grandma's funeral? Do they eat then, too?

Yes they do. At my church, there is a little LED sign on the wall up above the choir. If a child in the nursery needs mommy, to eat or because they are otherwise inconsolable, the nursery workers put mommy's assigned number up on the LED, and she knows to go to the nursery to attend to her child. There is a monitor in the nursery so that we are able to hear the service while we're there.

However, there are more than a couple of women in my church who choose not to use the nursery, for whatever reason, and they have sat and nursed their infants right in the sanctuary. They took their cue on this directly from our pastor's wife, who has done this with all of their children (up to about 6 months) with the support and approval of her husband. I am one of those mothers. My older child goes to the nursery now, but my son stays with me and if he starts to fuss, I will nurse him. I have had nothing but approval from others in our congregation for this, as well.

Originally posted by milroyj
Or what if Mom is driving? Surely breastfeeding Moms take car trips as long as 15-20 minutes. Does baby eat then?

First of all, most nursing moms who drive alone with their babies plan the car trips around the times when they know the baby is going to eat.

This is one of the reasons why we nurse when we stop to eat lunch after running our errands, etc. We're sitting, we're somewhere reasonably clean, we're relaxed (this is important for good flow of milk), we've got access to food and beverages (also important) and if it's not the lunchtime rush, the chances are good that we'll be able to comfortably spend the time that baby will need to get a good feeding before we get back into the car.

And once we're in the car, if the baby is screaming and clearly in great distress because he's hungry, the smart mother (who doesn't want her child to suffer and wants to preserve her own hearing) will pull over and feed the baby. That's just a no-brainer.

When I read stuff like "why don't they feed their babies at home" and objections to stances like Farmwoman's as some kind of "feminist" agenda-pushing, I become highly suspcious that the argument isn't about the supposed "indiscretion" of public breastfeeding or about how "uncomfortable" it makes people, it's about controlling women's lives. It's about telling women, mothers, that our place is not out in public. It's about telling us that like our predecessors of old, who couldn't even use words like pregnancy or breastfeeding, who spent the second halves of their pregnancies and first year of their children's lives in societally enforced confinement, we need to be ashamed of reproducing and feeding and nurturing our children and need to keep all evidence of having done so behind closed doors.

No way I'll ever stand for that. No way I'll ever let anyone control my life in that way, to demean the care of my child in that way, to attempt to turn the clock back on all women in that way. No way will I ever let anyone tell me and my child that we are unwelcome in "polite" society.

However you want to label that stance, go for it. Labels don't matter to me.

Troglodytic attempts to cloister me certainly do.

belladonna

11-22-2003, 08:06 PM

Well said TeaElle--I couldn't agree more.

Unauthorized Cinnamon

11-22-2003, 08:58 PM

TeaElle said it beautifully.

Let me just add that yes, I have pulled over twice to feed my four-month-old, and once while my husband was driving and we were in a traffic jam, I fed her while she was still strapped into her carseat. Hungry babies demand to be fed, very loudly and persistently. Additionally, most babies have phases when they will eat, seem full, and then need to eat again within 15-20 minutes.

As Farmwoman and TeaElle have said, to avoid public breastfeeding, one has two options: formula, which is not recommended by the AAP, or total confinement within the home until the baby is at least six month old, which is rather insane in a society that supposedly treats women as equal human beings.

milroyj

11-22-2003, 10:54 PM

Originally posted by TeaElle
Yes they do. At my church, there is a little LED sign on the wall up above the choir. If a child in the nursery needs mommy, to eat or because they are otherwise inconsolable, the nursery workers put mommy's assigned number up on the LED, and she knows to go to the nursery to attend to her child. There is a monitor in the nursery so that we are able to hear the service while we're there.

However, there are more than a couple of women in my church who choose not to use the nursery, for whatever reason, and they have sat and nursed their infants right in the sanctuary.

Eating in the nursery would meet the definition of nursery. But eating in the sanctuary??? How vulgar.

To wit:

"lacking in cultivation, perception, or taste: COARSE"

"morally crude, undeveloped, or unregenerate: GROSS"

"lewdly or profanely indecent: OBSCENE"

By the very definition of vulgar, breastfeeding in a church sanctuary is definitely coarse, most likely gross, and may or may not be obscene.

Guinastasia

11-22-2003, 11:06 PM

By the very definition of vulgar, breastfeeding in a church sanctuary is definitely coarse, most likely gross, and may or may not be obscene.

Oooh, then some churches better take down statues and paintings of the Madonna breastfeeding the Christ child!

:rolleyes:

Breasts are NOT obscene. THAT is what they are for-to feed a child. What could be LESS obscene than a mother feeding her baby?

I swear, some of you people have really dirty minds, you know that? Especially you, milroyj. What the hell is WRONG with you?

Sonyadora

11-22-2003, 11:32 PM

Those of you who feel the need to ask nursing mothers to hide in a closet somewhere, I have four words for you:

Grow. The. Fuck. Up.

milroyj

11-22-2003, 11:43 PM

Breastfeeding in the Church sancutary is coarse, and gross, see above.

