Kicked out for breastfeeding in restaurant?

[Washington]

Ah, waitress, there seems to be a woman over there who's enticing my husband to have sinful thoughts by exposing her breast. Please see to it that she stops. Oh yes, I would also appreciate it if you would wear less make up. Thank you, deary. Off you go now.

"Bethany Morton didn't breastfeed her first child, now 3, but she decided to with her second child.

She looked up the state statute on breastfeeding in public and learned that she could feed her child basically whenever and wherever she wanted, she said.

Her research came in handy Easter weekend when, at incidents in two cities, she was asked to cover up while breastfeeding. In the most serious case, police were called.

"They're within their rights to ask me, but I don't have to comply," she said.

Morton, 24, of St. Paul, said she was dining at an Old Country Buffet in Maplewood about 6 p.m. Sunday with her fiance and their two boys — Joseph Jr. and Dawson — when 6-month-old Dawson needed to be fed.

She said she tried to be discreet, pulling down one side of her low-cut blouse and shifting in her booth to face away from the rest of the restaurant. She tried using a blanket to cover her son's head for privacy, but he wiggled it off.

Soon, a server came by and told Morton to cover her son and breast with the blanket, Morton said. She said no.

The server retrieved a manager, who told her to cover up or leave. Morton refused.

"They can ask me, but I don't have to comply," she said.

The manager left. When he returned, he told the family to leave, Morton said."

source and more


​

 

[WadeWilson]

Wasn't there a similar case is a chik-fil-a not long ago? Then a whole bunch of moms came back and had a breast-feeding sit in?

Edit: Yep. There was.

 

[clarksided]

Breast-feeding in a restaurant is certainly fairly tacky but if it's not illegal then I suppose it's ok.

 

[WadeWilson]

Breast-feeding in a restaurant is certainly fairly tacky but if it's not illegal then I suppose it's ok.

Why is it tacky? It's no more tacky than bottle feeding a baby in a resturaunt.

 

[SithDoughnut]

Breast-feeding in a restaurant is certainly fairly tacky but if it's not illegal then I suppose it's ok.

Why is it tacky? It's a restaurant. I can't think of anywhere much more appropriate to feed your baby.

 

[Schneiderman]

It's a privately owned restaurant, they can kick out whoever they want.

Not that there's any reason to kick out someone for breastfeeding a child, but you don't need a reason to kick someone out of your house, your car or your restaurant.

 

[citizenthom]

According to the article, they were actually kicked out because after the waiter asked her to cover up her nipple, her fiancee started yelling and swearing at the staff. Her apparent response to that accusation is, "well, he just has a loud voice."

In any case, I have to wonder how these mothers with newborns find the time to organize "feed-ins" and, more importantly, how they manage to make sure their babies are all hungry at exactly the same time. Either they've made some amazing breakthrough where they've managed to get newborns to live on an adult schedule...or they just starve the kids till time to whip out the boobs and get on television.

 

[citizenthom]

It's a privately owned restaurant, they can kick out whoever they want.

The state statute actually says otherwise according to the article: it literally allows a woman to breastfeed anywhere and makes it illegal to kick her out. And it also says the breastfeeding woman can keep her nipple exposed.

 

[WadeWilson]

Many babies eat at regular intervals. Which can be predicted by the feeding party.

Also, why do they have so much free time? Back to the kitchen! (I kid, I kid)

 

[DaisyDay]

It's a privately owned restaurant, they can kick out whoever they want.

Open to the general public.

Not that there's any reason to kick out someone for breastfeeding a child, but you don't need a reason to kick someone out of your house, your car or your restaurant.

Your house & car (providing you decently stopped first) no, but your restaurant - maybe. This is America and there are rules about who you can kick out of places open to the public.

 

[DaisyDay]

According to the article, they were actually kicked out because after the waiter asked her to cover up her nipple, her fiancee started yelling and swearing at the staff.

If that's true, the restaurant has a case for throwing them out.

Her apparent response to that accusation is, "well, he just has a loud voice."

That bodes well for the future of that relationship.

 

[JeffShott]

So you can gather up two dozen of your friends and march topless down the street, but you can't breast feed your hungry infant in a restaurant?

What is the world coming to?

 

[Schneiderman]

"A mother may breast-feed in any location, public or private, where the mother and child are otherwise authorized to be, irrespective of whether the nipple of the mother's breast is uncovered during or incidental to the breast-feeding."

If you're in a restaurant breast feeding and then are asked to leave you're no longer authorized to be there and can therefore no longer breast feed there.

Saying that she's allowed to be there because she is breastfeeding according to this statute would mean that a stranger could come into your home off the street and breast feed her child and you couldn't do anything about it.

