Sure, it’s your standard corporate apology, what the hell was she expecting?
A lifetime supply of Whoppers?
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.
“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.
What’s “disgusting” about a mother feeding a baby? What kind of fuckhead gets upset about it?
If she wanted a lifetime of whoppers would have asked for that. But this lady isn’t nuts.
How about this: “We sincerely appologize for asking Ms. Jane Doe to cover herself or go to the bathroom in order to feed her child. This is not Burger King policy. The manager in question has been informed of Utah state law on this issue, and a memo has been sent out to all Utah Burger King managers to be sure our policy on this issue is clear. We are doing our best to ensure this does not happen again.”
Well then maybe you should apply for a position in Burger King’s corporate communications dept.
They apologized, for most of us life moves on.
IMHO, she should be glad she got a form letter. Huge corporate chains like Burger King hardly ever go through even that much trouble.
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.
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.
If it’s that simple, World Eater, then why did it make the front page of the national CNN web site?
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?
I can say that person is a fuckhead…and that they don’t deserve an apology.
Have you seen some of the shit they put on the front page of CNN?
That means absolutely nothing.
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)?
The corporate lawyers would never approve that language, as it could expose the corporation to a possible suit.
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.
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?
It’s a nonapology, which is what corporate public relations departments give.
It’s a he said-she said situation. The customer is claiming that she was “made to feel like a criminal”, and the company is claiming that she was asked to cover up or go to the restroom by a female employee, at the request of another customer. Unless Ms. Geary has a tape of the whole incident, start to finish, this is the best she can expect.
Robin
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.
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.