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

Right to refuse service? - Page 2  

post #21 of 39
Ouch.. big hugs to you mama I'm so sorry you're having to deal with this.

I was also a single mother for a bit and boy do I remember having some issues with a few of them regarding certain parenting things. I totally understand the conflict you're feeling! It's really difficult when you butt heads on something so serious.

There were a few dating deal-breakers when it came to me and my kids.. and I hate to say it, but I think I could say with about 95% certainty that this would have been one of them This isn't some petty issue that you can just ignore altogether. Hopefully, he'll see the light somehow. More s to you.
post #22 of 39
I think it depends on the state, honestly. I *think* a few states have very strong breastfeeding protection laws that make illegal to make moms cover up or refuse service. Generally though, I think they can refuse service, but not kick you out

This might be a big sign that he's not the right guy for you.
post #23 of 39
Thread Starter 
[
post #24 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaliMommie View Post
I don't think he has a problem with BFing as a whole, he's not comfortable with NIP.

<snip>

I do think that he would be supportive of me BFing, I do not think he would be comfortable with me NIP.
IMNSHO, I honestly think that someone who has a problem with a baby eating in public has a serious issue. But I am feeling a bit cantankerous today, so grain of salt and all that.
post #25 of 39
Shoot, had a reply and my computer ate it! Sorry you are butting heads over this issue, it's so painful to find places where your values don't mesh.

Bottom line is yes, the law has a loophole. "Anywhere she is authorized to be" still leaves it up to the business owner to provide the authorization or revoke it.

And sure, a nurse-in would have to leave if the business closed for the day, but so what, it would just turn into a Nurse-Out!!

But it really is not sensible for the business to take a stand on this issue, the negative publicity isn't worth it. Lots of companies who took a stand had to change their position and their policies changed after the media got ahold of the story (go, MDC moms!! lol)

Here's an article that can help explain why it's not worth it to a business to draw a line in the sand over a simple thing like a child nursing.http://www.associatedcontent.com/art...ng.html?page=2
post #26 of 39
I'd say that varies significantly by where your at. For instance, in OH, the law states that a mother may breastfeed her children anywhere she is otherwise aloud to be. Additionally however, the Civil Rights Commision of Ohio has desided in the past that breastfeeding is a civil right - and thus anyone who asks a mother to cover, leave, etc in the state of OH can be sued for civil rights discrimination.

So, just like a store can't ask a black person, bi-racial couple, gay couple, etc to leave or not allow them to enter, neither can they ask a breastfeeding mother to leave or choose not to serve them.

Thats what all the sit-ins were about back in the 60s and 70s - making discrimination illegal. And it is. Personally, if I was in another state and asked to cover/leave because of bfing, I'd sue'm for civil rights discrimination and see how far it goes. I'd wager that most states would end up ruling it a civil right, just like OH did.
post #27 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by mamadelbosque View Post
I'd say that varies significantly by where your at. For instance, in OH, the law states that a mother may breastfeed her children anywhere she is otherwise aloud to be. Additionally however, the Civil Rights Commision of Ohio has desided in the past that breastfeeding is a civil right - and thus anyone who asks a mother to cover, leave, etc in the state of OH can be sued for civil rights discrimination.

So, just like a store can't ask a black person, bi-racial couple, gay couple, etc to leave or not allow them to enter, neither can they ask a breastfeeding mother to leave or choose not to serve them.

Thats what all the sit-ins were about back in the 60s and 70s - making discrimination illegal. And it is. Personally, if I was in another state and asked to cover/leave because of bfing, I'd sue'm for civil rights discrimination and see how far it goes. I'd wager that most states would end up ruling it a civil right, just like OH did.
This is why we all need to write our congressional representatives and encourage them to co-sponsor and support the Breastfeeding Promotion Act. The more we nag our elected representatives, the more they will listen.

