Breastfeeding in public places

[crazy canuck]

those "rights" are already provided to heterosexuals.

And being permitted to eat at a table is allowed to all patrons - except for this one.

Anyway you are missing the point.  The rule has an adverse affect on an identifiable protected group.

[garbon]

those "rights" are already provided to heterosexuals.

And being permitted to eat at a table is allowed to all patrons - except for this one.

As Brain kinda pointed out, restaurants generally don't allow anyone else to bring their own food.

Anyway you are missing the point.  The rule has an adverse affect on an identifiable protected group.

Well they've only become a protected group under this new law, no? Before that mothers that wanted to breastfeed weren't seen as having the rights to breastfeed where they wanted.

[garbon]

Side question: how often are babies in restaurants, let alone breastfeeding?

[crazy canuck]

those "rights" are already provided to heterosexuals.

And being permitted to eat at a table is allowed to all patrons - except for this one.

As Brain kinda pointed out, restaurants generally don't allow anyone else to bring their own food.

Anyway you are missing the point.  The rule has an adverse affect on an identifiable protected group.

Well they've only become a protected group under this new law, no?

No, sex and family status have been protected for decades.  I already dealt with this point above.

[garbon]

No, sex and family status have been protected for decades.  I already dealt with this point above.

http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/health/breastfeeding-state-laws.aspx

While true that there are laws on the books to allow breastfeeding it seems like not all the states have jumped in (so I'm not sure sex and family status serves as the catch all protection here). California allows women to breastfeed in any public or private place but per that site, it isn't explicitly exempted from indecency laws.

Anyway, based on that I'll withdraw my tepid opposition.

[garbon]

Although if women are already permitted by law, in Washington, to breastfeed in public/private places, not sure what Seattle is doing.

edit: I found it. Breastfeeding lobby wanted to drum up awareness.

[Maximus]

Do it if you have to, but for God's sake show some appropriate SHAME. Woman on the train with boob and baby head all concealed under  the baby blanket? You're doing it right.

How is shame related to the matter at hand?

[Solmyr]

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.

Actually, no. Breastfeeding is not a group, it's a specific activity. If all women with children were completely banned from entering a restaurant, then it might be somewhat similar. As is, the two things are not at all comparable.

[crazy canuck]

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.

Actually, no. Breastfeeding is not a group,

There must be some kind of language barrier here.  I have repeatedly referred to the people that carry out that activity -ie women who have children -  as belonging to the protected groups of sex and familty status. 

Of course the activity does not define the group.  If one belongs to a protected group as defined by legislation then an adverse rule affecting the provision of goods, services or employment to that group will most likely be found to be discriminatory.

The defined by legislation bit is important because of course everyone discriminates every day in a number of ways that are not unlawful.

[Solmyr]

There's no language barrier, I understand what you mean. I'm just arguing that this legislation is crap because legislation should be protecting groups as a whole, not a specific activity performed by a group, and in a privately-owned business no less. Because then there's no reason why any such activities could not be demanded to be protected, and I can think of a lot of activities that I'd rather not be guaranteed by legislation.

Again, I'm not arguing against breastfeeding (indeed, I've said that it should be totally fine in public places such as parks). I'm just arguing that private businesses should be free to decide whether to allow it or not, because it's not an activity that needs to be performed in those businesses and they are not created to provide service for it.

[Sheilbh]

There's no language barrier, I understand what you mean. I'm just arguing that this legislation is crap because legislation should be protecting groups as a whole, not a specific activity performed by a group, and in a privately-owned business no less.

The legislation would be crap if they said you can't discriminate against mothers, but you can ban breastfeeding or other 'activities' associated with mothers.  It would be like saying you can't discriminate against Sikhs but you can refuse to hire people with beards.

[crazy canuck]

There's no language barrier, I understand what you mean. I'm just arguing that this legislation is crap because legislation should be protecting groups as a whole, not a specific activity performed by a group.

You are mixing up two things.

Human Rights law which identifies the kinds of status which are protected - including being a woman (sex) and having children (family status).

and the law in Seattle.

There is a fundamental failure of communication here.  I have been talking about the principles of descrimination as found in Human Rights law.  For some reason you continue to fail to understand that point.

[garbon]

There's no language barrier, I understand what you mean. I'm just arguing that this legislation is crap because legislation should be protecting groups as a whole, not a specific activity performed by a group.

You are mixing up two things.

Human Rights law which identifies the kinds of status which are protected - including being a woman (sex) and having children (family status).

and the law in Seattle.

There is a fundamental failure of communication here.  I have been talking about the principles of descrimination as found in Human Rights law.  For some reason you continue to fail to understand that point.

Again I think you are going too far. If that was really the case, why is this a state by state issue that states can choose to honor or not?

[garbon]

There's no language barrier, I understand what you mean. I'm just arguing that this legislation is crap because legislation should be protecting groups as a whole, not a specific activity performed by a group, and in a privately-owned business no less.

The legislation would be crap if they said you can't discriminate against mothers, but you can ban breastfeeding or other 'activities' associated with mothers.  It would be like saying you can't discriminate against Sikhs but you can refuse to hire people with beards.

Of course no one is banning other activities associated with mothers.  Are we violating the rights of a mother who can't bring her baby into a bar?

[merithyn]

I'm just amazed that this is even something worthy of any kind of debate. A child needs to be fed, so a mother feeds it. Period. End of story. Why is this an issue? I've never understood why anyone would object to breastfeeding. Hell, until 60-some years ago, EVERYONE breastfed unless their child was too sick to suckle. It was a complete non-issue for thousands of years. Why is it one now?