Breastfeeding in public places

[Jacob]

... or if you're told you have to eat in the washroom yourself.

[The Brain]

The restaurant lets me eat food my mom brought to the restaurant? I say they're being pretty damn nice.

[Solmyr]

So it's actually a matter of location and you object to children being fed in the washroom? If a restaurant provided a covered booth for breastfeeding children, then it would be ok to ask the mother to go in it?

[crazy canuck]

So if I'm in a restaurant and I have to pee RIGHT NOW, it's discrimination if I'm asked to use the restroom and not the restaurant floor?

If you were an idiot you might take that position.

[Solmyr]

Is it discrimination if I come into a high-class restaurant and take off my shirt, but they request I put it back on?

Is it discrimination if I order food and it's taking too long, so I break out a burger of my own and they request I don't eat my own food in the restaurant?

I'm just trying to understand whether it's only discrimination if it is done against breastfeeding women, or whether other activities also count.

[crazy canuck]

Is it discrimination if I come into a high-class restaurant and take off my shirt, but they request I put it back on?

Is it discrimination if I order food and it's taking too long, so I break out a burger of my own and they request I don't eat my own food in the restaurant?

I'm just trying to understand whether it's only discrimination if it is done against breastfeeding women, or whether other activities also count.

You are not understanding what discrimination is that is certain.

If the rule applies to everyone and anyone it is likely not discriminatory.  That is why all the examples you used are absurd.  They apply to everyone.

If the rule disadvantages a particular group and that group is protected by human rights leglislation then it is discrimination under the law - that is a broad definition but it will do for the purposes of this thread.

gender and family status (including whether one has children or not) are protected status in most jurisdictions - along with race etc.

A rule that does not allow breast feeding disadvantages a protected group - women with children.  That is prima facie discriminatory.  The argument then turns to whether accomodating women with children to allow them to breastfeed is past the point of undue hardship (different jurisdictions word this test differently but they are all similar).

It is pretty hard to justify not allowing a baby to eat.  It might upset the Marti's of the world.  But frankly I view that as a positive outcome.

[Martinus]

Is there a difference, from that perspective, between asking a woman to breastfeed a baby in a restroom, and asking her to change the baby's diaper in a restroom?

If yes, please explain what the difference is.

[crazy canuck]

Is there a difference, from that perspective, between asking a woman to breastfeed a baby in a restroom, and asking her to change the baby's diaper in a restroom?

If yes, please explain what the difference is.

It is pretty hard to justify not allowing a baby to eat.  It might upset the Marti's of the world.  But frankly I view that as a positive outcome.

It is also odd, as already noted in this thread, that you equate the act of eating with the act of excreting.  Again, a Marti thing which confirms my first observation.

[Martinus]

I think not allowing a baby to poop can have equally deleterious effects on the baby as not allowing it to eat, at least for the same period of time as a restaurant meal usually lasts.

[Sheilbh]

I'm just trying to understand whether it's only discrimination if it is done against breastfeeding women, or whether other activities also count.

Of course it's only discrimination against breastfeeding women.

I think not allowing a baby to poop can have equally deleterious effects on the baby as not allowing it to eat, at least for the same period of time as a restaurant meal usually lasts.

Baby's do shit more or less whenever they want.

[crazy canuck]

I think not allowing a baby to poop can have equally deleterious effects on the baby as not allowing it to eat, at least for the same period of time as a restaurant meal usually lasts.

But everyone recognizes that poop is dealt with in one area whereas food is dealt with in another.  At least until I read this thread I thought all that was understood.

[Sheilbh]

But frankly I view that as a positive outcome.

Agreed.

[The Brain]

Anyway, since I never go to family restaurants (why does Mart?) I won't be affected by babies eating or pooping.

[Solmyr]

Okay, I understand that (though I don't think anyone here was suggesting not allowing a baby to eat). But what then if a restaurant makes a rule forbidding the baring of one's torso (a rather logical rule to make, especially if it's a fancy restaurant)? That would still effectively disallow breastfeeding (unless done while entirely covered), yet by your definition would not be discrimination since it applies to everyone equally.

[Sheilbh]

Okay, I understand that (though I don't think anyone here was suggesting not allowing a baby to eat). But what then if a restaurant makes a rule forbidding the baring of one's torso (a rather logical rule to make, especially if it's a fancy restaurant)? That would still effectively disallow breastfeeding (unless done while entirely covered), yet by your definition would not be discrimination since it applies to everyone equally.

That's basically indirect discrimination.  It would apply to everyone in theory, but in practice only mothers are likely to be baring one's torso.  So it would be discriminatory against them. 

In a situation like Seattle where they've said women can, by right, breastfeed then it would also clearly be an attempt by a restaurant to get around that.