Mothering › Forums › Breastfeeding › Lactivism › Right to refuse service?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Right to refuse service?  

post #1 of 39
10/18/07 at 5:42pm
Thread Starter 
I was talking to my boyfriend about nurse-ins, women being asked to leave for BFing, etc. He says that a business owner has the right to refuse service to ANYONE BFing or not. Would BF protection laws not protect a woman from this? He was also saying that in the case of a nurse-in a store owner could simpy close the store for the day & that would force the BFing moms to leave. He is really p**sing me off right now! I can't believe that I am dating someone who thinks that it would be reasonable for a store owner to do that in order to avoid a nurse-in. : What are your views on this?
post #2 of 39
10/18/07 at 5:46pm
First of all, is your boyfriend "playing devil's advocate" or does he honestly and truly side with anti bf business owners?

Second of all, I do think business owners do have to follow some rules about who they serve. They can't just "not serve black people" for example. That would be discrimination. If they want to exclude children, they can, but they can't allow babies as long as they're not BF on premises. Either mom and baby have the right to be there, or they don't, and if they can be there then they're legally allowed to nurse.
post #3 of 39
10/18/07 at 5:55pm
Thread Starter 
Unforunately he seems to side with the business owner. He feels it is completely reasonable for the business owner to ask a BFing mom to cover up. I am really bothered by the fact I am dating someone who feels like that. In fact, I am in tears. :
post #4 of 39
10/18/07 at 6:14pm
SHould a homosexual couple have to put a blanket over their hands if they decide they want to hold hands? What other groups does he feel owners have the right to inflict discrimination upon?
post #5 of 39
10/18/07 at 6:22pm
Well he can *feel* like that all he wants, BUT it's not legal.

You can not refuse the right to serve someone because of things like the person is breastfeeding, or because of the color of their skin, or their religon. You just don't get to choose your clients. You can't open a store and say only bottle fed children are welcome or put stipulations on things like that. Breastfeeding is a protected right. The exception to this is adult's only in places where their is alcohol being served, adult "activites" ( think nude bars, swinger's clubs), and the like. It's called civil rights, and breastfeeding moms have civil rights as do their babies.

And thankfully, you live in California where breastfeeding moms can nurse anywhere baby is welcome to be. So if you are in a store where children are otherwise allowed to be, you can nurse there and the store owner can't do a thing about it. It's part of being a store owner....

Hugs on the boyfriend situation...that would be tough!
post #6 of 39
10/18/07 at 9:12pm
Thread Starter 
He is saying that there are loopholes in anti-discrimination laws b/c how do you prove the store owner was discriminating for the reason that you say they were? I think he was trying to play devil's advocate, but he doesn't think it is necessary or "respectful" to NIP. We have been arguing about it all day. He says there is a better time & place to BF than in public. :
post #7 of 39
10/18/07 at 9:14pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by carriebft View Post
SHould a homosexual couple have to put a blanket over their hands if they decide they want to hold hands? What other groups does he feel owners have the right to inflict discrimination upon?
He says it isn't necessarily *right* for them to do it, just that there are legal loppholes that allow them to, they just don't have to be honest about their reasons for doing it, i.e. "they gave me atttude" or "they were being disrespectful" versus "they were NIP" or "I didn't like their skin color". *sigh*
post #8 of 39
10/18/07 at 9:36pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaliMommie View Post
He says there is a better time & place to BF than in public. :

Like at home, in the kitchen "where you belong"?

I wonder what he thinks is the best time and place to bottle feed a hungry child? I bet it's "whenever the baby is hungry"!
post #9 of 39
10/18/07 at 9:57pm
For a business owner to close his store or restaurant due to a nurse-in would mean a significant loss of profit. So even if he/she does do that, the nurse-in has still driven home it's point.

Even if it's true that they can simply close the store, I think it's a lose/lose choice for the business owner (do I allow the nurse in and let other customers know I was a bigoted idiot, or do I close the store and lose profits).
post #10 of 39
10/18/07 at 10:14pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by llamalluv View Post
I wonder what he thinks is the best time and place to bottle feed a hungry child? I bet it's "whenever the baby is hungry"!
Yep. And that ticks me off!
post #11 of 39
10/18/07 at 10:33pm
Considering how the laws are worded I think he's right. They could say "Fine you can stay here but we're not going to feed you" or even "Well, then we're closing for the day, and everyone has to leave." The first would be descrimination of course, but the laws on breastfeeding don't specifically prohibit descrimination. They just give women the right to nurse anywhere they have the right to be. The second wouldn't -technically- be descrimination, because EVERYONE has to leave not just the nursing mother.
post #12 of 39
10/19/07 at 12:18am
Thread Starter 
I guess that was kind of his point, that even with laws protecting a woman's right to NIP, there is still room for business owners to discriminate against them.
post #13 of 39
10/19/07 at 1:38am
Actually I think they can refuse service - remember the woman in TX at a restaurant - she was refused service and she said its her legal right to BF and they said BF all you want, but we are not serving you. And it was a loophole.