Anna
post #28 of 39
State to state the laws vary. Good luck with your fight. My dh came around now he thinks it is wonderful to NIP and he is glad we don't have to lug around and prepare formula. DH gets very upset when he hears people badmouth NIP.
post #29 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by mamadelbosque View Post
So, just like a store can't ask a black person, bi-racial couple, gay couple, etc to leave or not allow them to enter, neither can they ask a breastfeeding mother to leave or choose not to serve them.
Unfortunately, most states don't include breastfeeding women as a protected class like those groups of people you mentioned. Therefore, unless a state has language like California's public breastfeeding law,

"Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a mother may breastfeed her child in any location, public or private, except the private home or residence of another, where the mother and child are authorized to be present."

then the store owner, legally, can revoke a mother's right to be in their establishment. I am not aware of any law in Ohio describing breastfeeding as a civil right. Do you have the bill number?

This is why the Breastfeeding Promotion Act in the U.S. Congress is important because, to my understanding, it revises the Pregnancy Discrimination Act to include breastfeeding women.

Did I explain that clearly?

Laurel
post #30 of 39
I didn't read previous posts, but I am a business owner and know the laws about refusing service, in my state at least. I couldn't (and wouldn't) be able to refuse service due to bfing, but I can ban anyone I want to from my store for any reason (what the cops said). I probably couldn't say "for breastfeeding" but I could say "for shoplifting suspicion, etc." and it would be legal. So, if someone REALLY didn't want you to bf in their store, and it was a private business, they could say they are asking you to leave for reason x (not bfing) and it would be legal. Otherwise, they couldn't ask you to go for bfing, in my state.
post #31 of 39
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by funkygranolamama View Post
So, if someone REALLY didn't want you to bf in their store, and it was a private business, they could say they are asking you to leave for reason x (not bfing) and it would be legal.
This is exactly the point (I think) he was trying to make. That they could tell the authorities that it was for reasons other than BFing & it would be your word against theirs.
post #32 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by laurdsed View Post
Unfortunately, most states don't include breastfeeding women as a protected class like those groups of people you mentioned. Therefore, unless a state has language like California's public breastfeeding law,

"Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a mother may breastfeed her child in any location, public or private, except the private home or residence of another, where the mother and child are authorized to be present."

then the store owner, legally, can revoke a mother's right to be in their establishment. I am not aware of any law in Ohio describing breastfeeding as a civil right. Do you have the bill number?

This is why the Breastfeeding Promotion Act in the U.S. Congress is important because, to my understanding, it revises the Pregnancy Discrimination Act to include breastfeeding women.

Did I explain that clearly?

Laurel

You've bolded the only language I think might keep a woman in California from being subject to arrest for trespass in California. It suggests that the right to breastfeed is superior to the owner's right to withdraw authorization to be in the space. The owner's right to withdraw authorization - to turn an "invitee" into a "trespasser" subject to arrest - is limited only by express law, such as the civil rights laws forbidding discrimination on the basis of race and sex. An owner can not ask someone to leave because they are black because of civil rights laws. However in most places there are no laws preventing discrimination on the basis of breastfeeding.

As for what a previous poster said about bringing a lawsuit, I don't know of any legal action that can be taken if one is discriminated against on the basis of breastfeeding in California. Just because an action violates the law, doesn't mean you can sue. There has to be a legally created way to do it. There isn't one in California, or most places for that matter.

On Ohio - there is no statute making breastfeeding a civil right. The public breastfeeding law in Ohio has no enforcement provision so contains no remedy if it is violated. Last year someone brought a claim before the Ohio Civil Rights Commission and the Commission found (in a preliminary but not a final ruling) that breastfeeding discrimination is sex discrimination. This has nothing to do with the public breastfeeding law. That case settled so there is no way of knowing whether the Commission would have finally determined that there was a civil rights claim or whether that decision would have survived appeal to a higher court.

Big point I keep making about the Breastfeeding Promotion Act - the BPA has nothing to do with public breastfeeding. It applies to the workplace only. The BPA is a great and important thing, but we need to be clear about what it would do.

Hope that helps.
post #33 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by mamajake View Post
Big point I keep making about the Breastfeeding Promotion Act - the BPA has nothing to do with public breastfeeding. It applies to the workplace only. The BPA is a great and important thing, but we need to be clear about what it would do.
Sure it would. It would add breastfeeding as a protected civil rights class, just like pregnancy, race, religion, etc.

