Breastfeeding in public places

[Solmyr]

But men can bare their torsos in a restaurant too. Why should that be forbidden to men but allowed to women? Men cannot be discriminated against, in your view?

By the way, earlier someone compared rules against breastfeeding to restrictions against blacks or Jews. That analogy is as bad as one of Marti's. Restrictions on a specific activity are not even in the same league with discrimination against an entire ethnicity.

[Jacob]

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?

If the restaurant provided a comfortable and private place for breast feeding as a courtesy to their customers, I expect most mothers would take advantage of that. Who doesn't like being catered to?

On the other hand, if it's "go to this broom closet so you don't bother the rest of us" then I expect most mothers will not like it.

So really, I think it's a customer service thing more than anything else.

[Solmyr]

Oh, and does Seattle also consider breastfeeding in a church or a mosque a right? If yes, wouldn't it impinge on the rights of religious buildings whose standards of morality might conflict with having a bare-breasted woman in them? If no, then why are restaurants singled out, isn't this discrimination against them?

[Solmyr]

If the restaurant provided a comfortable and private place for breast feeding as a courtesy to their customers, I expect most mothers would take advantage of that. Who doesn't like being catered to?

What about if a restaurant did that, but the mother flatly refused to use it and insisted on breastfeeding in the middle of the restaurant anyway?

[Sheilbh]

But men can bare their torsos in a restaurant too. Why should that be forbidden to men but allowed to women? Men cannot be discriminated against, in your view?

Of course, but it's reasonable to ask men not to bare their torso.  There's no real need for them to do so - there clearly is for a mother.  That makes it a different situation. 

It's a bit like requiring a literacy test for voting in Jim Crow laws.  It's entirely possible that white voters will fail, but it's significantly more likely that black voters will.  So while it was technically a colour blind test, in practice, it wasn't. 

If you're saying it's discrimination to ban breastfeeding then you shouldn't be allowed to get around it by technicalities that 'equally' affect men.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

I don't know how they breastfeed where you people live but when my wife was breastfeeding my kid you could barely see. Because a) there exist special clothing-items for breastfeeding (you know, where you can open up a part of shirt for easy access), b) baby's head covers boob and c) because a combination of a wiping cloth and arm covers the rest (as well as being ready for intervention when there's some regurgitation).
So what is bared is about the size of the baby's and most of not all is covered by said baby and other stuff. Result: good luck seeing much skin.
Given that most of us here live in the civilized world I can't imagine that mothers breastfeeding in your parts of the world go about it barechested and basically waving their boobs around for all to see.

Besides, the baby probably eats cleaner than most of the establisments customers :p

edit: a few pages back someone seem to think that it is easy logistics to pump and then give the milik via the bottle. Unless you've being doing the pumping regularly you can forget about it being easy logistics. It's not like with a cow that's milked once a day. Milking, and obviously the breastfeeding itself, is a matter of hours. There can be as little as two hours between a feeding session and depending on the feedinghabits and -speed of the baby using the breastpump is slower than just feeding. To actually build up a reserve of breastmilk (which you can put in the freezer) is not that easy as you must make sure you don't drain the entire breast (must be ready to provide for the baby) while making sure you don't only pump out the watery milk (you need to fatty milk too, and that takes a bit).
So while it's possible, it's certainly not easy

[Solmyr]

Of course, but it's reasonable to ask men not to bare their torso.  There's no real need for them to do so - there clearly is for a mother.  That makes it a different situation. 

If one is going to argue these things on the basis of "real need", then there is also no real need for the mother to eat at a restaurant that bans breastfeeding. She can go to one that doesn't, or eat at home. Sure, the restaurant would lose her patronage, but that's their choice as a business. Laws forcing places of business to allow a specific activity on their premises are questionable to say the least.

[Jacob]

Oh, and does Seattle also consider breastfeeding in a church or a mosque a right? If yes, wouldn't it impinge on the rights of religious buildings whose standards of morality might conflict with having a bare-breasted woman in them? If no, then why are restaurants singled out, isn't this discrimination against them?

I'm no lawyer, but I don't think anti-discrimination laws in most jurisdictions require businesses to be treated like places of worship.

[mongers]

Why is this even an issue ?

Is it because some people can't think of breasts in a non-sexual context ?

I was somewhere yesterday and women was breast-feeding, what exactly is the 'disgusting' bit of this ?
It's generally no more revealing than a low cut dress, I think some people just need to lighten up and stop looking for things to complain about.

[Ed Anger]

You know every time mongers puts a space between the end of sentence and the question mark, I want to club a baby seal.

[mongers]

You know every time mongers puts a space between the end of sentence and the question mark, I want to club a baby seal.

Never heard that euphemism before, but what ever floats you boat  ?

[garbon]

So really, I think it's a customer service thing more than anything else.

If that was the case, Seattle wouldn't need to enshrine it as a right.

[crazy canuck]

But men can bare their torsos in a restaurant too. Why should that be forbidden to men but allowed to women? Men cannot be discriminated against, in your view?

By the way, earlier someone compared rules against breastfeeding to restrictions against blacks or Jews. That analogy is as bad as one of Marti's. Restrictions on a specific activity are not even in the same league with discrimination against an entire ethnicity.

Its like the law that everyone is prohibited from sleeping under a bridge.  Not a real problem for people with houses and only has application to the homeless.

As to your bolded part, as stated already this is a prohibition against an identifiable group -  women who have children.  Unless of course you want to disagree with the way protected groups are defined in the civilized world.

[crazy canuck]

So really, I think it's a customer service thing more than anything else.

If that was the case, Seattle wouldn't need to enshrine it as a right.

You are right.  Laws are required because there are people like Marti.

[garbon]

It isn't at all the same, even though you'd like to pretend you know all about discrimination.

I am not pretending.  I believe it is you who isnt entirely clear on what is and what is not discrimination.

Being married to a gay companion (or anyone) isnt a necessary action.  Staying in a hotel room with your gay companion (or anyone) isnt a necessary action.  The list goes on.  Suffice to say if human rights law protected only those engaging in a "necessary" action we could do away with a lot of legal protections a lot of people currently enjoy.

Your examples fail as those "rights" are already provided to heterosexuals. Pretty clear that it would be discriminatory to not allow them for gays...unless you are signing up for the gays have the same rights to marry individuals of an opposite gender.

A good example would probably be something akin to maternity leave...though I can see more of a compelling state interest in preventing mothers from being summarily dismissed than an interest in making sure mothers feel comfortable breastfeeding their children in restaurants.