I've wondered about that myself, I know places have signs saying they have the right to refuse service to anyone. They dont have the legal right to kick someone out for BFing, and they dont have the right to try and make someone cover up, but I dont know about refusing to serve them. So I wonder what the laws are on this.
post #14 of 39
10/19/07 at 1:46am
Quote:
Originally Posted by JessasMilkMama View Post
Actually I think they can refuse service - remember the woman in TX at a restaurant - she was refused service and she said its her legal right to BF and they said BF all you want, but we are not serving you. And it was a loophole.

I've wondered about that myself, I know places have signs saying they have the right to refuse service to anyone. They dont have the legal right to kick someone out for BFing, and they dont have the right to try and make someone cover up, but I dont know about refusing to serve them. So I wonder what the laws are on this.
OH MY! how can this be?!?!?!?!?! :

DH is the same way but i know if it came down to it, he would totally stand by me!
post #15 of 39
10/19/07 at 1:47am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by lovebug View Post
DH is the same way but i know if it came down to it, he would totally stand by me!
I think that's what bugs me the most, I don't know that my boyfriend would
post #16 of 39
10/19/07 at 3:34am
Quote:
Originally Posted by JessasMilkMama View Post
Actually I think they can refuse service - remember the woman in TX at a restaurant - she was refused service and she said its her legal right to BF and they said BF all you want, but we are not serving you. And it was a loophole.

I've wondered about that myself, I know places have signs saying they have the right to refuse service to anyone. They dont have the legal right to kick someone out for BFing, and they dont have the right to try and make someone cover up, but I dont know about refusing to serve them. So I wonder what the laws are on this.
First of all, that's Texas, not California where the OP is.

And it's not legal. Sure, they can do it all they want, but there will be consequences and the mother can actually sue for them going against HER civil liberties. Yes, in court she would have to prove that the reason they refused to serve her was because she was breastfeeding. But if she proved it ( and telling the court that they said, "breastfeed all you want but we aren't serving you" is a sure way) she could get monetary compensation. They couldn't tell ANY person, we are refusing to serve you without a good reason like doing something illegal. And breastfeeding has already been established as NOT illegal. You don't get to determine what type of people you want to serve or not serve. You have to serve ALL people regardless of what they look like, religion they subscribed to and regardless if they are breastfeeding a child because it is a protected right in ALL of the States . Some have better laws, but breastfeeding is protected in all states.
post #17 of 39
10/19/07 at 3:37am
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaliMommie View Post
He is saying that there are loopholes in anti-discrimination laws b/c how do you prove the store owner was discriminating for the reason that you say they were? I think he was trying to play devil's advocate, but he doesn't think it is necessary or "respectful" to NIP. We have been arguing about it all day. He says there is a better time & place to BF than in public. :
And how many children does he have? Sounds like *none* to me. When he has pushed 8+ pounds of baby out of his vagina (or suffered the surgical equivalent), gone through weeks of latch issues, supply worries, late night feedings, trying to get errands done without NIP, then he can make those calls. Until then, tell him I said to shut the h3ll up. :

Although I'm married now, I've been a single mom and an attitude like this would be a deal-breaker for me. Someone who doesn't respect the right of my baby to eat doesn't deserve to be around my baby--at any age.
post #18 of 39
10/19/07 at 4:28am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruthla View Post
If they want to exclude children, they can, but they can't allow babies as long as they're not BF on premises. Either mom and baby have the right to be there, or they don't, and if they can be there then they're legally allowed to nurse.
It depends on the state. In NJ descriminating based on age is illegal. Except for places like bars, casinos, etc, if you are open to the public you have to allow customers who have children.
post #19 of 39
10/19/07 at 8:31am
I would really, really, really think twice before allowing this relationship to continue. What if you two have a baby together? Is he going to be supportive of your breastfeeding relationship with this baby? You need to have some hard discussions with him.
Sorry, mama. I know how hard it is to find a boyfriend when you're a single mama. I was one myself.
post #20 of 39
10/19/07 at 10:00am
You are nursing a 2 year old right? Isn't that what your siggy says?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Lactivism
This thread is locked  
Mothering › Forums › Breastfeeding › Lactivism › Right to refuse service?