Anna
post #34 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by Da WIC Lady View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by mamajake View Post
Big point I keep making about the Breastfeeding Promotion Act - the BPA has nothing to do with public breastfeeding. It applies to the workplace only. The BPA is a great and important thing, but we need to be clear about what it would do.
Sure it would. It would add breastfeeding as a protected civil rights class, just like pregnancy, race, religion, etc.
The Breastfeeding Promotion Act is an amendment to Title VII (Equal Employment Opportunity) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It does not address Title II (Injunctive Relief Against Discrimination in Places of Public Accommodation).
The BPA will not elevate breastfeeding to a general protected class, it will only ensure the rights of breastfeeding mothers **in the workplace**, similar to the amendment to cover pregnancy and childbirth in Title VII.

An except from the text of the bill:
Quote:
(b) Purposes- The purposes of this title are--

(1) to promote the health and well-being of infants whose mothers return to the workplace after childbirth, and

(2) to clarify that breastfeeding and expressing breast milk in the workplace are protected conduct under the amendment made by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978 to title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Even if the BPA is passed, it will not apply to the situation discussed in this thread, namely, refusal of service in a place of public accommodation.
post #35 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by ulla View Post
The Breastfeeding Promotion Act is an amendment to Title VII (Equal Employment Opportunity) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It does not address Title II (Injunctive Relief Against Discrimination in Places of Public Accommodation).
The BPA will not elevate breastfeeding to a general protected class, it will only ensure the rights of breastfeeding mothers **in the workplace**, similar to the amendment to cover pregnancy and childbirth in Title VII.

An except from the text of the bill:
Even if the BPA is passed, it will not apply to the situation discussed in this thread, namely, refusal of service in a place of public accommodation.
Exactly. The Civil Rights Act is divided into parts, each addressing different actors and different contexts: workplace, public accomodations, housing, etc. Each one needs to be amended seperately if it were to include breastfeeding. The BPA amends only the section relating to employment.

Jake
post #36 of 39
Thanks for the clarification, Jake and Ulla!

Laurel
post #37 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by njeb View Post
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.
I hate to see people counseling the OP to break up with her boyfriend over this. That just seems to knee-jerk, extreme, and judgmental. Before I was a mom, I felt vastly different about many subjects than I do now, including nursing and especially NIP.

I'm a total lactivist, and my DH knows he'd better toe the line when it comes to supporting nursing mothers. But I were dating someone, his uninformed, theoretical views about strangers NIP would not be a deal-breaker.
post #38 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by AuntNi View Post
I hate to see people counseling the OP to break up with her boyfriend over this. That just seems to knee-jerk, extreme, and judgmental. Before I was a mom, I felt vastly different about many subjects than I do now, including nursing and especially NIP.

I'm a total lactivist, and my DH knows he'd better toe the line when it comes to supporting nursing mothers. But I were dating someone, his uninformed, theoretical views about strangers NIP would not be a deal-breaker.
That depends on whether or not he is open to new information. Yes, one's opinion changes with experience. Too many people, however, are anti-breastfeeding. When I was a single mother, if a date had expressed anti-bf sentiments to me, I would not go out with him again. Of course, the fact that I was a LLL leader at the time influenced my views a bit.
When I posted that, I was thinking ahead to the possible problems having a baby with this man could have on the bf relationship. An unsupportive partner can wreak havoc on the mother/baby dyad, especially if she's having any problems with bf. As a retired LLL leader, I saw too many cases of an unsupportive partner contributing to premature weaning. That's why I posted what I did. If she's not going to have any more children, then there's no need to break up with him. If he can be persuaded to see the error of his ways, then there's also no need to break up with him. But calling me "knee-jerk, extreme, and judgmental" seems a bit extreme in itself.
post #39 of 39
Technicially, he is right. There is a cafe here in my town called 620 Cafe that kicks breastfeeding women out and they are proud of it and stand by it. Because they are a private establishment, they can refuse service to whomever they want, as long as they are not racially or religiously discriminating. They have, on more than one occasion, called the police on breastfeeding women who have refused to leave. Basically, they refuse to order your food, so you're loitering, and loitering is illegal. They can kick out anyone they want. In most parts of the US, it would hopefully be bad publicity, but in the good old state of TX, they were cheered on by a lot of people.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Lactivism
This thread is locked  
Mothering › Forums › Breastfeeding › Lactivism › Right to refuse service?