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. "
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.
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)
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 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”. 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
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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,
**
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.
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.[sup]1[/sup] 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.
[sup]1[/sup] I believe there are a couple of exceptions to this, e.g., for common carriers.
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?
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.
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.
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