Kat

11-22-2003, 11:55 PM

So, then, breasfeeding mothers who belong to churches without a private nursery are supposed to stop attending services, I suppose?

TeaElle

11-23-2003, 05:17 AM

Well, let's see, I could take my pastor and co-cocongregants' opinions on the "coarseness" and "grossness" of nursing my child while continuing to be a part of the worship services at my church, or I could take milroyj's.

Guess whose I give more credence? :rolleyes:

belladonna

11-23-2003, 09:03 AM

Heh, I nursed my son at his own baptism. He was sick that day and otherwise inconsolable and his screaming was interrupting the service. No way was I taking him outside during his own blessing mass. Afterwards in the greeting line, I had three different older women comment on how good it was to see so many new mothers going back to the breast, and how well-bonded the baby and I seemed, and how "lovely" a new baby looked nursing. It made me feel proud.

I guess I could have hunkered down in the bathroom (denying its use to everyone else in doing so), or gone out onto the patio (in broad daylight, how shocking!), or even just fed him at home (In my prim and proper confinement) on the off chance that milroy or someone who thinks like him was present and horrified by my acts.

But that's the great thing about stupid, unreasonable, and completely inappropriate opinions--they make the people who have them really easy to disregard.

Zabali_Clawbane

11-23-2003, 01:17 PM

milroyj You have the right to your OPINIONS. I have the right to believe differently than you. I also have the right to tell you to LOOK THE OTHER WAY, if some act offends you so much, but the act is not illegal.

You are just as self righteous as that prep who told me I "had" to cover my wound because the sight of it offended her. She actually felt that her "emotional" discomfort somehow was more important than my MEDICAL need to keep the wound dry!

Here's the news, emotional needs in this case do NOT rank higher than physical needs, which eating is, much as you try to trivialize it, and pounce on a breastfeeder's words to shred them.

Get over it, try to mature, or never have children, because you WILL be face to face with these issues if you do. I'd like to see you try to tell a new mom not to do the things to nurture her child that every fiber of her being is telling her to do. You'd not fare well I'd posit. If you did suceed in "keeping your wife in line", than I pity your wife, and child(ren).

milroyj

11-23-2003, 01:43 PM

Originally posted by Zabali_Clawbane
milroyj You have the right to your OPINIONS. I have the right to believe differently than you. I also have the right to tell you to LOOK THE OTHER WAY, if some act offends you so much, but the act is not illegal.

It's been argued in other threads that if one's actions (or even thoughts) are offensive to another person, one should stop doing/believing it. In fact, it has been suggested that to not do so is "evil". Some people find public breastfeeding to be offensive. So stop it, otherwise you're evil, by the same logic.

Zabali_Clawbane

11-23-2003, 01:55 PM

Thought Crime! Thought Crime! *snort* You do tend to take people's thoughts a bit further than intended, don't you?

I'm not a robot, I can think for myself. I can look at an action, and posit intent. A woman breastfeeding a child only intends to nurture her offspring, therefore the action is not evil. (I have no children atm, they are dead, just fyi. I breastfed them in public, but often you never would have known it.)

In this case, according to the "arguement" you just presented, it's "evil" for a person to try to self righteously super-impose their "emotional needs" over another beings actual, physical needs.

Babies need much more energy than we do, and have not "learned", nor are they physically able to "wait" to eat. They are not as physically developed as an adult, so therefore their physical needs come first. Read that carefully before you pounce on it to try to use against me.

The Asbestos Mango

11-23-2003, 01:56 PM

Never had a kid, so breastfeeding is a nonissue for me but...

Anyone who would be offended by the sight of a mother feeding her child in the manner that God and Nature intended has some very seriously wierd hangups that they need to get over.

Being subjected to the sound of a baby screaming and screaming and screaming because the mother refuses to attend to it's needs...

now, that's offensive.

Give it the breast, woman, so I can eat my Whopper Jr. in peace.

Zabali_Clawbane

11-23-2003, 02:06 PM

I'll add, according your arguement, I was evil to fold my sock down and leave my wound open to the air, rather than do as the person asked, and fold the sock up and cover the wound? Is this what you are saying?

That I should have covered a weeping wound over with a sock, and likely re-bred the strep infection that I'd just gotten over, all so a classmate would not have to catch a glimpse of it as she was bench pressing in P.E. class?

Bullshit!!! It took a YEAR for that wound to heal. It hurt a lot, I had to use crutches to get around while it was infected, and at one point I was in danger of losing my leg from just above the knee. The physician told me that if I covered the wound, I'd risk re-infection, and chance losing my leg if it got bad enough. (Serious risk, I have arthritis, my immune system is compromised in the first place, I am not even supposed to be around immunized babies.)

That girl's discomfort ("emotional need") certainly was not of higher importance than my actual physical need to air my wound. Further, it was evil of HER to demand that I cover it so she "wouldn't have to see it".

The above applies to breastfeeding too.