Kicked out for breastfeeding in restaurant?

[laconicstudent]

No, but they are offensive to some people.

That's awfully silly. Why? And so what?

 

[JamesAH]

Breast feeding in a restaurant I don't mind perfectly natural I draw the line however when someone changes a poopy diaper in a restaurant now that's sick and should be done in a bathroom.

 

[IreneAdler]

That's awfully silly. Why? And so what?

I think so too, but I respect other people's right to be offended. I personally find nudity beautiful, but I won't force it on others when it's unnecessary.

 

[pgp_protector]

No, but they are offensive to some people.

Thing is no one has the right to not be offended.

 

[laconicstudent]

I think so too, but I respect other people's right to be offended.

As do I, I suppose.

I personally find nudity beautiful, but I won't force it on others when it's unnecessary.

Nobody is having nudity "forced" on them. If a woman starts breast feeding publicly, one is perfectly free to avert their gaze, close their eyes, turn around, leave the area.

 

[IreneAdler]

but they do have the right to insist someone follow public decency laws (which generally include women being covered in public) and it's not unreasonable for this to include when nursing. I'm sorry. It's NOT THAT HARD. And frankly it's just unreasonable to say it is.

 

[IreneAdler]

As do I, I suppose.



Nobody is having nudity "forced" on them. If a woman starts breast feeding publicly, one is perfectly free to avert their gaze, close their eyes, turn around, leave the area.

and is it not reasonable for the nursing person to do something to cover up? why is the onus on the person who's observing alone?

 

[laconicstudent]

but they do have the right to insist someone follow public decency laws (which generally include women being covered in public)

Um, the entire point here is that the law permits breastfeeding.

and it's not unreasonable for this to include when nursing.

Except the law says otherwise.

Minn. Stat. § 145.905 provides that a mother may breastfeed in any location, public or private, where the mother and child are authorized to be, irrespective of whether the nipple of the mother's breast is uncovered during or incidental to the breastfeeding.

I'm sorry. It's NOT THAT HARD. And frankly it's just unreasonable to say it is.

So what? The law says she can do it.

 

[pgp_protector]

but they do have the right to insist someone follow public decency laws (which generally include women being covered in public) and it's not unreasonable for this to include when nursing. I'm sorry. It's NOT THAT HARD. And frankly it's just unreasonable to say it is.

As pointed out earlier in the thread, Breast Feeding isn't breaking the public decency laws, so they are following them.

Minn. Stat. § 145.905 provides that a mother may breastfeed in any location, public or private, where the mother and child are authorized to be, irrespective of whether the nipple of the mother's breast is uncovered during or incidental to the breastfeeding.

 

[laconicstudent]

and is it not reasonable for the nursing person to do something to cover up?

She can if she wants. Law doesn't require her to.

why is the onus on the person who's observing alone?

Because they are the ones with their eyes glued to a woman's breast while ranting about being offended by her exercising her legal rights?

 

[IreneAdler]

Um, the entire point here is that the law permits breastfeeding.



Except the law says otherwise.

Minn. Stat. § 145.905 provides that a mother may breastfeed in any location, public or private, where the mother and child are authorized to be, irrespective of whether the nipple of the mother's breast is uncovered during or incidental to the breastfeeding.



So what? The law says she can do it.

NIPPLE, not breast... different. The nipple is what's cited in the statute... not the other skin.

I'm talking about people exposing their whole breast which is what most people seem to want to be able to do. The nipple should really be totally occupied most of the time in all reality.

 

[JamesAH]

I mean how hard is it to not stare. Did you go into a restaurant to stare at someone no so quit complaining about someone breast feeding in public it's not like she's doing a strip tease on the tables

 

[laconicstudent]

NIPPLE, not breast... different. The nipple is what's cited in the statute... not the other skin.

I think its assumed we are all adults and know that the nipples are part of the breast.

I'm talking about people exposing their whole breast which is what most people seem to want to be able to do. The nipple should really be totally occupied most of the time in all reality.

Ok. Why is this a problem exactly?

 

[IreneAdler]

um, there's a difference in the part cited. obviously there's a reason there is a specific part cited and not the whole breast. dontcha think

 

[pgp_protector]

NIPPLE, not breast... different. The nipple is what's cited in the statute... not the other skin.

I'm talking about people exposing their whole breast which is what most people seem to want to be able to do. The nipple should really be totally occupied most of the time in all reality.

Umm you may not know this, but you can't expose the nipple without exposing part of the breast.

It's normally just the nipple that gets people in trouble. (see the 2004 Superbowl for that one)

 

[laconicstudent]

um, there's a difference in the part cited. obviously there's a reason there is a specific part cited and not the whole breast. dontcha think

Your right. The law doesn't specifically say other parts of the breast can be exposed. Of course, since women's shirts, dresses and swimwear routinely exposes enormous portions of the breast anyways, I imagine the legislator authoring the bill thought such specificity would be idiotic.

Cleavage (breasts) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[IreneAdler]

puh-lease

it's not allowing for long term exposure of all parts of the breast
it's not allowing for exposure of all parts of the breast

it's not allowing what you people are saying it is. legally speaking it's not saying what you say it is.

 

[laconicstudent]

puh-lease

it's not allowing for long term exposure of all parts of the breast

It doesn't address duration at all.

it's not allowing for exposure of all parts of the breast

Because exposure of other parts of the breast are already allowed, obviously.

it's not allowing what you people are saying it is. legally speaking it's not saying what you say it is.

Your right, it doesn't. Because its common sense that exposing the rest of the breast isn't illegal, as women wearing bikinis and low cut dresses and shirts aren't ever cited or arrested.

Why wasn't Beyonce arrested at the Grammys?

 

[pgp_protector]

puh-lease

it's not allowing for long term exposure of all parts of the breast
it's not allowing for exposure of all parts of the breast

it's not allowing what you people are saying it is. legally speaking it's not saying what you say it is.

So we're a lawyer now ?
Legally it says what is says.

Minn. Stat. § 145.905 provides that a mother may breastfeed in any location, public or private, where the mother and child are authorized to be, irrespective of whether the nipple of the mother's breast is uncovered during or incidental to the breastfeeding.

 

[IreneAdler]

I'd love to see someone walk around with pasties on and see what happened...