A restaurant is open to the public but it's still private property, unless it's publicly owned (leased in a public mall for example). This stirs up memories of the Brady Campaign's Starbucks charade where they tried to get Starbucks to ban carrying of handguns in their stores. Starbucks was free to ban handguns in their stores if they wanted. They chose not to, thankfully, but if they did there would be nothing anyone could do about it, it's their store. Similarly, they could ban breastfeeding, and so could anyone else.

 

[citizenthom]

If you're in a restaurant breast feeding and then are asked to leave you're no longer authorized to be there and can therefore no longer breast feed there.

I doubt that's how the court would construe the statute. It's more likely to look like this: if you let a woman bring a baby into your place of business, you are also authorizing her to breastfeed that baby. Once she's in the store, you can't "revoke" her authorization to be there based on the fact that she is breastfeeding. Now, you could say "no children" and solve the problem that way--if you're willing to deal with the ramifications thereof.

 

[Schneiderman]

I doubt that's how the court would construe the statute. It's more likely to look like this: if you let a woman bring a baby into your place of business, you are also authorizing her to breastfeed that baby. Once she's in the store, you can't "revoke" her authorization to be there based on the fact that she is breastfeeding. Now, you could say "no children" and solve the problem that way--if you're willing to deal with the ramifications thereof.

That's a solid argument and a court could easily rule that. But it wouldn't, in practice, prevent restaurant owners from kicking anyone out.

 

[dies-l]

If you're in a restaurant breast feeding and then are asked to leave you're no longer authorized to be there and can therefore no longer breast feed there.

Saying that she's allowed to be there because she is breastfeeding according to this statute would mean that a stranger could come into your home off the street and breast feed her child and you couldn't do anything about it.

A restaurant is open to the public but it's still private property, unless it's publicly owned (leased in a public mall for example). This stirs up memories of the Brady Campaign's Starbucks charade where they tried to get Starbucks to ban carrying of handguns in their stores. Starbucks was free to ban handguns in their stores if they wanted. They chose not to, thankfully, but if they did there would be nothing anyone could do about it, it's their store. Similarly, they could ban breastfeeding, and so could anyone else.

A restaurant is not a private place in the same way that a person's home is a private place. A restaurant, as a business that is open to the public, can be regulated by the public policy interests. For example, a restaurant is not free to discriminate on the basis of race, sex, etc. An individual is perfectly free to say "I don't allow black people in my home." A restaurant is not.

As for the law in question, I do not know whether it prohibits businesses that are open to the public from banning breastfeeding. In my state, it is against the law for such places to have such a policy. I don't know how it works in other states, but it is perfectly reasonable to place these kinds of requirements on privately owned businesses that choose to make their facilities open to the public.

 

[DaisyDay]

So you can gather up two dozen of your friends and march topless down the street, but you can't breast feed your hungry infant in a restaurant?

What is the world coming to?

Local law favors the breast-exposers, but federal anti-discrimination law favors the breast-feeders, so that is what this part of the world has come to.

 

[dies-l]

That's a solid argument and a court could easily rule that. But it wouldn't, in practice, prevent restaurant owners from kicking anyone out.

But, commercial interests just might. Personally, I wouldn't want to support a restaurant owner that would kick out my wife for giving my kid a chance to eat dinner with the rest of us.

On top of this, a business that made a habit of kicking people out for doing what they are legally allowed to do would eventually face legal consequences.

 

[JeffShott]

Local law favors the breast-exposers, but federal anti-discrimination law favors the breast-feeders, so that is what this part of the world has come to.

Local law, federal law....
What we need is some common sense.

 

[DaisyDay]

If you're in a restaurant breast feeding and then are asked to leave you're no longer authorized to be there and can therefore no longer breast feed there.

Not if you are asked to leave because you are breast feeding.

Saying that she's allowed to be there because she is breastfeeding according to this statute would mean that a stranger could come into your home off the street and breast feed her child and you couldn't do anything about it.

No one said she is allowed to be there because she is breast feeding; the law says if she is allowed to be there, she can't be disallowed because she is breast feeding.

A restaurant is open to the public but it's still private property, unless it's publicly owned (leased in a public mall for example).

Yes, it's private property but if you permit the general public, you can't discriminate against breast feeding mothers.

This stirs up memories of the Brady Campaign's Starbucks charade where they tried to get Starbucks to ban carrying of handguns in their stores. Starbucks was free to ban handguns in their stores if they wanted. They chose not to, thankfully, but if they did there would be nothing anyone could do about it, it's their store. Similarly, they could ban breastfeeding, and so could anyone else.

No, the law does NOT permit them to ban breast feeding (it used to, but no more).